My dad disagrees that it was the appropriate place to call let alone enough to justify selling it.
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.
Police Seize Gizmodo Editor's Computers and Other Property Related to Lost Next-Generation iPhone
- Thread starter G4R2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My dad disagrees that it was the appropriate place to call let alone enough to justify selling it.
Yeah a great deal at stake for already filthy rich people...pardon me if I don't cry for them. Ruin someone's life over money so you can buy even more luxuries and custom made mock turtle neck's from a company that stopped making them...well done Steve.
Gizmodo are not journalists. They are BLOGGERS.
And the word is "suits".
You demonstrate ignorance of the legal system. Not only are rich people entitled to the same protection and rights in regards to their property being stolen (you basically suggest that since rich people can buy a new one, they aren't entitled to report a stolen item) as average or poor people (who cannot so easily replace an item), but once the wheels of the legal system start rolling, they are out of the complainant's hands.
Except the law says that you can't sell it, you have to basically give it to the police and the police choose when it can be retained by the person who found the item.
When they dude sold the phone it was considered stolen because the police had not said it was "abandoned". Its not up to the finder to decide when it that person can own the item.
It is really that simple, pretty much the same in all states.
The civil lawsuit will come later. First, we have the CRIMINAL proceedings.
Shiny metal bracelets for anyone arrested! Fingerprinting and photographs too.
Mark
From a PR perspective...
...It doesn't matter if it's a civil or a criminal case.
...It doesn't matter if Apple has the law on their side.
...It doesn't matter if the 'raid' was all the DA's making and Apple had nothing to do with it.
...It doesn't matter if Giz broke the law.
What matters is how the general public will perceive the story. Not just in the US, but around the world (needless to say, Apple has a global presence).
Again, just look at Pirate Bay. A bunch of scavenging low-lifes in Sweden, running a torrent site. They didn't have anyone's sympathy (save for a few emo kids), they were breaking the law and the entertainment industry was losing billions.
Then one day, the founders of PB were arrested and charged (and later taken to court, where they were found guilty) and police marched in and seized their servers. Overnight, these dorks became heroes, not just in Sweden but half the world was suddenly chanting "Go Pirate Bay go!". The media painted them as victims (as the narrative dictates) and the Swedish government/police/courts were painted as errand boys working for big American corporations.
This story has similar elements:
- A big corporation (by default evil in the public's eye)
- A crackdown executed by law enforcement (barging in and seizing servers, computers etc.)
- A small band of lawbreakers (Gizmodo) who nicked something from the big corporation and "gave" it to the masses
If American media won't spin it the David vs. Goliath way, European media certainly will (Europe is 1/3 of Apple's business), and Apple haters will have a field day. And the zeitgeist/conspiracy bums already have it all figured out: The DA is a dog at the end of Steve Jobs' leash.
Things were much better for Apple yesterday, when Giz was just a broken record going on and on about their iPhone scoop long after their 15 minutes were up.
If anything, Gizmodo should be rewarded
The guy who found the phone tried to contact Apple but they refused to hear him. Then Gizmodo paid $5K of their own money, got the phone, notified Apple and returned the phone to them. End of story. Gizmodo obviously deserves a reward for finding lost property. I hope this is how this story ends.
The guy who found the phone tried to contact Apple but they refused to hear him. Then Gizmodo paid $5K of their own money, got the phone, notified Apple and returned the phone to them. End of story. Gizmodo obviously deserves a reward for finding lost property. I hope this is how this story ends.
This whole thing stinks of obvious theft right from the beginning. The guy who found it tried to return it? As if!! Don't you think the Apple dude who lost it wouldn't have tried to call his own number a thousand times right away? Something tells me the dude who found it conveniently avoided answering it. Oh, and mobile me? I'm sure Apple left messages on the phone to return it before they wiped it remotely. I'm sure Apple has documented proof on whether they've done this which I'm sure they do. They can probably have a good argument that the guy stole it. Then gyzmodo goes and pays 5K for a phone they'd like to assure themselves is a knock off? Come on. They knew damn well it was likely a prototype and how else could you get your hands on that unless it has been stolen by the person you're willing to pay 5K to for it? Somebody's in trouble 
How the hell did the police get a search warrant and authority to seize property over this incident, in addition to force entry?
That's ridiculous! Well that is the yanky PIGS for you right there.
I would be gaining my composure and hiring an attorney to sue every single person at that department. Kick my door in, seize my property, all over a damn phone? I'll rip your damn families heart out via your salary!
That's ridiculous! Well that is the yanky PIGS for you right there.
I would be gaining my composure and hiring an attorney to sue every single person at that department. Kick my door in, seize my property, all over a damn phone? I'll rip your damn families heart out via your salary!
The phone was NOT swiped. It was lost due to the negligence of an employee of Apple.
Moreover, image and details of the G4 had been leaked on earlier occasions, including images from China.
I hope there is a complaint coming against whoever the signed this search warrant, as well as an inquiry into the heavy-handed execution.
fear, frustration and confusion...
Its very interesting to see Star Wars imagery attached to this topic, this in some way is a realistic view of the nature of corporations as a psychological force, even though these expressions seem to be hasty and naive, they also denote tangible fears and confusion as to what to expect from such an event. There are very valid points here, some naive some misinformed, also there are those that express frustration as to why the police would spend so much time as to what appears as a waste of time, taxes and resources etc?
At the center of these fears is the sense of powerlessness: the pic of Darth Vader choking the officer is the symbol of the corporation run amok with power! its a clear depiction of that, very good! yet its a forced allusion to Apple and it denotes personal inferences to the lack of privacy that a teenager or a child may have had experienced or an adult that has never managed these issues properly etc, a valid emotional state yet a tangible dysfunction if not addressed.
