Criminal Investigation of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Spurred by Apple Requests

[Full of Win]

I believe it is impossible for you to actually believe what you are saying. It is absurd. He had the person who lost the phones name. He could have called Apple and asked for him. He could have left his own name at the bar. He could have done any of the things a reasonable person would have done in the same situation. This is the standard the jury will asked to decide on, did he behave like a reasonable person. Jurors will rightfully interpret that as did he do what I would do since I am a reasonable person.

You will find very few reasonable people who will agree that removing the phone from the bar without leaving your contact information was reasonable at all. This is not a fact that is decided by lawyers, police or judges. The fact of reasonableness is determined by jurors.

Conversely, Apple could have issued a notice to their support staff about a missing iPhone.

No one knows the topics in the conservation with the finder and Apple. If Apple was told the persons name and still did not connect the dots, then its even more their fault.

At the end of the day, it may be up to a jury. This may be the best thing, since I assume that Apple could be forced to provide the 'inside contact' they had with the REACT team that did the raid. Its public record that the two had a partnership before this; just curios how much Apple used their relationship with the LEO's in facilitating the raid on a journalist home.

 

[tingly]

I think you can rule out Apple's influence via their membership on REACT's steering committee even if they had an inside contact. First of all, they have no more say in what REACT does than any business or private citizen. REACT doesn't owe them anything. Second, REACT is more of a info-sharing cooperative partnership than a crime-fighting entity. Finally, most people who represent their agencies on REACT are police sgts, investigators, and deputy DA's, not people of great influence like police chiefs or elected officials. I'll still be surprised if it ever makes it to a jury, criminal or civil.

 

[Hal Itosis]

First, he contacted Apple at a telephone number for general questions that APPLE provides.

Fascinating... and you know this how? Oh yeah, that's what the thief supposedly told Chen that s/he did. Right right right.

But... how exactly did that conversation go, pray tell?

"Hello Apple... i want to return Gray Powell's missing iPhone which he left at the Gourmet Haus Staudt establishment. This appears to be a beta prototype which only engineering would know about. Can you connect me please?"
​

Was that how it went? Or how then?

Gimme a break. You're peddling a fish tale, the details (and/or veracity) of which you know nothing. Second-hand hearsay "evidence" contrived to sanitize the initial act of absconding with someone else's property.

I view that whole 'reported it to Apple' stuff as a feeble attempt to insult people's intelligence while covering one's ass. There may have been some sort of contact made (idunno), but i seriously doubt any **sincere** effort was made to return the device. It all reeks of an amateurish venture to capitalize on a situation without getting caught and punished for one's ill deed.

 

[Full of Win]

Fascinating... and you know this how? Oh yeah, that's what the thief supposedly told Chen that s/he did. Right right right.

But... how exactly did that conversation go, pray tell?

"Hello Apple... i want to return Gray Powell's missing iPhone which he left at the Gourmet Haus Staudt establishment. This appears to be a beta prototype which only engineering would know about. Can you connect me please?"
​

Was that how it went? Or how then?

Gimme a break. You're peddling a fish tale, the details (and/or veracity) of which you know nothing. Second-hand hearsay "evidence" contrived to sanitize the initial act of absconding with someone else's property.

I view that whole 'reported it to Apple' stuff as a feeble attempt to insult people's intelligence while covering one's ass. There may have been some sort of contact made (idunno), but i seriously doubt any **sincere** effort was made to return the device. It all reeks of an amateurish venture to capitalize on a situation without getting caught and punished for one's ill deed.

No, this call was confirmed by an Apple support tech, who recalled the action(s) of the finder of the iPhone 4G. Because Apple had utterly failed to make them aware of the missing iPhone, they assumed it was a counterfeit device. Now, due in part to the blundering of Apple in communicating key information to their support staff; they have resorted to sending gun toting LEO's to do a door knock-down seizure.

Moreover, he had no way of knowing it was a prototype. He gave a visual description to Apple employees and after this they BLEW HIM OFF. Again, if Apple had done something as simple as telling their staff about this, they could have gotten their phone back. Face it, Apple failed on this one.

 

[gwangung]

No, this call was confirmed by an Apple support tech, who recalled the action(s) of the finder of the iPhone 4G.

A) The exact quote was "a vague description with no pictures." You got a better source with more exact descriptions? Where the listener could discern that it's actually an Apple phone and not a counterfeit?

B) It's irrelevant since the thief had the NAME OF THE PERSON THE PROTOTYPE WAS ASSIGNED TO. Why call AppleCare when YOU HAD THE NAME OF THE PERSON THE PROTOTYPE WAS ASSIGNED TO.

