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

[Great Dave]

For Fear of Apple's retribution

40 pages in and not ONE analogy to Hitler?
You guys are slipping...

Actually, that was the first thing to come to mind, but I was scared to post it for fear of being banned here or having Apple's long arm kick my door down and take all my computers.

But, seriously, I did think about that analogy with the way Apple is acting of late. They (apple) is worse than Microsoft of the 90s.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

No reason except to avoid giving the suspect a chance to destroy evidence, of course.

 

[coleridge78]

All the stuff is blah blah blah because it still boils down to is it has to be proven Gizmo knew it was stolen when they bought it.

The guy claimed he tried to return it and since he did that well Gizmodo is in the clear. Gizmodo is under no legal obligation to turn over the guy either.

That point along kills everything else you said.

Wrong. As has been mentioned many times, in threads you've participated in, so it can only be surmised at this point that you're a troll or a Gizmodo employee. Even under the "knowing" standard (which isn't the only one that applies in California, but we'll leave that), Gizmodo has admitted violating 496 PC. If you don't know the property is stolen, but later discover that it is (as they certainly did--by their own admission--on disassembling the phone and realizing it was full of Apple parts) and do not immediately return it to its owner or the police, you have formed the requisite intent. Gizmodo admitted that they discovered--in their own words--that the phone was a real Apple prototype and was stolen, yet held on to it and continued to milk it for website hits. It could not possibly be more clear-cut.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Money will make people go along with just about anything.

You mean like $5,000 in cash and 3.6 million unique visitors to a website?

 

[jaykk]

No that's what happens when a billion dollar corporation with massive political clout has it's ego bruised.

its not about ego alone, they are answerable to their investors. Its a public company. If apple suddenly looses billions of dollars over this, they are indeed answerable.

 

[ateslik]

not like competitors will copy anything from this phone, period.

Phew. We won't be seeing front facing cameras on any phones in the future then. What a relief!

Seriously though, Gizmodo is dead wrong here. They knew who owned it. They knew the guy who sold it to them knew who owned it. All of this they have publicly stated. If you keep something that you know belongs to someone else, premeditated, you are stealing. If you buy something that you know does not belong to the person selling it to you, you are buying stolen property. If something doesn't belong to you, give it back. It's very sad that many posters here do not know this most basic courtesy of a civilized culture.

At the very least I would expect people to know that keeping other peoples property makes you suck as a person, more so when you know they are looking for it desperately. Finders keepers is an irrational excuse children use to justify actions they know are wrong, which is why adults sound ridiculous when they say it.

 

[batchtaster]

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.

Wow, this bow you're stringing is incredibly long.

How about if you just plain ignore boring political crap and focus on what's right and wrong. Someone sold property that did not belong to them, to a group that had no right to buy it in the first place. That's not Dubya's fault. That's just plain wrong, no matter who's in charge, no matter how many pieces of ID you have to present for your driver's license.

Explain that to me. Shuck the damn thing down to the core, and explain how the basic principles of right and wrong in regards to property, regardless of its value, are corrupted by a "police state".

 

[pastparticiple]

No reason except to avoid giving the suspect a chance to destroy evidence, of course.

Nobody was home...they could have waited and entered together. This was drama and abuse of power.

 

[persona1138]

I keep hearing that the editor has possession of "stolen" property but i thought Gizmodo gave the "stolen" property back?

Doesn't matter. They BOUGHT the stolen property. They were a second party. The guy who FOUND the phone would've been legally "okay" if he gave it back. But he didn't. Instead, he sold it to Gizmodo, and they BOUGHT STOLEN PROPERTY. It's a different kind of legal offense.

There's no, "Oops, sorry, here's your property" clause if you give it back.

Plus, they dissected the thing to shreds, as evidenced by THEIR posted pictures. I mean, it's bad enough if someone bought my computer from another person who stole it... It's even worse if they rip it apart, put it back together and say, "Hey, good as new!"

Gizmodo is the shadiest, most tabloid-y tech news outlet there is. I don't care if some of you guys thought it was "cool" to see the new iPhone. It was illegal, and Gizmodo is starting to get what they deserve.

