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

[frogger2020]

Gizmodo is a piss poor attempt at actual journalism anyway. I know that doesn't make a difference to the case but it boggles the mind as to why people are sticking up for these up their own ass, holier than thou idiots.

Exactly the same as Apple fanboys sticking up for everything Apple/Steve Jobs

 

[ateslik]

Jesus christ, it's a ****ing phone not the cure for cancer. Did you guys read the inventory of things the police took from his home? Among the things confiscated was a box of his business cards. Lolwut? And unless you live under a rock, everybody and their brother knows that Chen took possesion of the phone, so was it really necessary to bust down his door and take that much gear especially when Apple more than likely already has their jesus phone back?

It's not about the phone anymore. It's about the actions, and the willful disregard for the law. To be far too painfully obvious since you don't seem to realize it, they're looking for the name of the guy who sold it to Gizmodo.

 

[persona1138]

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.

What do you suggest? That the police leave a message? Send a candygram? They had a warrant, deal with it.

 

[quackquack]

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.

*facepalm*

AGAIN, show me one shred of evidence that Gizmodo admitted it was STOLEN, in their own words. Lost does not equal stolen. Just because it's a prototype doesn't mean it was STOLEN. The guy claimed he found a LOST phone. The law is referring to STOLEN phones. Even if it was in fact stolen, it was purported to have been found to Gizmodo. How is this so hard to understand?

 

[chaosconan]

Wow

We have surpassed 1000 comments. Awesome...

 

[coleridge78]

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)?

What part of "sending a letter" constitutes returning?

You also conveniently ignored the "... or the police" part. If you don't hear back from the owner after two days (even if you contacted them in a reasonable manner, which a support ticket to a gigantic corporation does not remotely resemble) and you want to wash your hands of it, you are allowed to turn it over to the police. Not sell it. If you disagree, I suggest you don't "find" anything in any state in the United States that someone is likely to come looking for. And which has their contact information on it, which you then publish on the internet after admitting to having stolen their property.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

What are those ways to cut off his service? He could have have a 3G connection and battery backup. Do the police need to have a cell jammer whenever they serve a warrant?

And, again, how would the police know if he was at home destroying evidence and refusing to answer the door?

 

[mac jones]

That guy at the bar so stole that iPhone.

Then, when he realized it was valuable, he sold it to the media.

He's probably in the pokey already.

Note: If I happend on someones car keys or phone in a store, I would tend to hand it over to the store.

 

[MacSA]

So did the guy who "found" the phone in the bar simply call Gizmodo and offer it for sale? How long did he wait before deciding to sell, a few days? what are the time scales here?

 

[cmaier]

If you disagree, I suggest you don't "find" anything in any state in the United States that someone is likely to come looking for. And which has their contact information on it, which you then publish on the internet after admitting to having stolen their property.

Feel free to "find." Just don't pick it up and take it with you. Leave it where it was, and then you don't have any responsibility to do anything with it.

 

[redkamel]

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.

That was different. People like getting free music. They don't like overpaying record companies. People hate record companies.

On the other had, people like Apple (well, many do, and so does the media). People aren't getting anything free from Gizmodo. And this case is a little less murky; it involves buying an stolen/misplaced prototype, not torrent tracking.

 

[gleepskip]

After the DA gets his conviction(s), then we will see Apple's civil response. Apple will take a buzz saw to Gawker. I can't wait to watch.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Man gizmo is soooooooooo screwed. Did chen watch pirates of silicon valley? In Steve's eyes Chen is the new Bill Gates and he'll probably spend his own money to put gizmo in the Ground. I doubt he didn't think there was going to be some serious consequences for this nonsense. The way he threw it up on his website in full detail and named the guy who lost it....yeah you guys are done start filing unemployment cuz it takes a few weeks to get setup!

 

[persona1138]

*facepalm*

AGAIN, show me one shred of evidence that Gizmodo admitted it was STOLEN, in their own words. Lost does not equal stolen. Just because it's a prototype doesn't mean it was STOLEN. The guy claimed he found a LOST phone. The law is referring to STOLEN phones. Even if it was in fact stolen, it was purported to have been found to Gizmodo. How is this so hard to understand?

Lost + No "reasonable effort" to return the "lost" property = STOLEN, according to the state of California. And Gizmodo bought "stolen" property. How is THAT so hard to understand?

 

[batchtaster]

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.

So, in your head, the whole thing is like a hostage situation, with big squads of police cars filling the street, people with guns running up and down and helicopters flying overhead. The whole thing was probably incredibly boring, and they just wanted to get in and get out and be done. If I'm allowed to just go in, get the damn job done and get out, then I bloody well would too. Particularly if there is a "reasonable" risk of evidence being destroyed remotely while waiting. See, I can play the "reasonable" card too. There is no evidence that the search was conducted improperly. Just that you would prefer that they go out of their way to do optional extras they're not required to. Well, when your house is inevitably searched, then you can raise it with the cops then.

