Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Finder of Lost Next-Generation iPhone Identified
- Thread starter sravana
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Indeed. It doesnt look as if it really matters if it is lost and mislaid. Unless you make it incredibly clear that you do not want it back, it doesnt matter how you lost the item - you (the finder) have to make an effort to return it.
This is something that people arent remembering. Gray did (as far as we can tell) lost the phone accidentally. Unfortunate yes. It was found by someone which is great. The problem? Grey wanted it back! The manager of the beer garden confirms that the guy who lost the phone frantically called the bar back where he assumed it was lost. This is not abandonment here. The finder did not return it back to Grey even though the finder knew what he had and knew who Grey was.
Simply put people are thinking the scenario can only be lost or Stolen. The law though doesnt care about that. To them, the situation can easily be what it really is - Lost and then stolen. That it was lost is unfortunate, but that doesnt make theft impossible. It can happen under certain scenarios - like this one.
Shouldn't we be waiting for the results of the police investigation before concluding that the phone was stolen?
Why? We have the relevant statutes, self-admitted facts, and legal educations. We can reach our own conclusions.
I thought the article from Wired and CNN was interesting. This guy and his friends are both sleazy and stupid. I don't want to hear that they're "just kids". Other 21 year olds are in the Army; perhaps he needs to be put in to learn some responsibility and honor.
The CNN article headline says that he "regrets not doing more to find the owner". Well, duh. Everyone has regret when they're caught. Stupidity may be a reason, but it's no excuse.
The CNN article headline says that he "regrets not doing more to find the owner". Well, duh. Everyone has regret when they're caught. Stupidity may be a reason, but it's no excuse.
Ahh, so now we've established what the law should be, and we can finally get to the point where you see that those of us in this thread who object to the San Mateo Sheriff's actions are doing so because we're calling him out for not doing the ideal thing. We know the realities of police politics and media whoring. The difference is that we don't accept it as a valid excuse, especially not when it costs us money we don't have as California citizens and Bay Area residents.
By definition, these are very different crimes. In order to successfully steal a tanker, one must commit a series of felonies. That alone makes them different crimes. Add onto that the effect which I mentioned earlier. The recipient of the goods on that tanker has suffered actual losses if it never shows up at the dock. So far, Apple has suffered minimal damage at most.
Scale, by necessity, denotes a different crime. The scale of this crime was precisely the same as unlawful possession and sale of any other mobile phone. The perceived importance of the phone doesn't change the scale involved in successfully taking it.
If Mr. Hogan had snuck into Infinite Loop and burgled a lab for the prototype, then the scale would be different, even though the end result is precisely the same.
This isn't scale. Scale refers to the relative level of illegal activity that made the commission of a crime possible. For example, it takes a relatively small scale to take money from a church collection plate, but it takes a much larger scale to embezzle from the same church's accounts (even if you end up embezzling for the same monetary value).
Yes, we all know this, and we're saying it's wrong. Do you see that? We don't want our police chasing down the likes of Mr. Hogan because he isn't a genuine threat. We want the murderers, rapists, etc taken off the streets first.
If the police become adept at eliminating those societal ills, then maybe they can focus on things like this.
In this case, there is a difference in scale. As a political figure, Palin most likely did have tighter security on her accounts compared to yours or mine, which means a different level of criminal scale went into extracting the relevant info. There is also a different outcome. You or I don't have a public image to maintain and as such leaked info about the color of our underwear isn't going to be nearly as disastrous for us. Different crimes, different outcomes.
And this should be unacceptable. Please don't ever teach an ethics class if this is your metric for determining right and wrong.
But that's just it. Even the alleged thief's own account makes him guilty under California law. Additional, presumably less biased-in-his-favor, facts will only cement the deal.
But why did the police wait for a request from Apple? If Apple hadn't made the request they probably wouldn't have acted at all.
"Abandoned???" Spare us.
I picture it like this:
Hey Bob, what ever happened to the Mona Lisa
What?
"The Mona Lisa. You know that big expensive painting
Oh that one - I kinda left it in a bar after a night of wine tasting - I called but it wasnt there
Why was it in a bar?
I thought that I looked nice. I musta forgotten it though"
You fool! Now we cant get it back - you abandoned it!
Yea. Youre right... I dont find that very plausible either. Of course I dont look at this iPhone case as abandonment either...
Until Gizmodo actually did their publishing of the phone, the Police had no idea who to investigate. The crime occurred at the sale - a week before the phone was returned to Apple.
When Apple identified the finder, they were not able to get in touch with him to confirm that he indeed had the phone - at least not enough proof to send a legal request.
The problem is though, we dont know how the police would have responded otherwise - the timing is just not something that we can judge enough and we cannot turn back the clock and say what if.
That's simply not true. There are numerous ways for official agencies to track a phone using it's IMEI, tower pings, etc. and AT&T will cooperate. All the police have to do is try.
Unless of course the phone was bricked or otherwise disabled. My guess is that cellular tracking (non-gps) would either be too time consuming or not accurate enough to get any meaningful data for the police to act on. Apple had to wipe that phone ASAP - alone any email on that device was considered confidential and had to be eliminated from the phone (the OS content was also non public as well - this was before Apple announced it).
