Law Enforcement Reportedly Looking Into Circumstances of Lost Next-Generation iPhone

[Cartaphilus]

Something is needed. I think the court's language--that the proprietor is the bailee for the true owner--leaves the door open as to whether the finder of "mislaid" property is entitled to any possessory rights. That would mean that the item would have to be turned over to the proprietor, and if true owner never shows up, the proprietor then becomes the "finder" for purposes of the statutes and proceed accordingly. That would also mean that the crook and Gawker don't have a leg to stand on.

Further, I seriously hope that the common law distinction, as enunciated by the court, still applies. In any event, with all the publicity this case is getting, it would be an excellent time to educate the public as to what the rights and responsibilities of finders of mislaid property actually are. And I hope this case makes it to the appellate level.

Is it really necessary to resurrect the distinctions among classes of non-abandoned found property to achieve the public policy goals you've identified? After all, the owner of either lost or mislaid property is equally desirous of and entitled to it. Similarly, the duty to restore both classes is equally incumbent upon all others. If all we want to do is to maximize the likelihood that the owner will be reunited with his property, can't we simply require all parties to take reasonable and just actions to that end, and then specify the actions that are mandatory to meet the standard when the personalty is found on the realty or conveyance of another?

After all, some of the old Common Law cases on lost, mislaid, and hidden valuables read like Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, and inferring the circumstances by which property became separated from its owner by considering the circumstances of its finding is not always easy, and for all practical purposes it is a distinction without a difference. So where the Common Law of England might dispense with the need to involve the landowner/proprietor if the property is deemed "lost", what harm is there in involving the proprietor in any event? And if property appears to be mislaid, what harm is there in allowing the finder to take it to the police station himself, or otherwise seek the owner, so long as he identifies himself to the proprietor and provides his contact information? After all, there is no particular reason to suppose that any random proprietor is going to be more conscientious or honest than any random patron; it's better for the owner if both are required and enabled to help him retrieve his property.

From a public policy standpoint I have a preference to awarding unclaimed property to the finder over the proprietor, but awarding an undivided half interest to each of them doesn't offend me either, and provides incentive to both of them to follow the Civil Code process.

In any case, I couldn't agree with you more that judging by some of the comments posted here and elsewhere public education on this topic is sorely needed. If for no other reason, the authorities having jurisdiction over this matter ought to thoroughly investigate the facts, and if the facts support a conviction, then regardless of the otherwise perceived seriousness of the case, they should prosecute as a means to educate the public to their social and legal obligations.

 

[mccldwll]

Why? We have made it this far in life. I find it hard to justify wasting that kind of time over one lost phone.

I'll bet you do. Karma is a bitch. I wonder if you'll feel the same way when (not if, when) you leave behind in a bar something of value.

 

[Mark Booth]

I'll bet you do. Karma is a bitch. I wonder if you'll feel the same way when (not if, when) you leave behind in a bar something of value.

Exactly! Everyone's a critic until they are the victim. Then they scream bloody murder.

Besides, I still have my doubts that the iPhone was "left behind". The only source of that claim is the person that later sold property he did not own for a profit. Hard to believe someone of dubious moral character.

Mark

 

[mccldwll]

And if property appears to be mislaid, what harm is there in allowing the finder to take it to the police station himself, or otherwise seek the owner, so long as he identifies himself to the proprietor and provides his contact information? After all, there is no particular reason to suppose that any random proprietor is going to be more conscientious or honest than any random patron; it's better for the owner if both are required and enabled to help him retrieve his property.

From a public policy standpoint I have a preference to awarding unclaimed property to the finder over the proprietor, but awarding an undivided half interest to each of them doesn't offend me either, and provides incentive to both of them to follow the Civil Code process.
.

I believe the harm is that it makes recovery at the very least more difficult. The owner could return just a few minutes later and find the property already gone, even if in the hands of an honest good Samaritan. And I think the proprietor is entitled to a presumption since he has a business relationship with the property's owner, and an establishment reputation to protect. There are exceptions, but I would prefer that to be the rule, as I believe you suggested in your ordinance proposal.
As far as eventual ownership of "misplaced" property, I would have no problem in legally entitling the finder an equitable share since in all likelihood, the owner will shortly return for it anyway and it will never kick in. Likewise, I wouldn't be opposed to finder and proprietor eventually sharing property "lost" within a restaurant, since that also would encourage an action which would likely lead to the true owner recovering it sooner.