 

[Cartaphilus]

If the clumsy ass apple employee lost the phone, then why should gizmodo be prosecuted for it? Why would I take apple's side in the matter at all. It wasn't like they actually "stole" anything. I don't even see how this would be against the law in the first place. But, as I said previously, money makes people go along with just about anything.

This is only happening because it was APPLE's phone that was stolen.

I agree with you that this is being handled differently than the everyday pocketing of somebody's misplaced cell phone. And I'm thrilled that it is. This way people like you will learn that being, in your adorable phrase, "clumsy ass", does not strip that person of their right to own property, and that when anyone unintentionally becomes separated from their valuable property and another person finds it, then if the finder takes the property for himself without making a reasonable and just attempt to return it to the owner, he is guilty of theft. If you like, stealing the phone.

Have you considered that your personal inability to "see how this goes against the law" is a product of your personal utter ignorance of the law (not to say morality) rather than a product of Apple having earned money over a period of some thirty years? Don't you think you'd be happier if you learned something about a topic and discovered that Apple and the authorities are acting properly rather than wallow in ignorance, and despair that monied interests are subverting justice?

 

[persona1138]

So, in your head, the whole thing is like a hostage situation, with big squads of police cars filling the street, people with guns running up and down and helicopters flying overhead. The whole thing was probably incredibly boring, and they just wanted to get in and get out and be done. If I'm allowed to just go in, get the damn job done and get out, then I bloody well would too. There is no evidence that the search was conducted improperly. Just that you would prefer that they go out of their way to do something they're not required to. Well, when your house is inevitably searched, then you can raise it with the cops then.

D@mn straight, man.

 

[Anuba]

I can't believe people are still doing the back-and-forth on the legality of Gizmodo's actions and the correct interpretation of "reasonable effort", like it was last week. That snoozefest is the least interesting part of this story now. Do you honestly believe that once it's been established that Giz committed a crime, everyone will go "Ah! That settles it then. Yay Apple!"...?

The interesting part is whether this turn of events will generate badwill for Apple, which it has the potential of doing no matter how just their cause is.

 

[coleridge78]

*facepalm*

AGAIN, show me one shred of evidence that Gizmodo admitted it was STOLEN, in their own words. Lost does not equal stolen. Just because it's a prototype doesn't mean it was STOLEN. The guy claimed he found a LOST phone. The law is referring to STOLEN phones. Even if it was in fact stolen, it was purported to have been found to Gizmodo. How is this so hard to understand?

http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-iphone-back

Facepalm to you, friend. You can purport that the Rolexes in your coat are legitimate, but if you're selling them for $100 in an alley the law assumes (rightly) that I know they're stolen.

 

[mccldwll]

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.

Yes. Guilty of theft. And I doubt you'd enjoy the trial that much.

 

[coleridge78]

Feel free to "find." Just don't pick it up and take it with you. Leave it where it was, and then you don't have any responsibility to do anything with it.

Yeah. I was intending to convey that by putting in "find" in quotes.

 

[saxamoophone]

Thanks for the update.

Sounds like they just want to get all the facts, which is fair enough.

I think Gizmodos report of the situation (if fully true) is ethically questionable...but unless there is malicious theft involved, I don't know if they can really charge anyone here.

 

[pastparticiple]

Wow...I hope that next time any of you that love Gizmodo getting hammered do something in a "gray area" (and most people do that often and don't realize it, or do realize it and don't care) that you get taken to the wall so we can see how "right" you think it is then.

Hypocrites.

So, in your head, the whole thing is like a hostage situation, with big squads of police cars filling the street, people with guns running up and down and helicopters flying overhead. The whole thing was probably incredibly boring, and they just wanted to get in and get out and be done.

Oh by all means let's break down a door because we are impatient. Once again use COMMON SENSE and REASONABLE ACTION, not what you CAN do because you feel like it. And good try trying to belittle my comment by making it sound all melodramatic. Breaking in and trying to keep the owner in the dark was not warranted by the nature of the investigation. Simple. Nobody said there were people running all over shooting.

 

[lilo777]

Lost + No "reasonable effort" to return the "lost" property = STOLEN, according to the state of California. And Gizmodo bought "stolen" property. How is THAT so hard to understand?

Define "reasonable". We know that there was an effort. Whether it was reasonable or not - it's for court to decide. If anything, thanks to Gizmodo Apple got their phone back. I'd say this alone proves that the effort was reasonable. It might be not as forceful as Steve wanted it but then the laws are not written for him personally.

 

[Master Chief]

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.

Some of us here simply want to see evidence about how Gizmodo obtained this device, from both sides, before we take words like "crime" or "criminals" in our mouth. And that is also one of the reasons [and to obtain the identity of the finder] to seize these computers... to obtain evidence. Law works, or should work, with facts aka evidence. Not silly assumptions.