Why did they "wait?" Hmm, perhaps a crime must be reported to you before you can act? What, you think detectives look for crimes to investigate in popular technology blogs???
"Hey Sarge, I just got a Potential Code 488 alert via my RSS reader. Should I assemble a squad?"
Your probably is probably just a wild guess.
From the facts that we have right now, the Apple engineer made the first mistake, albeit a careless one. But it was an HONEST mistake.
Mr. Hogan's actions were anything but honest. Gizmodo's actions were not honest.
Mr. Hogan had MANY opportunities to do the right thing and didn't. The phone didn't belong to him. There were MANY ways to see that the phone was returned it's owner or to Apple.
I personally don't have a problem with Apple sending representatives to Hogan's apartment to try to retrieve the phone. Had the phone been returned then, no police needed to be involved, none of the details of a confidential device would have been published. This would have been best for all involved. Unfortunately Mr. Hogan then made a bad situation worse by selling property that did not belong to him. In turn Apple's confidential information was released to the public and their competitors. Some thinking of buying an iPhone will no not buy, but wait a while. Not that this is the end of he world, but it is a factor that has a dollar value attached to it..
I don't want to see Hogan's life ruined here. He's a knucklehead and not very honest, but he's not an axe murderer. (at least not that I know of). But anyone who thinks that, that prototype phone was not something of great value to Apple is kidding themselves. That's obvious otherwise Gizmodo wouldn't have forked over $5000.
This whole story is very sad. As I've said, I hope that cooler heads prevail here. Apple had no choice but to do something about this, I just hope that it is all kept in perspective.
I would be surprised if Mr. Hogan's legal bills don't amount to more than the $5,000 dollars he scammed.
I don't have a problem with the rumour sites in general. Its great fun speculating and guessing about what companies will release next. I think that the rumour sites need to have some amount of class. Buying stolen property and releasing trade secrets is not very classy. Gizmodo really disappointed me here, and not just because it's Apple. It would be wrong if it was Microsoft, HP, Motorola or whoever.
Mr. Hogan's actions were anything but honest. Gizmodo's actions were not honest.
Mr. Hogan had MANY opportunities to do the right thing and didn't. The phone didn't belong to him. There were MANY ways to see that the phone was returned it's owner or to Apple.
I personally don't have a problem with Apple sending representatives to Hogan's apartment to try to retrieve the phone. Had the phone been returned then, no police needed to be involved, none of the details of a confidential device would have been published. This would have been best for all involved. Unfortunately Mr. Hogan then made a bad situation worse by selling property that did not belong to him. In turn Apple's confidential information was released to the public and their competitors. Some thinking of buying an iPhone will no not buy, but wait a while. Not that this is the end of he world, but it is a factor that has a dollar value attached to it..
I don't want to see Hogan's life ruined here. He's a knucklehead and not very honest, but he's not an axe murderer. (at least not that I know of). But anyone who thinks that, that prototype phone was not something of great value to Apple is kidding themselves. That's obvious otherwise Gizmodo wouldn't have forked over $5000.
This whole story is very sad. As I've said, I hope that cooler heads prevail here. Apple had no choice but to do something about this, I just hope that it is all kept in perspective.
I would be surprised if Mr. Hogan's legal bills don't amount to more than the $5,000 dollars he scammed.
I don't have a problem with the rumour sites in general. Its great fun speculating and guessing about what companies will release next. I think that the rumour sites need to have some amount of class. Buying stolen property and releasing trade secrets is not very classy. Gizmodo really disappointed me here, and not just because it's Apple. It would be wrong if it was Microsoft, HP, Motorola or whoever.
Surely the ideal should be that the law should be enforced? The objections you and others are raising are to have the law ignored in Hogan's case and let him off.
Except that it wasn't precisely the same as any other mobile phone. This is where your and the other's argument falls every time. You keep insisting that it's the same value and type as the $40 Nokia in Joe Average pocket. It simply isn't.
You're arguing against yourself here. A street mugger requires considerably less time and effort to point a gun at someone and demand their phone than this crew put into shopping the prototype phone around to potential buyers.
Again you're arguing against your own position here. So the public image of Apple is magnitudes greater than the Average Joe who has his phone stolen, ergo the crime is magnitudes greater.
And I seriously doubt her personal email was more secure than mine. Probably is now, but not then.
Who ever mentioned right or wrong? Not me. Two words I never use when talking about the law.
So who decides which criminals are pursued and which are not? Does Berkeley have a committee for that?
I imagine since it's big, rich Apple that's requesting the precious resources of the Bay Area (partly fueled by big, rich Apple? Hmmm...), no valuable time should be spent by the local PD on such a silly thing as a potentially-stolen prototype of a multi-billion-dollar product.
Perhaps we should have a progressive scale for criminal pursuit and prosecution based on the wealth of the victims. Maybe this can be Obama's next step in his Plan For The People.