 

[Puddinman]

I wonder if this story will make it into the "Dumb Crooks" files?

Party A steals a prototype phone (let's just call it what it is and stop all the BS legal wrangling) and sells it to Party B who then publishes a step-by-step account of the theft and their purchase of stolen property in their popular tech blog, which is then read by millions. That's just like the guys who rob a convenience store right after writing a personal check.

I also think that Gizmodo was horribly wrong in identifying the poor guy who lost his phone. How come we don't know the identity of the thief? Why are they protecting him and making the victim a laughingstock? I really hope Gizmodo and the thief are punished for their crimes (and stupidity).

One more thing . . . let's get real. All this legal mumbo-jumbo is nice and idealistic, but it does not reflect what really happens. People lose phones everyday and never get them back because the finders become keepers. These incidents aren't even reported to the police for the most part and even if they are, most items are never recovered. It doesn't matter if you leave it at a bar or if it's stolen from your pocket, the fact is that the vast majority of these losses result in theft and nothing is ever done about it. We only know about this case because Gizmodo was stupid enough to publish it.

What I find amazing is that there are easy technological solutions to recover stolen phones or at the least, prevent stolen phones from being used, but none of these easy solutions are being implemented. 1)Every phone has a serial # - why don't carriers have databases with stolen serials that can be matched to people bringing in phones for activation or used on their network? 2)With GPS in just about every phone, why can't that data be used to find the phone? If I could report it stolen and have the carrier search for that phone's serial # . . . case closed. That way it's tied to serial number, not something temporary like a mobile me account. Hell, all you have to do is tie phone accounts into serial numbers and not just sim cards, which can be removed. It should be easy for a carrier to look up calls made on a phone with a certain serial #.

 

[KhanakXersahk]

Planted

It's obvious that the iPhone was planted. Why would someone working for Apple, who should have MobileMe, not use the "find my phone" feature to find it unless they WANTED it to be "found" by someone else?

Should Gizmodo be sued? Why?

If anything, the dude who "lost" his phone should be fired. Either because A) he purposely let the next gen iPhone out or B) he's too stupid to know how to FIND his phone.

 

[pdjudd]

It's obvious that the iPhone was planted. Why would someone working for Apple, who should have MobileMe, not use the "find my phone" feature to find it unless they WANTED it to be "found" by someone else?

As it has been said hundreds of times before - the wipe occurred over exchange - that's because the find my phone feature is not operational in the 4.0 firmware. Apple could not use it.

And again this whole operation puts Apple at a disadvantage - they have no control as to what Gzmodo or any other potential buyer would have done - that is about a galaxy away from what Apple does.

 

[Mark Booth]

It's obvious that the iPhone was planted. Why would someone working for Apple, who should have MobileMe, not use the "find my phone" feature to find it unless they WANTED it to be "found" by someone else?

Should Gizmodo be sued? Why?

If anything, the dude who "lost" his phone should be fired. Either because A) he purposely let the next gen iPhone out or B) he's too stupid to know how to FIND his phone.

Planted? That's not Apple's style and the very fact that there IS a criminal investigation is proof that Apple didn't plant it. Apple would be in some serious trouble if they planted the device and then filed a criminal complaint. So, please, enough with the ridiculous conspiracy theories.

When Gray Powell discovered that his iPhone was missing, there were two things he theoretically could do...

1) Track the iPhone's location with Mobile Me's "Find my iPhone" feature.

Now, that takes time. Stories on the net prove that folks that have used the feature don't always get an exact location. If the iPhone is located in an apartment building, for example, it doesn't show the exact apartment, particularly in multi-level buildings. So, perhaps Gray Powell (or someone else at Apple) DID use that feature but couldn't get an exact location? Or maybe the iPhone was turned off to prevent it being tracked?

It's not as simple as clicking "Find my iPhone" and then cops show up at the thief's door with an arrest warrant.

2) Wipe the sensitive data off of the iPhone.