Face it, you're trying to defend a criminal...and bungling it badly.

 

[koko76]

No, this call was confirmed by an Apple support tech, who recalled the action(s) of the finder of the iPhone 4G. Because Apple had utterly failed to make them aware of the missing iPhone, they assumed it was a counterfeit device. Now, due in part to the blundering of Apple in communicating key information to their support staff; they have resorted to sending gun toting LEO's to do a door knock-down seizure.

Moreover, he had no way of knowing it was a prototype. He gave a visual description to Apple employees and after this they BLEW HIM OFF. Again, if Apple had done something as simple as telling their staff about this, they could have gotten their phone back. Face it, Apple failed on this one.

I'll ask you again. Where are you getting this stuff? What "press report" says the things you keep repeating? Please provide link to where the "Apple Support Tech" confirms or says anything about this.

 

[Floris]

*pun*

I tend to go to high end places in the weekend, offering $5000 to the guys that park cars. There are a few keys that got lost, and great cars in the parking lot I can blog about. I never went to journalist school, or got my papers, but I publish about this on my friends web site on a regular basis. Of course, if any owner reports their car stolen to the police, I have no problem driving the car around for a few weeks until they send me a letter asking it back. The only reason I was driving it anyway was to make sure everybody saw me in my new wheels, and to find the owner who's address in the glove box I couldn't find. Thankfully the owners are not pursuing any charges, because I am a journalist.

 

[Master Chief]

Funny how the story changed all the sudden. Couldn't be that Gizmodo realized their original story was a bad idea legally. nah... couldn't be that.

But of course. Just like what I said here.

And again; I am not defending Gizmodo, nor the finder, but there are two sides to a story. And without having seen [evidence of] both sides... people should relax and not act like they are the DA in person.

Also, if they only paid for exclusivity, why did they get posession of the phone? Shoot, they even took it apart.

Yeah, cause something being illegal means people won't do it. Oh wait, why do we have prisons then for all the people who break laws all the time? In fact prison overcrowding tends to be a problem in many areas.

It being illegal does not equal it being not done or that it is impossible that it happened.

You understand, I hope, that I won't repeat myself here. Time after time. Especially when I made it clear already what I think may have happened.

And about the insult; Most editors won't cross the line. Ever.

 

[gnasher729]

Fascinating... and you know this how? Oh yeah, that's what the thief supposedly told Chen that s/he did. Right right right.

But... how exactly did that conversation go, pray tell?

"Hello Apple... i want to return Gray Powell's missing iPhone which he left at the Gourmet Haus Staudt establishment. This appears to be a beta prototype which only engineering would know about. Can you connect me please?"
​

Was that how it went? Or how then?

Like this:

"Hello Apple... I have an iPhone, and it is Apple's iPhone, but it doesn't work, and I want to return it, and it is not like the iPhones on your website. Did I buy it from Apple? No, I didn't. Ahem, I found it if you know what I mean."
​

What's important is what California law thinks about lost items and picking them up. When an item is lost, and you find it, you have two choices: You can ignore the item, or you can pick it up. If you ignore the item, that's fine. Nobody can blame you for anything. You have no duty towards the owner of the item. But at the moment you pick it up, you enter into a duty towards the owner. By picking it up you assumed responsibility of returning it to the owner. You are just as responsible as someone who parks customers' cars, or an airline that accepts a customers' suitcase for transport. You didn't have to enter into that duty. It was your own decision.

Now if you have an iPhone, and you call AppleCare, and you can't convince them that you have an iPhone that belongs to Apple, then obviously you didn't do a very good job at explaining what you have. No problem, you can still very easily perform your duties - that you entered voluntarily by picking up the phone, nobody forced you - by handing over the phone to the police. It doesn't mean Apple will get it back, but it means you have done what you are supposed to do. And if you are lucky, Apple just might pay you a reward because you did your duty (or they might be tight bastards, that's tough), or the police might never find the owner and the phone is yours, totally legally. As an alternative, you can easily put the phone into an envelope, address it to Apple, 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, send it by registered mail, and add a note that you expect a check for X dollars to cover your cost, or alternatively they should send the phone back.

If you instead go and sell the phone - even though you had a duty to return it to the owner, which you entered into voluntarily - to Gizmodo, then the law says that by picking up the phone and not returning it to the owner but selling it for $5000, you have committed theft.

Picking up my phone and keeping it is theft, just as if I asked you "could you hold my phone while I tie my shoelaces" and you run away with it. In the first case, you can leave the phone, or pick it up and return it to me. In the second case, you can say "No", or you can say "Yes" and return the phone to me once I'm finished. Anything else is theft.

