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

[awmazz]

For the love of god please read at least a page of what has already been posted before you write the same freak out post thats already been posted and disproven.

The problem with popular forums is it takes all day to read every post in a 46 page (and counting) thread. Who's got that sort of time to check if someone else has already posted a similar observation or opinion to the one you want to make?

For all I know, somebody's probably already made the same point back on page 27 or something.

 

[awesomator]

And lets all their competitors know where they're going with the next-gen months before it's announced.

True but for the most part most new features will be software related. Besides looks which i would not consider a feature all they have confirmed is

-new sim card
-front facing camera
-probably better battery life
-probably higher definition screen.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

2. Dismantling and publicly displaying the prototype iPhone, which Gizmodo believed to be a real deal, shows disregard and contempt for the people who built this. People's hardwork, time, and lives are on the line. I don't care if it is Apple, Microsoft, or Google. It is irresponsible.

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. I wonder how much money Apple will lose because we saw the iPhone early and it is nothing surprising. Next to nothing. If anything it is extra publicity. The culture of secretiveness is all very well, don't start making it out to be a matter of life and death.

 

[gabe2gg]

"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 ny suggestion that the perpetrator must harbor any additional specific intent.


Here is the California Law. Guys dont flame me i didnt create the law.

 

[cmaier]

I see, but that is only one party. I want to see/hear evidence from both parties before making my final judgment... based on hard evidence of course (like anyone here cares LOL).

Generally, when someone says something against their own legal interests, I tend to believe them. Gizmodo would be much better off if they said they hadn't bought the phone, but had just taken it from the finder in order to return it to its proper owner.

 

[quackquack]

It doesn't matter what the "believed." A reasonable person, given the fact that it had a dock connector, the fact that it booted to the "connect to itunes" screen, the fact that it had apple branding, the fact that when connected to itunes was recognized as an iphone, and the fact that it ran iphone apps (including facebook), and the circumstances of how it was found, would know it was an iphone prototype. The law doesn't allow you to willfully ignore that which is obvious. "I didn't mean to kill him because my eyes were closed so I thought he was a monster."

Further, the fact that they paid $5000 is proof they had not just constructive knowledge, but actual knowledge as well.

Being in possession of a prototype is NOT the same as having stole that prototype. Now, there could be some law about exposing trade secrets that I don't know much about (there probably is), but everyone talking about Gizmodo stealing things are way off base.

 

[persona1138]

I think most of the disagreement in this thread are caused by the fact that Apple fans believe that the whole World has to do their best to protect Apple secrets and Steve's peace of mind whilst other people believe that most people have better things to do

THAT'S the problem on this thread. Listen, just because people here are defending the government's investigation of Gizmodo does NOT mean, by default, that they're defending Apple. (Only indirectly.)

Gizmodo broke the law (allegedly, and I believe they did). That's the issue here. Don't defend Gizmodo because you feel that Apple's secretive business practices are "evil"... You're just playing into Gizmodo's hand. You're playing into their silly efforts to be seen as David vs. Goliath.

For me, personally, it's not about defending Apple's secrets, or business practices. Gizmodo publicly, braggingly BROKE THE LAW, and they are thieves. Please don't assume that just because I see Gizmodo as the bad guy, that I'm putting Apple on an ivory tower. They're companies, end of story. And Gizmodo bought stolen property in an effort to get more viewers. That's shady, and I'll never visit their website again.

 

[Master Chief]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is...

What a great picture... reminding me about his: "I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman". Right. She only gave him a b...j... What's in a word

 

[cmaier]

True but for the most part most new features will be software related. Besides looks which i would not consider a feature all they have confirmed is

-new sim card
-front facing camera
-probably better battery life
-probably higher definition screen.

Wrong.

1) camera flash
2) definitely higher res screen
3) A4 variant processor (based on model number in photo)
4) bigger battery
5) new design, including glass back
6) front facing camera
7) higher capacity "disk"
8) sound-cancelling mic
9) microsim

among other things non-experts haven't noticed yet. Additionally it told us what WASN'T there:

1) no bigger screen
2) no cdma chip
3) no indicator lights
4) no backside touch or under-screen touch strip

etc.