Obviously, this second option was used (if Gizmodo's story is accurate). And, quite frankly, since the prototype iPhone was running OS 4.0, getting it wiped to protect the OS from falling into the hands of hackers is probably more important than finding the iPhone itself. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Apple has an internal POLICY for what you are supposed to do if a prototype iPhone is stolen. Wipe it!

And, as we all know, once you wipe the phone, "Find my iPhone" will no longer work.

Gray Powell did nothing wrong. His continued employment at Apple proves that fact. He is a baseband engineer and his JOB was to test the next generation iPhone out in the wild.

Any wrongdoing in this story lies at the feet of the person that "found" the iPhone, and Gizmodo for letting their lust for page views exceed their ability to follow the law.

Mark

 

[Mark Booth]

As it has been said hundreds of times before - the wipe occurred over exchange - that's because the find my phone feature is not operational in the 4.0 firmware. Apple could not use it.

Good point about the lack of Find My iPhone in firmware 4.0. I'd forgotten about that. Amend my message above to point out that Gray Powell/Apple only had one choice.... to wipe the phone.

Mark

 

[whooleytoo]

I still don't like the outcome and the apparent fact that anyone finding a purse/wallet/laptop/phone has the legal right to leave the restaurant with it, and the proprietor has no right to suggest otherwise, even though this decreases the chances the owner will ever get his/her property back

A fair point, but there's no guarantee the proprietor is any more trustworthy than the finder.

In my experience here, staff at a lot of restaurants/bars view lost items as a "bonus"! A phone went missing out of my jacket in a nightclub cloakroom here, when I returned the next day to try to find it, they claimed it had fallen out of my pocket and they'd found it. But when they went to fetch it for me, it had 'disappeared' again..

If I find any lost item, and it clearly doesn't belong to anyone in the vicinity, I'd let the staff know, give them my number, and hang on to it; contacting the police too if it's something of real or sentimental value.

 

[KhanakXersahk]

Planted? That's not Apple's style and the very fact that there IS a criminal investigation is proof that Apple didn't plant it.
Mark

I'm not saying Apple did. But it seems convenient that SOMEONE did. It seems to happen when new products are almost ready to come out. So if he DIDN'T, it sure looks like he did.

 

[sclawis300]

I'll bet you do. Karma is a bitch. I wonder if you'll feel the same way when (not if, when) you leave behind in a bar something of value.

I lost my watch last week and you don't hear me crying about it do you??????? If you knew me you would know that I don't get drunk so it would be more appropriate to say "if" and not "when". If I do ever find it, which I doubt, its not like I would accuse the person that finds it of stealing the thing. I would probably say that is mine now please return it and here is a reward for finding it.

Lets say this guy had a hole in his pocket and the phone fell out when he was just walking down the street. I would feel terrible for him. But that does not appear to be the case now does it. He made his bed.

 

[whooleytoo]

I'm not saying Apple did. But it seems convenient that SOMEONE did. It seems to happen when new products are almost ready to come out. So if he DIDN'T, it sure looks like he did.

As a new product release gets closer, more and more people need to find out about it.

Not just developers and testers, but 3rd party manufacturers are building them, couriers are handling them (albeit, wrapped), the web stores and support sites need to be readied, the marketing copy needs to be prepared etc. It's always more likely inadvertent leaks will happen close to release time.

 

[mccldwll]

I lost my watch last week and you don't hear me crying about it do you??????? If you knew me you would know that I don't get drunk so it would be more appropriate to say "if" and not "when". If I do ever find it, which I doubt, its not like I would accuse the person that finds it of stealing the thing. I would probably say that is mine now please return it and here is a reward for finding it.

Lets say this guy had a hole in his pocket and the phone fell out when he was just walking down the street. I would feel terrible for him. But that does not appear to be the case now does it. He made his bed.

Try to pay attention to the discussion.

 

[cmaier]

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/criminal-charges-possible-in-the-case-of-the-lost-iphone/

The San Mateo district attorney could act by early next week, according to people involved in the investigation. The office has the option of filing felony charges. ... According to people familiar with the investigation, who would not speak on the record because of the potential legal case, charges would most likely be filed against the person or people who sold the prototype iPhone and possibly the buyer.

 

[tbrinkma]

Oh no, not another thread full of rants from the uninformed and uneducated.