Sergeant Malloy: "Sure Mr. Jones, we'd be happy to investigate the break-in of your home and the theft of your television. But first we'll have to see a copy of your 2009 tax return."
Mr. Jones: "Um, OK..."
Sergeant Malloy: "I see you made $125,000 last year. That would make your investigative fee...$1,250. Cancel or allow?"
Mr. Jones: "Uhh..."
Sergeant Malloy: "Oh wait, I forgot to add the caucasian surtax. Your total will be $1,775."
It's amusing to see the outrage among some commenters about misappropriated services being provided by the local police department. Yet if someone stole their phone they'd be ranting and raving about how "the police don't even care, and I'm a taxpayer dammit!"
Then again we hear this lameness all the time. "I can't believe I got pulled over for running a red light. Don't the police have better things to do, like chase real criminals???"
Whatever.
No, we don't think it ought to be ignored, we think the level of police involvement ought to be appropriate to the crime and the relative shortage of material resources available to police departments at this time. How you concluded this travesty from my post is beyond me.
And this is where your reading comprehension teacher has failed you. The taking of the phone was precisely the same as the taking of any other phone. The only thing that should now affect the final charges brought before Mr. Hogan is the amount of damage this leak does to Apple's success as a business. So far it's been minimal. The phone didn't really reveal much that wasn't already known (we knew for example that 5 MP cameras were on their way based on a shipment report from January). Before that's even been found out, however, the police have responded by sending all of the King's horses and all of the King's men. That is simply irresponsible management of available resources, and the only reason anyone is defending it here is because of a pre-existing Apple bias. No one would marshall such a strong defense for a small start-up whose lost prototype cost them a chance to make it big in the market.
Using a gun automatically involves a very large scale in terms of crime. Lethal force is immeasurably more powerful and destructive than shopping around for a buyer. Nor did I ever imply that scale=time. Scale=relative level of illegal activity in order to carry out a crime. It's a far worse crime to threaten others with harm than it is to take a mislaid iPhone and sell it for profit.
I don't disagree, but let the damage be measured before sending the "Fifth Fleet." That was the crux of my statement; use resources appropriate to the crime and appropriate to the level of harm that resulted from the crime. If Apple does end up suffering because of the leaked info, then the crime has become far more compounded and deserves more attention by authorities. Until then, it's simply grandstanding for the media.
I'm pretty sure governors have additional security for their private email addresses. That email address was undoubtedly more protected than the run-of-the Mobile Me account.
Fine, then do you think the actions of the police are ethical given the reality on the ground which I've mentioned? And don't avoid this question. It's perfectly possible to acknowledge the reality of the situation (and life in general) and still decry it as an unethical thing.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your statement, "In an ideal world maybe. We don't live in an ideal world" which was in response to our factual assertion that "Crime is determined very largely by method, and then by actual damage."
This is ridiculous.
If you want to respond to one of our claims directly, feel free to do so. This, however, is a sad attempt at a straw man, and I for one will not will not dignify your gross misrepresentation of our claims with a any further response.
Oh, I see what you're getting at. The amount of energy his muscles expended in taking the phone out of the beer garden is the same as a similarly weighted phone which makes the charge the same as stealing another phone. So pickpocketing someone's cheap worn plastic wallet with nothing in it is the same as a diamond encrusted $20,000 Luis Vitton wallet with $5,000 cash in it and so the police should apportion equal time to investigating and retrieving both as a matter of ethics? As I said, in an ideal world maybe. Not in this one we all live in.
Still in the ideal world. In reality, an armed mugging in an impoverished neighbourhood is not a far worse crime than a wealthy socialite calling about a burglary and stolen jewels.
At least you didn't say you were 100% sure. It was a Yahoo account and forgot-your-password? link:
The hacker guessed that Alaska's governor had met her husband in high school, and knew Palin's date of birth and home Zip code. Using those details, the hacker tricked Yahoo Inc.'s service into assigning a new password, "popcorn," for Palin's e-mail account, according to a chronology of the crime published on the Web site where the hacking was first revealed.
Legal ethics is an oxymoron, pretty much sums up my personal opinion. Justice, fairness, equality are some of the other words I never use either when talking about the law. In this case I believe the police and attorneys are being ethical. They're merely ascertaining facts at this juncture, worked with a valid signed warrant, no charges have been laid prematurely. It's all been by the book so far, just doing their job to investigate a perceived crime. If they don't see cause to charge anyone, they probably won't.
Oh really? How so? Is it not true that we've seen the themes "it's just a phone" and "don't the police have anything better to do?" repeated ad naseum in this thread?
And isn't it true that if you lost a $5,000 phone (worth far more than that to you, but we'll call it $5,000 for the sake of argument - as that's the amount it sold for), and you found out 1) who bought it and 2) who sold it, that you'd be doing your best to involve the local authorities?
What ever happened to finders keepers, losers weepers?
Oh wait.
I guess no-one here has ever been a finder.
Oh wait.
I guess no-one here has ever been a finder.
Had only the doctrine of 'Finders Keepers' been employed within this context, whereas the 'finder' merely 'kept' the phone, without ulterior motives, we would not be having this discussion.