 

[pooryou]

You do know that there is a world outside of all the MR suck-ups don't you? Then again, that's about as productive as asking Gizzards if they know there's a world outside of the Gawker universe.

Yeah, because out in the "real" world people think Gizmodo and their "journalism" is so important that it's ok for them to break laws to get us this "essential" information, right?

Your own argument shoots itself down. The only people who would defend Gizmodo in this are a fringe segment of Mac fans, and Apple haters, neither of which are anything close to mainstream.

 

[Revelation78]

This is patently false. The specific legal writing has been posted many times, and it makes reference to KNOWING the property is stolen. If I give you a birthday present, and I stole that present but didn't tell you, you really think that you'll end up in jail?

That's what investigations are for. In the scenario you presented it would be reasonable for the receiver of the gift to believe the gift was genuine and not stolen. The receiver of the gift would have to forfeit the gift to the police as evidence, and eventually returned the the rightful owner, to prosecute the giver of the gift.

The receiver of said gift could still be charged with possession of stolen property, yet it very rarely happens as the receiver of the gift is generally also viewed as a victim in most cases.

Lack of knowledge of the law or criminal act is not a valid defense in the US or any country. It is your responsibility to know and follow the laws of the land.

 

[awmazz]

First, let's pretend that calling applecare was reasonable (it wasn't). You ask what else did he have to do. The answer is clearly written in the California law. He has to TAKE THE DAMNED PHONE TO THE POLICE. Only after he's done that and the appropriate waiting time has passed does he own the phone, at which point he is free to sell it.

Stop trying to inject fact and reality into a good discussion.

 

[EstrlM3]

Even if you take their account at face value, it is clear the individuals who sold this unit to Gizmodo made no serious attempt to return the phone.

Thus, even if the phone originally came into their hands by being lost, once they made no “reasonable and just” effort to return it and instead began trying to sell it, it became stolen.

 

[Bueller007]

They had no proof it was an Apple prototype until Apple confirmed it to them in a letter, at which point they returned it. Get it?

As has already been pointed out, it doesn't matter if they had "proof" or not. Further, they paid $5000 for a phone, which indicates that whatever it actually was, they bought it with the HOPE that it was a stolen item (i.e., one for which they could ascertain the owner and to whom they could easily return it).

They did "research" into it (i.e., seeking out the iPad image, taking it apart and confirming that there's actually Apple gear inside), then they announced that they were quite sure it was real. Rather than returning it then (as they would be required to do under the law), they chose to profit off of it first, and in a way that is in itself almost certainly illegal (equivalent to invasion of privacy).

I thought it was illegal when the story first came up, and I'm glad the police are involved. You can't pay someone $5000 for something you hope belongs to someone else, confirm that it belongs to someone else, and then profit off of it illegally.

 

[gr8tfly]

welcome to the Police State

I hope you never have to find out what that truly means.

That said, didn't anyone ever teach you that if you break the law, they will come and get you (including breaking into your home to get you and/or the evidence)?

 

[zub3qin]

With nearly 1000 posts in a few hours on this Gizmodo/Apple/SWAT team thing, and a lot of anger on these boards, maybe we should all agree to disagree and look forward.

Any guesses as to how Apple will handle the Keynote now that the leak has occurred? Take the poll I posted on the iPhone page of Macrumors.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/905282/

70% of Macrumors respondents have voted that Apple will act like there was no leak and nothing unusual happened when the iPhone 4G is announced at the coming Keynote.

Cast your vote and move on from this post- it is just a snakepit of anger and venom.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9770558&posted=1#post9770558

 

[mrJnC]

The problem with popular forums is it takes all day to read every post in a 46 page (and counting) thread. Who's got that sort of time to check if someone else has already posted a similar observation or opinion to the one you want to make?

For all I know, somebody's probably already made the same point back on page 27 or something.