 

[Anuba]

I'll ask you again. Where are you getting this stuff? What "press report" says the things you keep repeating? Please provide link to where the "Apple Support Tech" confirms or says anything about this.

You know perfectly well what source he's referring to, drop the infantile "link or it didn't happen" schtick and grow up. There will never be an official press release signed by Steve confirming that some damn phone call took place. The most you'll ever get is the Gizmodo story, so you can either choose to believe that Giz did interview a real AppleCare tech or you can take the stance that everything you read on the web is just fairytales, your call.

Personally I'm about 51% convinced by Giz's interview with the Apple tech, which means I don't take it as absolute truth by a long shot but it passes my threshold for 'evidence' acceptable for use in informal forum discussions (this isn't court, in case you haven't noticed). If you want to get that picky about evidence, you're going down a slippery slope that ends with forum discussions being entirely pointless, because I don't even know you exist, you're just text in my browser. Link or you didn't happen...?

 

[koko76]

You know perfectly well what source he's referring to, drop the infantile "link or it didn't happen" schtick and grow up. There will never be an official press release signed by Steve confirming that some damn phone call took place. The most you'll ever get is the Gizmodo story, so you can either choose to believe that Giz did interview a real AppleCare tech or you can take the stance that everything you read on the web is just fairytales, your call.

So the one "source" in the equation is the very people that stand to gain the most from it being true. That's about what I thought. It isn't infantile, no need to be insulting. People seem to have forgotten how actual sources work, and how to think critically when accepting information.

 

[Anuba]

So the one "source" in the equation is the very people that stand to gain the most from it being true. That's about what I thought. It isn't infantile, no need to be insulting. People seem to have forgotten how actual sources work, and how to think critically when accepting information.

Yeah, but like I said in the second paragraph I just added... this isn't Supreme Court, this is Amateur Fun Court for Forum Pundits with Too Much Free Time On Their Hands, so the ceiling really isn't high enough for high horses.

And yes, "link or it didn't happen" is infantile because it's rarely a sincere request for adequate proof, more often it's just a cheap and cowardly way to buy time and leverage when things aren't going your way.

 

[pdjudd]

So the one "source" in the equation is the very people that stand to gain the most from it being true. That's about what I thought. It isn't infantile, no need to be insulting. People seem to have forgotten how actual sources work, and how to think critically when accepting information.

The problem here though is not the quality of the source - no one doubts that the veracity is questionable and comes from a biased source. What is problematic is that it hasn't been impeached or confirmed. Unless we have something to impeach it (says that it isn't true), we kinda have to take the source of the information at their word unless we have something better to go off of.

We don't have somebody who can say "that's wrong and it never happened that way" Until we do have that, we kinda have to assume that it is potentially true. People said the same thing about gray losing the phone (the conspiracy theory) - people had a hard time accepting that, saying that it was "too convenient". Well that concept has seen contrary evidence that has largely impeached that possibility - we have had tons of people that have said that it is possible and that people loose stuff all the time.

 

[Anuba]

The problem here though is not the quality of the source - no one doubts that the veracity is questionable and comes from a biased source. What is problematic is that it hasn't been impeached or confirmed. Unless we have something to impeach it (says that it isn't true), we kinda have to take the source of the information at their word unless we have something better to go off of.

We don't have somebody who can say "that's wrong and it never happened that way" Until we do have that, we kinda have to assume that it is potentially true. People said the same thing about gray losing the phone (the conspiracy theory) - people had a hard time accepting that, saying that it was "too convenient". Well that concept has seen contrary evidence that has largely impeached that possibility - we have had tons of people that have said that it is possible and that people loose stuff all the time.

Yes, and moreover Gizmodo knew all along this was a risky operation that could backfire, after which they'd eventually end up in court and be held accountable for everything they did and said. Therefore I doubt they would dig themselves even deeper into the hole and make sh*t up about some fictional Apple Tech. They may be a biased source but they don't have a death wish, so they've had little choice but be truthful about their side of the story, including admitting to having paid 5K for the item which they really didn't have to divulge if they were fabricating stories to make themselves look good.

 

[gnasher729]

Yes, and moreover Gizmodo knew all along this was a risky operation that could backfire, after which they'd eventually end up in court and be held accountable for everything they did and said. Therefore I doubt they would dig themselves even deeper into the hole and make sh*t up about some fictional Apple Tech. They may be a biased source but they don't have a death wish, so they've had little choice but be truthful about their side of the story, including admitting to having paid 5K for the item which they really didn't have to divulge if they were fabricating stories to make themselves look good.

