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

[firewood]

Does this alleged crime require "intent"?

There are some parts of the world where handing a lost item of value to a bar owner or the local police is less likely to result in the property being returned to the rightful owner than is handing the item to an investigative newspaper reporter. This has actually been mentioned about what to do with found phones in some major cities in this very forum.

but IANAL.

 

[persona1138]

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.

This back and forth is happening because apparently people don't understand what constitutes "theft." They seem to think "Finders Keepers" is the law.

But I agree... It will be interesting to see how it affects Apple. But frankly, it's out of Apple's hands now. If I made a police report, and the police knew who the (self-proclaimed) thieves were... It makes their job easy. It's out of their hands... It's in the government's now.

 

[coleridge78]

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.

Most of us aren't so arrogant as to think that knowingly buying stolen property, willfully misappropriating trade secrets, and defaming one of the victims, is a "gray area".

 

[Cartaphilus]

The guy who sold gizmodo the iPhone will also have to include it's sale (and his 5k profit) on next years tax return.

Maybe not if he had no other gross income in excess of $4,350.00

 

[azurehi]

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.

1. "inevitably searched"...WTF?

2. Front door busted down...WTF?

 

[Schicksal]

Oooo I saw something just like this on Judge Judy this afternoon. It doesn't end well, AND they'll have somebody's grandma yelling at them.

 

[cmaier]

Does this alleged crime require "intent"?

There are some parts of the world where handing a lost item of value to a bar owner or the local police is less likely to result in the property being returned to the rightful owner than is handing the item to an investigative newspaper reporter. This has actually been mentioned about what to do with found phones in some major cities in this very forum.

but IANAL.

The mens rea was met when the "finder" sold the phone. That's not a reasonable method of returning the phone.

 

[wovel]

Never mind, it appears they just took story off front page and removed the iphone4 tag off of it. The permalink still works.

 

[Revelation78]

*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?

It doesn't matter if Gizmodo admits to it or not, it's all about the letter of the law. For instance, if your buddy let you drive car that he was driving, you get pulled over by the police and they determine the car was stolen... Claiming that you didn't know it was stolen and your buddy is letting you drive will not get you off; you'll be arrested and charged for auto theft, possession of stolen property, etc...

Aparently the basic law is hard for you to understand.

 

[coleridge78]

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.

The reasonable effort must be made before, not after, appropriating the item for your own use or profit. That's both the law and what anyone's mother should have taught them.

 

[gleepskip]

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.

Felonies wouldn't be considered a "gray area."

I would only hope that the State would prosecute me as fairly for a crime as they prosecute you. I think anyone here would hope for the same treatment under the law.

 

[pooryou]

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.



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.

You are either a troll or seriously need to go outside and get some fresh air.
Keep up with the histrionics and you will be added to my ignore list.

 

[joeguide4]

Crime is a crime.

I remember several years ago when someone "found" the recipe for Coca Cola, and he tried to sell it to Pepsi. Pepsi did the right thing by having that criminal arrested on the spot, and returning the formula unseen. Pepsi acted responsibly.

Now Engadget paid for a stolen phone, abetted the criminal, broke into the phone and revealed the "formula" to the world and pretended they did nothing wrong. Engadget acted criminally.

I don't understand why people don't get it? Have you guys lost your moral compass?

 

[EstrlM3]

that's that.

 

[inaka]

Does this alleged crime require "intent"?

No.
Next topic.

 

[MacToddB]

"The files are in the computer!"

 

[awmazz]

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.

They raided his house OVER A PHONE?!

I'm sorry, but I never saw a huge problem with Gizmodo buying the phone and writing about it (although they have been really milking it), and I can see the reasoning for making the guy's name (and therefore the consequences of his losing the phone) public.

I can't believe this. I'd be furious. It's a damn phone.

It was a prototype design in a multi-million dollar industry, not the phone you or I carry around. It sold for $5,000 but it was worth a lot more than that in terms of industrial espionage. It could add up to multi-millions for Apple's competitors in their own product development knowing in advance what their main competitor Apple will be releasing.