All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

 

[cmaier]

Being in possession of a prototype is NOT the same as having stole that prototype. Now, there could be some law about exposing trade secrets that I don't know much about (there probably is), but everyone talking about Gizmodo stealing things are way off base.

Receiving stolen goods is a crime, just like stealing them in the first place.

And, yes, there is a law about misappropriation of trade secrets.

 

[quackquack]

That's what investigations are for. In the scenario you presented it would be reasonable for the receiver of the gift to believe the gift was genuine and not stolen. The receiver of the gift would have to forfeit the gift to the police as evidence, and eventually returned the the rightful owner, to prosecute the giver of the gift.

The receiver of said gift could still be charged with possession of stolen property, yet it very rarely happens as the receiver of the gift is generally also viewed as a victim in most cases.

Lack of knowledge of the law or criminal act is not a valid defense in the US or any country. It is your responsibility to know and follow the laws of the land.

This is NOT lack of knowledge of the law. It's lack of knowledge of the property having been stolen. COMPLETELY different.

 

[scottness]

70% of respondents vote that Apple acts like nothing happened at the iPhone 4G Keynote.

Cast your vote and move on from this post- it is just a snakepit of anger and venom.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9770558&posted=1#post9770558

Yeah, this thread has gone beyond silly.

 

[Revelation78]

Being in possession of a prototype is NOT the same as having stole that prototype. Now, there could be some law about exposing trade secrets that I don't know much about (there probably is), but everyone talking about Gizmodo stealing things are way off base.

It's not way off basis! If you ever become a lawyer let me know so I never hire you - I'd take my chances with a public defender over you any day of the week.

If you purchase goods that a reasonable person to believe be stolen, then you knowingly bought stolen property which is a crime, falls under theft. Theft deals with stealing - maybe you didn't get at in the other hundreds of posts that cited California law that describes with Giz did as theft.

There's obviously a lot you don't know about...

 

[quackquack]

As has already been pointed out, it doesn't matter if they had "proof" or not. Further, they paid $5000 for a phone, which indicates that whatever it actually was, they bought it with the HOPE that it was a stolen item (i.e., one for which they could ascertain the owner and to whom they could easily return it).

They did "research" into it (i.e., seeking out the iPad image, taking it apart and confirming that there's actually Apple gear inside), then they announced that they were quite sure it was real. Rather than returning it then (as they would be required to do under the law), they chose to profit off of it first, and in a way that is in itself almost certainly illegal (equivalent to invasion of privacy).

I thought it was illegal when the story first came up, and I'm glad the police are involved. You can't pay someone $5000 for something you hope belongs to someone else, confirm that it belongs to someone else, and then profit off of it illegally.

No... they HOPED it was a real prototype that had been lost by a negligent employee. Not the same thing as stolen.

 

[quackquack]

It's not way off basis! If you ever become a lawyer let me know so I never hire you - I'd take my chances with a public defender over you any day of the week.

If you purchase goods that a reasonable person to believe be stolen, then you knowingly bought stolen property which is a crime, falls under theft. Theft deals with stealing - maybe you didn't get at in the other hundreds of posts that cited California law that describes with Giz did as theft.

There's obviously a lot you don't know about...

I'll ignore the insults, no reason to be rude. Just trying to have a discussion, yeesh.

Anyways, the crux of the issue is whether or not it was a known theft. The guy claimed he made a reasonable effort to contact the owner. If you can prove that Gizmodo knew otherwise, then yes, by all means, they conducted a criminal act.

 

[merlintl]

Everyone looks bad in this one......

- Police
- Apple
- the idiot who lost the iPhone

plus whomever revealed the idiot engineer's name. yeah, he's an idiot but he's probably in enough trouble at the job without being humiliated in the public arena as well.....

 

[Master Chief]

Generally, when someone says something against their own legal interests, I tend to believe them. Gizmodo would be much better off if they said they hadn't bought the phone, but had just taken it from the finder in order to return it to its proper owner.

I hear you. I'm just mind boggled about the fact that they openly admitted to have payed, in cash, to some anonymous person – which may in fact be denied at a later time – instead of something far more obvious.