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

[inaka]

Good, I hope he goes to jail.
The minute $$$ changed hands it was over.

You can't claim you don't know who the rightful owner is when you pay top dollar for something only because it's owned by Apple and not fake. Then you pay $$$ not to Apple, but to someone who is in possession of Apple's pre-release item that you know can't even be sold to customers yet.
The cherry on top is the facebook page showing the exact owner of the item and then not making direct contact with them to return it.

You can't have it both ways.
He's screwed. Serves him right.

 

[Erwin-Br]

Your dictionary definition may be correct but I'm sure the courts have and will decide otherwise.

Hmm, this is quite interesting, actually. On what grounds will the courts decide otherwise, you think? (It's a serious question!) I mean, will the courts consult with experts on this topic or something? How can they decide what's journalism and what's not? Can they also decide what's art?

 

[AtlasBoy]

Very true. Sec 1070 is a "shield law" as you note. If police are after Gizmodo for rec't of stolen merch., and not Gizmodo's source, then Sec 1070 isn't going to shelter them.

Your right. They are most likely looking for emails that can prove that Giz knew it was stolen.

The whole argument about sec 1070 might be moot. Apple & the police might already know the sellers name. Giz's website said the seller called Apple and opened a ticket. If true, ether he knowingly and willingly gave Apple his contact info, or he made up a name. Ether way it's not good for him. If he made up a name, it's hard to say you really made a reasonable attempt to return the phone. If he gave his real name, the police have already interviewed him. Of course it's possible no ticket was opened, but that does not look good ether given Giz reported that he did.

 

[jaykk]

i hope not but with US laws it could easily be that unrelated evidence found in a criminal investigation can be lawfully used against you. this is for a lawyer to answer. but I'm quite pessimistic for chen's future regardless who is morally right here. if they throw the book at him it will really hurt. lots of money involved and likely a felony.

I won't risk felony charges for few hits to my employer's website ..

 

[chaosconan]

I guess I was on target when I posted this, on Gizmodo no less, a couple of days ago...

Apple is just making sure he is not a Chinese planted Techno Spy

 

[bsamcash]

What the hell? I live in the same city as Apple, and I am supported by the same police department. When I got my phone stolen, and I reported it to the same police, I never heard from them again.

 

[M-5]

Obviously, your use of two yous makes it seem like the same person, which it is not. If I lost something, you found it and tried to return it to my parents, but they refused it, then I haven't refused it -- they did and it's still mine.

But in this case your parents lost your wallet, I found it and tried to give it back to you, but you wouldn't accept it.

 

[tempusfugit]

This is all just so ridiculous on Apple's part.

Did they expect a prototype iphone being lost in the SJ area not to end up on the front page of a tech blog?

They should really just be happy that we still don't know anything about the type in terms of memory, processing power, etc. All we know is that a new design is in the works and that it might have a few new features that have been already been requested/speculated upon by the "community."

And thats if they're unhappy to begin with! Think about all the free publicity they got about the new iphone and how positive (generally) the response has been? I'm sure some people will think twice about buying a new HTC until seeing what Apple officially unveils this summer as the next-gen iphone. Or a moto droid for that matter, or a Crackberry, etc.

Apple didn't keep proper track of a prototype device. That was just a dumb mistake. I really feel for the gizmodo people who did what ANY tech blog would've done if it had the chance first.

You can say all you want about who did what or who should be punished for what, but I still feel that pursuing this so harshly makes apple look like the big bad wolf.

 

[awesomator]

The property that they knowingly obtained illegally.

Pre-meditation's a b*tch.

They already had iphone 4g!!!

 

[tdream]

I second that. Apple made it into an issue. They have egg on their face for hiring a douchebag who thought he was cool and got drunk and now has no job because he was an idiot. Apple had to take a position. Do you think if HP's dev team lost a device while on a drinking binge HP would go after the guy who ended up buying it on the street? No they'd go after the employee and the guy selling it on the street. Apple lost some respect on this one.

Exactly, if I leave a laptop on a train and lose it. Do I blame myself or do I blame the thug who stole it? It's like Apple can do no wrong. If they kept their own house in order, none of this would be taking place.

 

[RidleyGriff]

Generally free publicity for an upcoming device is a GAIN of a million bucks, not a loss of millions you idiot. There's a buzz like no other pre-launch ever before... do you really think it's LOST them money? Jeez

How about the iPhone 3GS sales they're going to lose for this quarter, now that the entire world has seen what's coming in a few months?

Apple sold almost 9 million iPhones this past quarter, at roughly $600 a pop. A dip in that number would equal an awful lot of money.

You want to revise your statement about it costing them money, or do you want to call people names again?

 

[tigres]

This isn't surprising at all. Let's hope Jason Chen encrypts his data.

I don't think it matters. The equipment is going to a forensic offsite lab with geeks galore.

