Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone

[theloon]

NEWSFLASH: Criminal investigations are conducted by the governing public authority and Apple has nothing to do with this.

Idiot.

From an Attorney point of view....I can tell you that you are very very wrong when it comes to the sway a company the size of Apple has in matters like these and how they would certainly have been consulted on this issue and a decision jointly reached as to the action taken.

 

[drummingcraig]

Hooray for common sense! Alas, had the finder done this, he would have received a phone call from the bar owner within 24 hours, the phone would have been returned to its owner, and no one would be facing serious legal problems.

Do you seriously believe the seller didn't know exactly what he was doing?

OK smart ass...I don't doubt that once they discovered they might have a prototype AND Apple blew them off, they obviously were aware of the situation.

Unfortunately for Gizmodo, no assumptions are necessary since they posted every minute detail of the whole sordid affair for the entire world to digest (yay page views!).

I'm not arguing the morality/legality of what Gizmodo did. I am simply PO'd at everyone shouting "theft" or "robbery" or "stolen". It. Was. LOST. Period.

What happened beyond that is still being ironed out buy the investigation.

 

[LagunaSol]

I would LOVE to stand trial on that one.

Actually, you probably would not want to...

 

[MBP15C2D4GBLED]

Haha, typical USA cops: Busting down the door only to get a few computers. I bet they really got a kick out of it. Couldn't they just try again the next morning? The guy already had plenty of time to try to hide the "evidence" anyway.

Here they only break down the door if someone's in danger on the other side.

Busting a door down is necessary for two reasons:

(1) They don't know if you are actually home or not. Popping the door insures the home owner or renter knows that the police mean business. Picking a lock means the cop can get his face blown off. For all they knew, Jason Chen knew what was happening and had bought a shotgun at Walmart the night before.

Someone who will commit a felony is more than apt to go down a much darker road. Maybe Jason Chen wanted to make a Stand in his apartment for the integrity of all journalists? I mean, who knows, he was willing to risk prison and $5000 to buy a stolen iphone just to get a scoop. And yeah, I am not saying this tongue in cheek. These guys will sell their souls for hits. I hope he gets a stock grant from the parent company when he gets out, or he is going to be in a really hard place trying to get a new job.

I can imagine the replies now, hey, even Jason's friends may be reading my post, "I know Jason, he'd never resort to violence." Heh. Yeah, many cops have been killed expecting the person to come out easy and fulfill a warrant.

(2) If they waited till he was home, they may never have gotten the hardware. It would be easy to protect his info remotely once his neighbors said the cops were looking him: login, wipe the drives, and show up a few hours later when a good randomization of the disks had been implemented.

You see, in the USA, businessmen are not the only capitalists. So are our journalists and criminal-journalists.

 

[zafar9999]

I think people are missing the obvious facts and aren't looking at the issue correctly.

According to Woz, an Apple engineer was fired for showing him (an apple employee) an iPad 3G on the iPad WiFi launch..
According to all accounts, Gray Powell is still employed at Apple. The only way he'd be able to keep his job (knowing how strict apple is from above example) is if in fact he didn't lose the phone in a drunken stupor but was pick pocketed or something. Obviously he would have told Apple, and he has proof or knows there is proof of the theft otherwise he'd be fired already.

Gizmodo reported the facebook application was open, posting about drinking. Same thing about his twitter. He used his iPhone to do these things before/while he was drinking, but wouldn't use his iPhone and would forget to go look for it until it was too late? Someone with technology infused into their life as much as an Apple Engineer wouldn't take hours to realize they've lost their phone. It would be minutes at most.

If within minutes of loosing the phone, it wasn't at the bar anymore, it was obviously stolen. A regular iPhone 3GS can still be sold for $300-$500, and thats definitely incentive enough for someone to steal it. The person may or may not have recognized the unique features and then stole it or found out after the fact. Either way, it still is a crime.

Hence the Police investigation into the circumstances of Gizmodo acquiring the phone.

 

[DougB541]

I don't get some of you people.


Trying to learn everything and anything about apple products as soon as you can.....going crazy over every blurry spy photo.

But when an outlet gets an actual prototype....and returns it when asked for it...

And all of a sudden Gizmodo are bad people?


You really don't have to support apple's side on EVERYTHING.