 

[batchtaster]

Nobody was home...they could have waited and entered together. This was drama and abuse of power.

Right. Because you were involved and know this. In spite of the fact that you demonstrate lack of knowledge about execution of a search warrant.

See, clearly, what they did was they staked him out, and they waited. It could have taken days even, peeing in a bottle and everything, Taco Bell wrappers littering the floor of the blacked-out van, but they deliberately waited for him to leave, so that they could create drama for a bunch of geeks on a website to get all huffy about. Cos police do that. They really want more drama in their day, and they want a bunch of losers on a website to dissect things bit-by-bit.

Yep.

 

[pastparticiple]

its not about ego alone, they are answerable to their investors. Its a public company. If apple suddenly looses billions of dollars over this, they are indeed answerable.

How? They are not "answerable" at all. Say the company collapsed for some reason the filthy rich people at the top would remain filthy rich and they would sell out all their investors by filing bankruptcy. The people who make the choices are completely out of touch with reality and will never suffer for lack of anything even if Apple fails today.

 

[pooryou]

Apple doesn't force the police department to do anything.

You have to realize, if there is a high profile crime like this, and the way the idiots at Gizmodo presented was basically waving it in their face, the police have to pursue so they don't look like fools. This is their job, sure they can't give this much attention to every crime, but something like this being so high profile makes them look bad if they don't. Especially since the dip***** made it a felony by paying $5000 and bragging about it.

Nobody should feel bad for Gizmodo or the 'article writer' because this is totally on them, nobody forced them into this nonsense.

I haven't and won't read all the posts in this thread, but there really isn't that much to say about this subject so I assume it's a bunch of trolling.

 

[rgarjr]

woaser, this thread is growing like a weed.. haha

 

[pastparticiple]

Right. Because you were involved and know this.

Nope..because I read the article where the police admitted to forcing entry and then explaining it to Chen later

Apple doesn't force the police department to do anything.

Wrong...Apple has massive political influence and all it would take is a call to the DA to get the ball rolling.

 

[lilo777]

Wrong. As has been mentioned many times, in threads you've participated in, so it can only be surmised at this point that you're a troll or a Gizmodo employee. Even under the "knowing" standard (which isn't the only one that applies in California, but we'll leave that), Gizmodo has admitted violating 496 PC. If you don't know the property is stolen, but later discover that it is (as they certainly did--by their own admission--on disassembling the phone and realizing it was full of Apple parts) and do not immediately return it to its owner or the police, you have formed the requisite intent. Gizmodo admitted that they discovered--in their own words--that the phone was a real Apple prototype and was stolen, yet held on to it and continued to milk it for website hits. It could not possibly be more clear-cut.

Define "immediately". Should they have jumped in the car and driven to Cupertino? Should they have called Steve Jobs? Or perhaps sending a letter to Apple was enough (which they did)?

 

[BaldiMac]

Nobody was home...they could have waited and entered together. This was drama and abuse of power.

The evidence is on a computer! Connected to the internet. You don't have to be home to destroy it.

Also, how would they know if anyone was home? Someone could be in a back room destroying physical evidence.

 

[notabadname]

All the stuff is blah blah blah because it still boils down to is it has to be proven Gizmo knew it was stolen when they bought it.

The guy claimed he tried to return it and since he did that well Gizmodo is in the clear. Gizmodo is under no legal obligation to turn over the guy either.

That point along kills everything else you said.

Wrong. Whether the seller acted properly is independent of whether Gizmodo acted criminally. It is also unlawful to buy lost property that the seller didn't have rights to, even if the seller presumed he did. Gizmodo was fully aware that the phone was not the seller's. They also detailed in their write-up their historical knowledge of Apple's developmental prototype serial numbers, one of which was on the exterior of the phone. The very fact that they payed $5,000 dollars further proves they understood the value, and more importunely, the source of the phone. This further substantiated their knowledge that the seller could not possess the property rights to the device. Even if the seller thought that he had acted reasonably, Gizmodo's expertise in that area will discredit any argument that it was "reasonable" for them to believe that the phone was anything but lost property or that the seller possessed the right of ownership to make such a sale.