Had he sold it directly to Taiwan's HTC or Finland's Nokia directly instead of to Gizmodo for a relative pittance of its true value, you'd see it differently I'm sure. Especially as these are foreign companies competing against a US one. That Gizmodo did the acquiring and disassembling and disseminating of the details of the prototype to Apple's competitors (industrial espionage) doesn't really change it.

So much, much more serious than just average Joe having his retail phone lost or stolen, and appropraitely seen that way by US attorneys and police.

 

[persona1138]

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.

"Reasonable" in this case means doing more than calling Apple's Technical Support line. (Which, according to the guys' story, is ALL he really did.)

Let's say you left your phone at a bar... What's the first place you'd call? The bar, right? See if they had your phone, try and pick it up... Whatever. (The guy who lost the phone tried calling the bar many times, to no avail.)

Okay, so let's say the bar doesn't have your phone... What's the next place you'd ask for it? The police, right? Because, BY LAW, if you find lost property, that's one of the places you can hand it over to. But the guy who found it didn't do that, either.

The ONLY point you're right on is that it has yet to be proved in a court of law that he didn't demonstrate a "reasonable" effort to return the phone. But, given the overwhelming evidence that Gizmodo has provided on the story, it's clear to me (and many other people here) that it won't be hard to prove that the phone would, in a court of law, be considered "stolen." And Gizmodo bought it.

Just because there WAS an effort to return the phone doesn't mean that it was "reasonable."

 

[batchtaster]

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.

Exactly.

Just as the finder and Gizmodo could have been reasonable, used common sense and not done the things they did just because they felt like it. But they did anyway. The difference is that the police didn't do anything illegal or against any rules. You still have not demonstrated that they did anything wrong. You just don't like what they did, which is not the same thing.

And good try trying to belittle my comment

Well, you make it so easy.

 

[troop231]

I remember several years ago when someone "found" the recipe for Coca Cola, and he tried to sell it to Pepsi. Pepsi did the right thing by having that criminal arrested on the spot, and returning the formula unseen. Pepsi acted responsibly.

Now Engadget paid for a stolen phone, abetted the criminal, broke into the phone and revealed the "formula" to the world and pretended they did nothing wrong. Engadget acted criminally.

I don't understand why people don't get it? Have you guys lost your moral compass?

WTF are you talking about? It was Gizmodo, not Engadget....

 

[Master Chief]

The mens rea was met when the "finder" sold the phone. That's not a reasonable method of returning the phone.

Who told you that the finder sold it? Where's your evidence? I for one haven't seen it. Not yet that is [the 'sale' has yet to be proven].

 

[joeguide4]

Oops

WTF are you talking about? It was Gizmodo, not Engadget....

I got to get into rehab someday...

 

[pastparticiple]

You are either a troll or seriously need to go outside and get some fresh air.
Keep up with the histrionics and you will be added to my ignore list.

Oh no I am going to be added to some random stranger's ignore list...say it isn't so? When you typed that did you actually think that it would hurt my feelings or something?

Troll is misused all the time when someone wants to try and discredit someone they disagree with.

I think the actions taken by the DA, Police and Apple's pressure behind it all were unreasonable. I know you disagree but that doesnt make me wrong.

 

[scottness]

I remember several years ago when someone "found" the recipe for Coca Cola, and he tried to sell it to Pepsi. Pepsi did the right thing by having that criminal arrested on the spot, and returning the formula unseen. Pepsi acted responsibly.

...

I don't understand why people don't get it? Have you guys lost your moral compass?

Good thing I drink Pepsi.

The moral compass no longer appeals to the masses. Sad, eh? What happened to honor?

 

[lilo777]

The mens rea was met when the "finder" sold the phone. That's not a reasonable method of returning the phone.

But this is not all this guy did. He called Apple, did not he? And they refused to take the phone back. What else did he have to do? Beg them? Apple did not admit that it was their phone. It could have easily been a counterfeit device. I am not sure that the jury will not find a reasonable doubt here.