 

[ouimetnick]

Checkbook journalism will eventually get you in trouble. I hope Denton gets all the punishment the law can give him.

Why? Because Apple trusted a immature drunk 27 year old?

 

[LagunaSol]

It. Was. LOST. Period.

It was lost. Until it was SOLD.

Period.

 

[sravana]

Given how incoherent and rudimentary your comprehension of the law is, I can only assume you are Gizmodo's legal counsel.

:::falling over laughing:::

 

[katiepea]

I have a serious problem with the search and seizure. A professional blogger for a commercial blog (regardless of your opinion of the quality of their reporting) should be afforded the protection of the shield law. Great mischief would be possible if shield protections are only afforded to serious reporters. Who decides which reporters are serious? The White House does not consider Fox News a serious news organization. You can see how this can become a sticky wicket. So, regardless of whether a crime was or was not committed, the cops should not have busted down the reporter's door and seized his unpublished material. These strong arm tactics are problematic.

couldn't agree more, and it's nothing new either, apple is doing this stuff to other companies as well as consumers, banning applications people use, telling people how to use their devices, treating their devices like they own them even after the customer has purchased them. i'm just sick of it apple. you're a joke, i'm not saying you don't make nice things, i'm saying the manner in which you treat the market, and your customers is just appalling. it's similar only to the mafia.

 

[Cereal]

Just ran out of popcorn!


Here's my take on it (Gizmodo is the Cat)

 

[drummingcraig]

I've love that too. See, you're missing a few crucial steps, first of which would be turning the phone over to the police. Unless they take possession of it for a certain minimum amount of time (specified by law), and then release it back to you, selling it would absolutely be illegal. You might not get hit with grand theft charges, because the average phone isn't worth enough for that, but you'd certainly get misdemeanor theft charges.

jW

Yes. Absolutely. The law in California is very clear that if you want to obtain ownership of the phone for yourself (and hence the right to sell it) you first must report it to the police, then wait the requisite amount of time.

Well color me stupid then. I'm out.

 

[freelancing]

It's funny that just from what an untrustworthy source (Gizmodo) has published, we assume we know the whole story, and that what we know is 100% true. Gizmodo has already established that they are immature, disrespectful of others' property and sneaky for what they did at CES. No one can hide behind the 1st Amendment when committing a crime. If you hold up a bank, but make a video blog about it, does your journalistic role trump your crime? If you were simply doing a story on bank security, why does it matter? It's not like the big, mean, rich bank can't afford it.

For all we know, the guy who 'found' the phone actually stole the engineer's jacket when he went to the restroom and bolted.

For all we know, there is no other 'guy' and Gizmodo didn't pay anyone anything for it and got it another way.

Apple's property was STOLEN. Whether or not it was taken or found, the fact that it wasn't returned when the true owner was known, makes it theft. Just because you 'find' something doesn't mean you get to keep it. Finders keepers is not on the books - anywhere... except in the minds of Gizmodo editors.

With all the clones out there, why would Gizmodo pay $5K just to find out if it was a clone or not. Pullease. They knew it was real or would not have paid for it... or at least not that much.

Apple filed charges, as is their right. They had an expensive prototype held for over a month by a company that knew it was not theirs to keep. The police must now determine who is telling the truth. The warrant for the computers may reveal conversations between the editors - perhaps they were even advised by attorneys to return it. Perhaps they shared via chat or e-mail how they would handle this if charges were filed (showing they knew they were committing a crime).

If this was your phone, your invention, you'd file charges, too. Moral relativism is great when we apply it to everyone else - but it doesn't seem right when it is applied to us. Either it's a crime, or it's not. Whether the item is worth $1 or $100000 is irrelevant as to whether or not it's theft. You 'find' something that you know is not yours, and you keep it - when there is a reasonable way to find the owner - you are a thief.

Personally, I hope Apple cleans Gizmodo's clock.