The analysis at www.theregister.com basically says that they are a bunch of clueless muppets who have handled the situation in the most stupid way possible, by openly admitting that they paid huge amounts of money for stolen goods instead of just referring to some unknown source. Ends with (quote) "Going to jail may of course all be part of Denton's shameless publicity-whoring plan. "

 

[rish]

Que...

Look champ pay attention.

Gizmondo did not know they were buying an iPhone until they paid for it. They were denied access to the item until they coughed up cash.

Once they got it they didn't know it was defiantly an iphone, so they said to apple "if it is yours get in touch and we will return it"

what is your problem with that?

Well the response is fairly simple. Whatever the story is, Gizmodo should have taken it to the police. Someone asked me to bring out 5 big ones I'll at least ask for some pics before parting with my hard earned cash. That's if I was as morally corupt.

 

[pdjudd]

Therefore I doubt they would dig themselves even deeper into the hole and make sh*t up about some fictional Apple Tech.

While I have no doubt that there was an Apple tech that was involved, I still have big questions as to what that call was about and what was said on the line. Not that it really changes things as far as "reasonable attempts to return" or "abandonment" goes, but I have a feeling that they are not saying everything about what happened - they claimed that they were ignored but we don't know the whole conversation from either side as to what people said to each other. For all we know the tech might have said that he would file a ticked as requested, but we cannot follow up without further details on the phone. Or he might have said that he would look into things and then closed the ticket after being told that they could not follow up. We just don't know.

 

[tigress666]

And about the insult; Most editors won't cross the line. Ever.

What insult? All I said is that it being illegal doesn't mean that some one didn't do it. I didn't even imply that you might. I just implied that is a bad arguement to use legality as a reason some one didn't do something.

 

[Anuba]

The analysis at www.theregister.com basically says that they are a bunch of clueless muppets who have handled the situation in the most stupid way possible, by openly admitting that they paid huge amounts of money for stolen goods instead of just referring to some unknown source. Ends with (quote) "Going to jail may of course all be part of Denton's shameless publicity-whoring plan. "

I see; and since Gizmodo have handled the situation in a stupid way, the Apple support call never happened? Is that your logic here? When you jump from A to Z, please elaborate on B to Y.

 

[LagunaSol]

I see; and since Gizmodo have handled the situation in a stupid way, the Apple support call never happened? Is that your logic here? When you jump from A to Z, please elaborate on B to Y.

Why do we have to keep beating the dead "tech support call" horse? It's irrelevant. On its own it doesn't constitute reasonable action to return the phone to the rightful owner. This is likely an intentionally futile attempt by the finder to absolve himself of blame in his premeditated crime (i.e. he'd already decided to try to benefit monetarily from the find before he even called Apple). He calls tech support (Huh??? He had the name of the owner of the phone!) who, as expected, knows nothing about some secret prototype device, knows nothing about this particular engineer (if his name was even mentioned on the call), has no idea how to respond to such a claim, and writes the caller off as a crackpot. Mission accomplished!

Odds are in the unlikely event the tech support person would have responded with instructions on how to return the phone to Apple, the caller would have just hung up or ignored those instructions.

This is all conjecture, of course (as are arguments that he really did spill his guts during this call), but the bottom line is he proceeded to sell the phone without acquiring legal ownership of it. And that's a crime.

Calling tech support about a lost phone does not grant you legal ownership of the device, nor absolve you from blame if you sell it, no matter how one wants to spin things.

 

[Mark Booth]

A) We have ZERO evidence any call was made to Apple support about the phone. All we have is the STORY that Gizmodo told which was the supposed STORY from a THIEF.

B) Even if this call was made, it is an insufficient attempt to return the phone. In court, the prosecutor will ask the perp why he didn't give the phone to the bartender. Then he'll ask the perp why he didn't contact Gray Powell at Apple since he obviously knew it belonged to Gray Powell because he told Gizmodo about it. Then he'll ask the perp why he didn't take the phone to the police. Etc... etc..

C) Lastly, the DA will ask, why he sold the phone to Gizmodo for $5,000 if all he was trying to do was return the phone to its "rightful owners".

Of course, it's obvious now that Gizmodo is going to want to present the story as if they purchased an exclusive "story" for $5K and the only reason they also took the phone was so they could return it. Oops.... but wait a minute... Gizmodo also disassembled the phone (which they admit the did not rightfully own) and exposed it to the world (trade secrets).

But all of that is relatively moot. It matters not how Gizmodo views the situation. Their weak link in all of this is the original thief. If the DA wants to go after Gizmodo and Gawker, then the DA will surely work a plea deal with the original thief in exchange for the thief testifying against Gizmodo.