 

[persona1138]

Nobody was home...they could have waited and entered together. This was drama and abuse of power.

Actually, no, they had a search warrant. For all they knew, the guy could be home and unwilling to open the door. If you commit a crime, and they have a warrant, they have a legal right to enter your home. It's not 1984, it's not a police state...

If I started stealing property from the neighborhood, and I was the confirmed (even self-proclaiming!) thief, and the police got a warrant, they could enter my home. Warrants like these require more than just a vague suspicion. And believe me, there was no uncertainty... Gizmodo BRAGGED about paying 5000 bucks for the device.

 

[coleridge78]

Nope..because I read the article where the police admitted to forcing entry and then explaining it to Chen later

I've rarely met a cop (and I've met a lot) who wasn't lazy, dishonest, a convicted stalker, or a thief, or an abuser, or some other sort of rogue. That said, I also hate douchebags who steal other people's stuff, and douchebags who think they're above the law and would readily destroy evidence of their theft--especially after, just for fun, ruining some poor schlub's reputation because he had the gall to be the victim of a theft.

In short, even as a dyed-in-the-wool fascist-hater, I don't see any reasonable alternative to serving this sort of warrant in this fashion.

 

[chaosconan]

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.

I'm okay with a police state. It's better than a rogue state

 

[jaykk]

How? They are not "answerable" at all. Say the company collapsed for some reason the filthy rich people at the top would remain filthy rich and they would sell out all their investors by filing bankruptcy. The people who make the choices are completely out of touch with reality and will never suffer for lack of anything even if Apple fails today.

Karma is a bit*ch.. Look at what happened to all the top Enron executives - they are all either committed suicide or died in a mysterious circumstances (overseas).

 

[batchtaster]

Nope..because I read the article where the police admitted to forcing entry and then explaining it to Chen later

Because they're allowed to. What, are they just all supposed to sit on the steps until he comes home? Leave a post-it on the door? There are laws regarding execution of a search warrant. You read something and without any knowledge go "aha!!! they admitted they were wrong!!!" when you don't even know what rules there are about this sort of thing.

 

[pastparticiple]

The evidence is on a computer! Connected to the internet. You don't have to be home to destroy it.

Also, how would they know if anyone was home? Someone could be in a back room destroying physical evidence.

You have watched too many Law and Order episodes. There are also ways to cut off service without kicking down the door like someone is dying in there. Treating this like some violent, life at stake crime is stupid. More effort is put into protecting billion dollar companies than people's lives often. I am sure the Police would prefer to be doing something useful rather than being Apple's servants.

Because they're allowed to. What, are they just all supposed to sit on the steps until he comes home? Leave a post-it on the door? There are laws regarding execution of a search warrant. You read something and without any knowledge go "aha!!! they admitted they were wrong!!!" when you don't even know what rules there are about this sort of thing.

Of course they are allowed to...but it's not "reasonable". Yes they can try to contact him by phone and ask him to come home. There is no real need to treat it like a hostage situation. I know more about the rules than you think and I still find it massive overkill.

I am not anti police...I am anti ridiculousness. Common sense and reasonability should rule not paperwork.

 

[Chiisu]

I'm not surprised by this. Gizmodo's own story provided enough probably cause for a search warrant. They knew this was a possible out come from the story. Their defense as outlined in their letter just doesn't hold up either, They knowingly trafficked in stolen property, then took said property apart and published photos of it. I'm not sure, but that sounds like it could be industrial espionage. Their source (the "finder") doesn't seem like he would really qualify for protection either, being the other party in the stolen goods trafficking. His story of trying to return the phone just doesn't hold up.

That said, I doubt that this means the end of Gizmodo, this kind of controversy is generally good for page hits.

I would have to say that this story does sadly show the direction of some posters ethical and moral compasses.

 

[johnhw]

The Reason why the police got the phone is to check if Apple bumped up the processor and the RAM, if it has a 5 Megapixel camera and a front facing camera.