Guy who left phone in bar: dumb

Guy who picked up phone and sold it to Gizmodo: scum

Gizmodo buying phone and publishing pics: sleazy

Gizmodo posting name of Apple loser: sleazy

Apple's secrecy policies: revenue-boosting but lunatic

Apple pressing charges for theft: understandable but still dickish

The police pursuing criminal charges: cops love defending rich property owners

Cops confiscating everything: legal but the law makes seizure way too easy

Gizmodo's "journalism" defense: if professional bloggers aren't journalists, soon there won't be any journalists

---

See, it's easy. Everyone is behaving badly. I personally sided with Gizmodo over Apple (whose censorship policies have really turned me off them recently), but sided with the Apple employee (hurt the most here) over Gizmodo. I understand Apple's need to press charges here, but I think the ease with which a warrant can be obtained to scoop up everything is ridiculous. Now Jason is in jeopardy for totally irrelevant TV shows he may have downloaded, which sucks. And I totally side with the "journalism" defense because online journalism is increasingly the heart of journalism now, and needs protection -- even it is worthless tech reporting like Gizmodo does. Your weightings of these things may of course differ, but the point is, no side comes out clean after this.

 

[ct2k7]

couldn't agree more, and it's nothing new either, apple is doing this stuff to other companies as well as consumers, banning applications people use, telling people how to use their devices, treating their devices like they own them even after the customer has purchased them. i'm just sick of it apple. you're a joke, i'm not saying you don't make nice things, i'm saying the manner in which you treat the market, and your customers is just appalling. it's similar only to the mafia.

You failed to respond to my last comment, so again, on what grounds do you protect Jason Chen against the search warrant?

 

[Sir Cecil]

wow. bust down his door and seize his property. Seems completely excessive and unnecessary no matter how stupid it was for them to purchase the phone.

Despicable to say the least

Utter rubbish. For all you know the villains have been making money, or plan to make money, selling detailed imagery of a company's trade secrets to competitors, for example.
You know nothing of the truth of the matter, or what the police were looking for, or what evidence of misdeeds they have uncovered, so in your hurry to cast judgments, you put yourself on the side of thieves rather than the law.

 

[kiljoy616]

in a turn of events, oh apple

Oh apple how you have grown up.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003400-37.html?tag=nl.e703

 

[DougB541]

I think people are missing the obvious facts and aren't looking at the issue correctly.

According to Woz, an Apple engineer was fired for showing him (an apple employee) an iPad 3G on the iPad WiFi launch..
According to all accounts, Gray Powell is still employed at Apple. The only way he'd be able to keep his job (knowing how strict apple is from above example) is if in fact he didn't lose the phone in a drunken stupor but was pick pocketed or something. Obviously he would have told Apple, and he has proof or knows there is proof of the theft otherwise he'd be fired already.

Gizmodo reported the facebook application was open, posting about drinking. Same thing about his twitter. He used his iPhone to do these things before/while he was drinking, but wouldn't use his iPhone and would forget to go look for it until it was too late? Someone with technology infused into their life as much as an Apple Engineer wouldn't take hours to realize they've lost their phone. It would be minutes at most.

If within minutes of loosing the phone, it wasn't at the bar anymore, it was obviously stolen. A regular iPhone 3GS can still be sold for $300-$500, and thats definitely incentive enough for someone to steal it. The person may or may not have recognized the unique features and then stole it or found out after the fact. Either way, it still is a crime.

Hence the Police investigation into the circumstances of Gizmodo acquiring the phone.

You can't just assume that. I'm a huge tech nerd yet i've lost my phone multiple times throughout my life.

**** happens.

 

[quagmire]

Really? So If I find an iPhone tonight at a bar, bring it home with me with the intent of returning it to the original owner, wake up to find the phone bricked before I can get the person's info, call Apple to tell them I've found a lost phone and they blow me off, then sell it on eBay that I am guilty of theft? Oh wait, I am supposed to so a web search for "Bob Frapples" and then email every person with that name and ask them if they're missing a phone?

I would LOVE to stand trial on that one.

I don't think it is legal for Apple to give you their personal info for you to get in touch with them to return it. Privacy laws might get in the way of that one. And they are not going to do anything themselves. They will just tell you to take it to the local police station.

This applies for every company. They are not going to help you to return found property. I don't think it is legal for them to do so( again Privacy laws) nor are they setup to do so. So if you found my car keys, calling GM is not going to help.

 

[BobVB]

Do you really think the police would react this much or even get involved at all if one of us lost a phone that was then sold for $5,000 then returned to us? They might do something, but they wouldn't be raiding houses taking away computers and hard drives. It would be a very low priority case.