 

[ethana]

"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft." -- California’s penal code, section 485

"If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff’s department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it." -- California’s civil code, section 2080.1

"(a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year." -- California penal code, section 496

"The only mental state mentioned in Penal Code section 485 is the perpetrator’s “knowledge.” The crime is defined in terms of two acts, one omission, and one mental state. The perpetrator commits this offense if he or she (1) finds lost property (an act), (2) appropriates it (an act), (3) fails to make “reasonable and just efforts” to find the owner and restore the property to the owner (an omission), and (4) does so with knowledge of the true owner or means of inquiry as to the true owner (a mental state). Nowhere in the statutory definition of the offense is there any suggestion that the perpetrator must harbor any additional specific intent." -- http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14633097327859289791&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

[mags631]

But in this case your parents lost your wallet, I found it and tried to give it back to you, but you wouldn't accept it.

No.

 

[louiek]

I think a person who loses a million dollar prototype because he/she was drunk deserves to be humiliated. They lost Apple millions of bucks.

Not that it even matters, but at what point was it determined that he was drunk in the bar?

 

[awesomator]

That's a good news. I don't think either Gizmodo or it's employees are journalist. They are just criminals.

I hate this. So you guys are all angry that gizmodo got the phone but seem happy they they had it so you could see it.

 

[M-5]

No.

The phone doesn't belong to Gray Powell.

 

[ValSalva]

Exactly, if I leave a laptop on a train and lose it. Do I blame myself or do I blame the thug who stole it? It's like Apple can do no wrong. If they kept their own house in order, none of this would be taking place.

The thug who steals it commits a crime. He/she should be punished. Being dingy or drunk does not make it open season to commit crimes against you.

 

[Erwin-Br]

I'm sure it's the legal costs and potential FELONY conviction that has them ecstatic.

Is the entire team behind the site going to be convicted? Or just this one blogger?

 

[tdream]

Don't forget the 8.600.000 views..

So it's like.. I steal the car, ride all over the country, MAKE SOME MONEY, and then pull over

It's like, I pay $500,000 (10 ten times the value) for an unreleased car, make some money, then give it back to the original owner when they see pictures of it on the web.

 

[chaosconan]

He's got a cocaine finger!

 

[redkamel]

You and everyone else are acting like Gizmodo definitely knew that the phone was stolen at the time of payment, and not lost. How can you possibly state this as fact? After more information has come to light, it certainly looks like the individual who found the phone didn't follow due diligence in tracking down the owner. But at the time of payment, how could Gizmodo know this, and why should they be responsible to make sure? That's not how our legal system works.

If you buy a used car, do you get charged with a felony if the seller stole the car? Only if you knew it was stolen to begin with. And while Gizmodo may have had a suspicion, it will be nearly impossible to prove that they knew it was stolen at the time of purchase.

Giz was pretty sure it was real when they bought it. You can tell just on cursory exam: it was leaked 2 month before launch, like all other iphones. It goes to sync screen when you plug into a laptop. It has a 30 pin dock connector which no fake phone has. So if it was fake, it would be a really really good one. And: Giz would not buy it unless they were pretty sure it was real. So I am pretty sure they bought it with that presumption/intent.

Giz knew how it was found when they bought it. The information that came to light was likely known to Gawker before they bought the phone. Unless they were a total idiots or lied to, they wouldn't buy a possible prototype without knowing how someone got it. We seem to agree the phone was stolen given all the facts, the question is, did Giz know beforehand or not?

Which seems more likely:
A) Gawker gets the opportunity to buy the phone. They check out the story. They think they are in the clear, and buy the phone. They then tell the whole story and all the facts over a few days on Giz to maximize page hits.

B) Gawker gets the opportunity to by a phone they are pretty sure could be a real iphone 4g. They immediately say yes without getting a straight answer about how the finder got it, potentially opening themselves to legal action. After the deal, for some reason, they keep talking to the guy who sold it to them. At this point he tells them how he got it. Gawker decides it is not stolen goods and runs the story in real time. At no point do they say: shoot, we might be in a mess here, let pause this.

I am going to go with A.

Either way, Gawker and Giz thought they were in the clear (but aren't) How do I know? Because when the whole story was told on the internet, most everyone thinks Giz knowingly received stolen property. Now, thats bad reasoning usually, but this isn't the most complicated case in the world. Not to mention, they should have known all those facts before getting involved, because those facts are the reasons they bought the phone. It's more reasonable to suspect the phone as stolen (somehow) then not. I mean, if someone told me they had a 4g iphone they found at a bar, I would STILL think they stole it somehow. Things like that are usually secured.

 

[mtvfyrfytr]

Generally free publicity for an upcoming device is a GAIN of a million bucks, not a loss of millions you idiot. There's a buzz like no other pre-launch ever before... do you really think it's LOST them money? Jeez

YES, of course it's lost Apple money for present iPhone sales. Why buy a iPhone now, when you now know what's coming out in a few months?

 

[Silenthillnight]

I love how people are arguing that the phone wasn't stolen. It's like those stories when someone goes to a fast food drive thru and instead of being handed their food, they're handed a bag of money. If you drive off with it and don't intend to return it, it's considered theft. Sure, the stupid drive thru attendant lost the money but it wasn't yours to begin with.

This is the reason why I go to drive-thrus wearing ski-masks now

 

[MacFly123]

I KNEW we were going to see the #^$% hit the fan haha! I think this is just the beginning! I don't think we will see the real guns come out until AFTER Apple launches the new iPhone. They don't want to draw too much attention to the phone before it is released, but after, all is fair game!

Sucks to be Gizmodo and the crook kid that sold the phone!