Before making any comment, please:
Understand the difference between a criminal case and a civil case.
Understand who does the prosecuting in each.
Understand the level of proof required in each to secure a conviction / win.
Understand that if Apple was to sue anyone it would require Apple to show they have suffered a financial loss as a direct result of the defendants actions.

I can hear the iPhone finder saying in court - not that it would ever get that far - "Yeah, the Apple guy sold it to me for $800 cash. He said I'd get a $5000 reward from Apple if I returned it. I tried to phone Apple the next day to return it. but they didn't want to know, so I sold it to the tech website to get my money back".
Then you need to understand that as a defendant he doesn't need to prove any of that.

Then you get to hear the guy who lost the iPhone saying in court:
"I thought I still had it with me until I got back to my apartment. When I realized I lost it, I back tracked everywhere I'd been since the last time I remembered having it. I asked the bartender if anybody had found my phone, but nobody had turned it in."

Then you hear the bartender saying in court:
"Nobody talked to me about finding a phone. The poor guy that lost it came in looking for it though. He looked like he thought he was going to lose his job because of it."

Then you hear the prosecution read from Gizmodo's article where they confirm that the guy knew the phone wasn't his, and that he knew who it did belong to, but he decided to sell it instead.

You're right that the defense doesn't have to prove that the accused is innocent. However, there's a difference between 'reasonable doubt' and 'ludicrous doubt'. The facts already on the record (thanks to Gizmodo's article) are sufficient to convict the finder *and* the Gizmodo employee who bought the phone.

 

[mfulton]

Apple's lack of security measures

Aside from the question of Gizmodo's legal liability here, I can't help coming back to the idea that this might be some big publicity scam. It's not Apple's usual brand of marketing, but it seems to me that if they really were all that worried about these devices getting out into the wild, there are a variety of applicable precautions that seem to have been overlooked here.

Consider the following facts and/or assertations:

* The prototype phone has a built-in GPS device
* The prototype phone has a built-in WiFi adapter
* The prototype phone is not supposed to leave the Apple campus.

Now ask the following questions:

* How hard would it be to make the phone operate ONLY when location services (like the GPS) indicate that the device is somewhere on the Apple campus, or when it's connected to the Apple WiFi network?

* How hard would it be to make the phone display an alert message of some sort when location services indicate that the device is no longer somewhere on the Apple campus?

* How hard would it be to make the phone send out a text message if the only available WiFi networks are unknown, non-Apple WiFi?

* How hard would it be to make the phone send out a text message if the GPS indicated that it had left the Apple campus?

The answer is that none of these ideas would be that hard to implement. And these ideas are just quick and off the top of my head... I'm sure if someone devoted some brain power to it, they could come up with some more such tricks. They wouldn't necessarily prevent someone from purposefully stealing a prototype, but any of them would have prevented the whole situation with Grey Powell.

Ultimately, it just doesn't seem likely that Apple wouldn't have taken stronger measures to make the phone participate in its own security.

 

[cmaier]

Consider the following facts and/or assertations:

* The prototype phone has a built-in GPS device
* The prototype phone has a built-in WiFi adapter
* The prototype phone is not supposed to leave the Apple campus.

Your third "assertation" is incorrect. The phones were supposed to leave the campus - the point was to test them in real conditions. It's been done to every iPhone since the first one.

 

[johnqh]

* The prototype phone is not supposed to leave the Apple campus.

By the same token, A car under development should never leave the manufacturer's R&D center.

 

[sclawis300]

Try to pay attention to the discussion.

I am tired of these holier than thou people who think they are the best thing since sliced bread just because they have been on a forum longer than someone else.

 

[Cartaphilus]

I am tired of these holier than though people who think they are the best thing since sliced bread just because they have been on a forum longer than someone else.

That's just coincidence. Actually, it is because we are better looking.

 

[cmaier]

Mwahaha

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

 

[ct2k7]

Update for all concerned.

Police siezes Chen's assets: from the search warrant:

It was used as means of committing felony
It tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed felony.

 

[nookster]

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers

Milk this thing dry, Gizzy-babes. Hard not to when the material get's even juicier.

 

[cmaier]

Milk this thing dry, Gizzy-babes. Hard not to when the material get's even juicier.

From the sound of Jason's note, he hasn't yet obtained his own lawyer. Big mistake.