All it takes is the police feeling a criminal in their jurisdiction has flaunted their breaking of the law - that alone could easily be the motivation. I would think Apple pressuring them would have had the exact opposite effect.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Really? So If I find an iPhone tonight at a bar, bring it home with me with the intent of returning it to the original owner, wake up to find the phone bricked before I can get the person's info, call Apple to tell them I've found a lost phone and they blow me off, then sell it on eBay that I am guilty of theft? Oh wait, I am supposed to so a web search for "Bob Frapples" and then email every person with that name and ask them if they're missing a phone?

I would LOVE to stand trial on that one.

Why do you bring it home at all man?

Can't you leave it with the waitress or bartender and tell them you found it?

Would you like to help your fellow man, or are you just one of the majority who would take it home and see if you can profit from it somehow? Sounds like you are hoping you can keep it for yourself. That's not right.


I saw a guy at the swimming pool who found some sunglasses in an empty locker, and he said to his buddies "hey look what I got for nothing!" I said to him, "why don't you take it to the front counter so the guy who lost it can retrieve it from lost and found?" Then the guy was kindof like "finders keepers dude", and I was thinking like - "yeah, you are what makes the world such a nice place".

 

[jsaint]

Apple: The New Microsoft

I am all about apple, but they made a big mistake here. They screwed up and are trying to use Gismodo as the scapegoat. Fire the idiot who lost the phone. This is really bad publicity for apple. Their image is shifting. Instead of the image of being about the customer Apple is showing its true color; they are about the product.

 

[reden]

everyone seems to forget that extreme attempts at giving the phone back to apple were made, i am sorry but this is no ones fault but apples. i support freedom, and show me an apple philosophy or even an apple product that supplies that.

And how do you know this? Were you the one trying to return the phone to Apple? You people will believe everything these sites tell you. What if Gizmodo was just trying to cover their bases in the event that all of this stuff that's happening now, happened. It's as simple as that. This smells to me like Gizmodo wanted to exploit the heck out of this device, and maybe made one attempt to reach Apple. Apple didn't call back within 24 hours, so they just went ahead and assumed they didn't want the device back. It's like you found something on a Monday, you wait until Saturday to report it lost to the company that owns it. They're low on staff or closed because it's a weekend, so you just assume they don't want it, lol. I'm not on anyone's side, but something's not right here. What Gizmodo should have done in the first place, is given the phone to the local Police Station, as simple as that. Their core intentions weren't to return the phone. No matter how much this story is spun, they should have taken that device and handed it to the police station or Apple personally.

 

[zub3qin]

Really? So If I find an iPhone tonight at a bar, bring it home with me with the intent of returning it to the original owner, wake up to find the phone bricked before I can get the person's info, call Apple to tell them I've found a lost phone and they blow me off, then sell it on eBay that I am guilty of theft? Oh wait, I am supposed to so a web search for "Bob Frapples" and then email every person with that name and ask them if they're missing a phone?

I would LOVE to stand trial on that one.

Exactly. The Apple fan boys are idiots and give all of us a bad name.

Steve Jobs is the real Darth Vader, not Microsoft, and this proves it.

They took the Gizmodo guy's iphone, google phone, multiple desktops, iPad, macbook, iMac.
They took hard drives and USB drives.

They broke down his front door.

If you bought a phone, even if it was stolen (which I don't believe for a minute that this was), do you think you would have this happen to you?

If you were a journalist writing a story, the law would protect you and you would be even less likely to have this happen to you. Section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code states that no search warrant can be issued to a publisher, editor or reporter in electronic or print media, in relation to any story they were working on or their sources.

Apple is pissed and is wielding their power by getting local authorities to search this guy's house to send a message.

But this is going to backfire big-time on Apple. They will be sued and Gizmodo will win. AND watch the normally fawning media start issuing a bunch of stories on Big Evil Apple........

I love Apple, but don't like this one bit.

 

[rychencop]

i hope some arrests and law suits come soon.

 

[ValSalva]

Why? Because Apple trusted a immature drunk 27 year old?

Because it's likely Gizmodo bought property from someone they knew had no legal right to sell it. That is illegal. In fact Engadget refused to buy it on advice from their lawyers.