False expectations and naivete:
1)The police need to be solving real crime!
Any complaint cannot be dismissed just because you determine it could be, just like the abuser can never determine what abuse is. In any case this event has enough aspects to be deemed as such, the police think so.
2)Steve Jobs get over it, you lost the phone-Period-
projecting unrealistic dialogue and emotional dynamics shows the inability to grasp the issue, hence the anger in may of the posts and one of the sources of anger is our inability to properly express ourselves, I think Yoda said that, not sure.
3)Did Gizmodo expect a pat in the back from Apple or the police?
these are hasty and thoughtless actions of Chen and Gizmodo:they are not the "small guy" in this situation, they had the illusion of cleverness and lost.
they can be alluded more to the Icarus myth more than Star Wars (if you fly too close to the sun with wings of wax then what do you think its going to happen?)
more later...
Its very interesting to see Star Wars imagery attached to this topic, this in some way is a realistic view of the nature of corporations as a psychological force, even though these expressions seem to be hasty and naive, they also denote tangible fears and confusion as to what to expect from such an event. There are very valid points here, some naive some misinformed, also there are those that express frustration as to why the police would spend so much time as to what appears as a waste of time, taxes and resources etc?
At the center of these fears is the sense of powerlessness: the pic of Darth Vader choking the officer is the symbol of the corporation run amok with power! its a clear depiction of that, very good! yet its a forced allusion to Apple and it denotes personal inferences to the lack of privacy that a teenager or a child may have had experienced or an adult that has never managed these issues properly etc, a valid emotional state yet a tangible dysfunction if not addressed.
False expectations and naivete:
1)The police need to be solving real crime!
Any complaint cannot be dismissed just because you determine it could be, just like the abuser can never determine what abuse is. In any case this event has enough aspects to be deemed as such, the police think so.
2)Steve Jobs get over it, you lost the phone-Period-
projecting unrealistic dialogue and emotional dynamics shows the inability to grasp the issue, hence the anger in may of the posts and one of the sources of anger is our inability to properly express ourselves, I think Yoda said that, not sure.
3)Did Gizmodo expect a pat in the back from Apple or the police?
these are hasty and thoughtless actions of Chen and Gizmodo:they are not the "small guy" in this situation, they had the illusion of cleverness and lost.
they can be alluded more to the Icarus myth more than Star Wars (if you fly too close to the sun with wings of wax then what do you think its going to happen?)
more later...
Forcing entry for this matter is ridiculous. That should be reserved for violent criminals and saving life. No reason they couldn't have waited for the home owner or contacted them to do their "evidence collection" with him present.
It doesn't matter if it was a Chinese knock-off, man. The guy found the device, and he made only very minimal efforts to return it to its rightful owner (he could've handed it over to the police, or the bar owner). If you don't make a "reasonable effort" to return lost property, it's still called "theft." It doesn't matter if it was a Chinese knock-off... It's still MY property, and if you took it for your own, you stole MY property.
Secondly, you CAN'T LEGALLY PURCHASE STOLEN GOODS. That's where Gizmodo's fault is. You can't do it, sorry. Doesn't matter if it's fake, or real, or an alien prototype from the future... You can't legally buy it. And it's on YOU - by law - as a consumer to purchase goods from a reputable source.
This is what some people here don't understand... IT WAS GIZMODO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS STOLEN. And, since they guy who found it obviously told Gizmodo his story, they KNEW it wasn't his property. You can't sell someone else's property without their consent. It's like if you sold my house while I was still living in it. You can't do it. And Gizmodo couldn't buy the phone by law.
This isn't a question of whether or not Gizmodo should have returned the phone sooner... They shouldn't have had it in the first place!
Glen, you kept saying your dad. Is he some kind of lolyar or somebaldy important?
That's not the "swiped" part. The "swiped" part is where they didn't return it to Apple, sold property that did not belong to them to Gizmodo, and Gizmodo bought it. You seem to conveniently forget that bit, which is the entire complaint. If the person had actually just returned it, instead of selling it, not only would none of this mess ever have happened, but Apple would never have complained to the police.
thats what will happen when you knowingly buy stolen properties (worth a lot of $$)
You fail to realize that the USA is now a police state. The police can pretty much do what they have to. Many basic freedoms were lost under Bush and the signing of the Patriot Act.
Had to get a drivers license lately? You need TWO forms of ID with a picture on it! Unless you have a passport or your a student, the only picture ID you would have would be ONE drivers license!
Really? Guess you never any of the 500 or so posts on this forum alone quoting that precise requirement of the California Codes chapter and verse. Of course, if you pass the found item by, and take no action with respect to it that infringes on the legal possessor's rights, then you have no duty to investigate or to take any other action to return it to its rightful owner. Once you start picking it up, taking it out of its case, taking it apart, and taking photos of it, you have crossed the line, and since you did not take reasonable and just steps to reunite the phone with its owner before you exercised dominion and control over it, you are a thief. As a matter of fact, Gizmodo, by simply buying the phone, is likely guilty as a receiver of stolen goods rather than as a thief. Maybe that is cold comfort, but it's something, and following your diabolically clever plan would have put them in a worse legal position, not better.
The law is not so easily circumvented.
You'll notice, by the way, if you read this thread, that those admitting to being lawyers are all saying that based on the reported facts, the finder/seller is a thief under California law, and that Gizmodo is a receiver of stolen goods. You'll notice that those arguing that no crime was committed are all devoid of any credentials or experience with the criminal law of California. Perhaps you may find this fact relevant when you seek to form a reasoned opinion.
I keep hearing that the editor has possession of "stolen" property but i thought Gizmodo gave the "stolen" property back?
No that's what happens when a billion dollar corporation with massive political clout has it's ego bruised.