And Lord help Gizmodo if any evidence surfaces that shows they "coached" the thief on how to "pretend" like he tried to return the phone and on what to say to the police.

If Jason Chen and anyone else from Gizmodo gets arrested, and the original thief doesn't getting arrested, it will be fair to assume that the thief is cooperating with the DA.

And I remind everyone again... we have NOT heard anything from Gray Powell yet. If Gray Powell testifies that the phone was outright stolen from his person or while it was sitting on the bar while he was looking the other way, then we have a fresh perspective on how this all went down.

Mark

 

[Anuba]

Well the response is fairly simple. Whatever the story is, Gizmodo should have taken it to the police. Someone asked me to bring out 5 big ones I'll at least ask for some pics before parting with my hard earned cash. That's if I was as morally corupt.

I don't think 5 big ones are considered "hard earned" over at Gawker, it's pocket change. Engadget were willing to pay 10K but didn't go through with it, betting on it being a knock-off. They were however the ones who broke the story and showed pictures first, but it's unclear whether they took their own pictures or just sample pictures submitted by the finder.

Oddly, I haven't seen Engadget mention once after Gizmodo ran their story. It was Engadget who were first to publish hi res pictures of the phone's exterior from multiple angles, along with details on specs like the front-facing cam. But somehow Gizmodo has taken 100% of the blame for ruining the surprise. Yes, Giz bought it and dissected it, but that's another story.

 

[LagunaSol]

If Gray Powell testifies that the phone was outright stolen from his person or while it was sitting on the bar while he was looking the other way, then we have a fresh perspective on how this all went down.

And there's the crux of the matter: "I found it" does not grant legal ownership and the right to resale, no matter how it all went down. Every two-bit thief on the planet probably tries this excuse in court. "I found the stack of cash in a garbage can." "I found the missing artwork in a dumpster." "I found the bag of crack on the sidewalk." This defense doesn't work, nor should it.

If you "find" something, you have a legal obligation to return it to its owner. The finder in this case never did this. Instead he sold the phone and made a profit.

Yes, Giz bought it and dissected it, but that's another story.

Actually, that's the story, really. The one that relates to this thread anyway.

 

[Anuba]

Why do we have to keep beating the dead "tech support call" horse?

Why do we have keep beating the dead "thief or not" horse? I'm getting really tired of people stuck in internet lawyer mode, completely incapable of discussing the event itself rather than the legal implications.

I'm interested in whether the tech support call happened or not, for the time being I don't give a **** whether it amounts to "reasonable whatchamacallit" or not. At this point it's the least interesting aspect to discuss because we know absolutely nothing about the police investigation and its results – all we have is the Gizmodo story and people stuck in a loop where they first approach the matter from a strictly law-centric POV, then exclaim that the Gizmodo story (which is all we have) is worthless due to bias/questionable veracity (thus discrediting the very foundation for the discussion, especially the legality aspects), and then, amazingly, go BACK to the law-centric discussion anyway, and that dead horse is so beaten there's barely a hair left on the ground. Or do we really need 2,000 more misunderstandings between two camps using the formal and the informal definition of "thief"?

 

[farmboy]

Why do we have to keep beating the dead "tech support call" horse? It's irrelevant. On its own it doesn't constitute reasonable action to return the phone to the rightful owner. This is likely an intentionally futile attempt by the finder to absolve himself of blame in his premeditated crime (i.e. he'd already decided to try to benefit monetarily from the find before he even called Apple). He calls tech support (Huh??? He had the name of the owner of the phone!) who, as expected, knows nothing about some secret prototype device, knows nothing about this particular engineer (if his name was even mentioned on the call), has no idea how to respond to such a claim, and writes the caller off as a crackpot. Mission accomplished!

Odds are in the unlikely event the tech support person would have responded with instructions on how to return the phone to Apple, the caller would have just hung up or ignored those instructions.

This is all conjecture, of course (as are arguments that he really did spill his guts during this call), but the bottom line is he proceeded to sell the phone without acquiring legal ownership of it. And that's a crime.

Calling tech support about a lost phone does not grant you legal ownership of the device, nor absolve you from blame if you sell it, no matter how one wants to spin things.

Forget it. Anuba already has woven his theory of the events in which nothing that happened is a big deal, it's all ethically ambiguous, we're all repeatedly wrong when we question the guy's actions, and that's that. Appealing to reason is not going to work. It just devolves into "Did too. Did Not", just as happened with Past Participle trying to bait Coleridge.