Nobody has provided a rational argument for why the police or Apple look bad in this, because they don't.
Not to mention you forgot Gizmodo and the seller, the ones who actually look bad here.
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
Nobody has provided a rational argument for why the police or Apple look bad in this, because they don't.
Not to mention you forgot Gizmodo and the seller, the ones who actually look bad here.
Let me connect the dots for you...
The finder of the iPhone does not do his due diligence to find the owner of the phone, turns and sells it to Giz, this now becomes theft.
Giz buys the phone knowing full well how the finder came into possession of the phone, thus becoming theft even if Giz believes the finder did his due diligence to find the owner. It doesn't matter what Giz thinks here, it matters what the law says.
Giz publicly stated they bought a stolen iPhone prototype, thus further propagating the need for legal action taken against them.
It doesn't matter if you think it's just a phone or if you think the finder did everything he could to find the owner, the finder did not - period.
NOT true. If the finder did his due diligence, then it's no longer theft. It's buying a lost item. All that matters is that Gizmodo was lead to believe it was not a stolen item.
And ANYONE that says Gizmodo didn't know what they were looking at is in serious denial. Either that or Chen is a complete idiot.
Why do you think they paid FIVE THOUSAND for it ?
Why do you think they paid FIVE THOUSAND for it ?
Either way, it's about proof. Sure, they probably knew what was going on. But it's a matter of what you can prove.
Yes, they hoped that it was REAL and had been LOST.
In order to determine that it was real, they had to determine the owner. They did. It ceased to be "lost" and became "stolen" when they determined the owner and did not return it. They then failed to return the device before profiting illegally from it. This is possession of stolen goods, no question.
==
Imagine I buy a phone off some guy that I suspect is my friend Jennifer's, but I don't buy it with the intention of returning it to her... I buy it with the intention of getting off the nude photos that I've heard she's got on there.
I turn it on; I find her naked pics. I post them on a paid-porno site on the Internet and make tons of money from them. Jennifer finds the pics online and contacts me saying "I WANT MY PHONE BACK NOW". I send it back to her, but by now the damage is already done--her naked pics are all over the Internet.
Sorry, but I go to prison for possession of stolen goods AND for invasion of privacy.
FACT.
The finder DID NOT do his due diligence. It's been said at least 40 times, ultimately you have to turn the found item over to law enforcement for a period of time and only after that time can the finder claim the property as theirs if it has not been obtained by the original owner.
So according to you, if I see you drop your iPhone, I can pick it up and take it home with me. I can then call Apple support and ask them if they want it. If they say no, I get to keep your iPhone as now I'm the rightful owner?
Actually think about what you are saying.
The proof was written all over their website, tweets, etc.
They have already foolishly incriminated themselves.
First, the general rule for lost property is to turn it over to the cops, and if now one claims it after a certain period of time, you can claim it. No such attempt was made by the guy that found the phone. Did Gizmodo know if this phone belonged to the guy? They could claim they didn't know and have no obligation to turn it over until it was revealed to them that it was stolen, which they then furnished the phone to Apple. The warrant, is really excessive for a goddam phone...I have had phones stolen three times, GPS enabled, no one gave ****. Thank you cops for confirming that deeper pockets gets you better police protection.
Second, purchasing the property is a bit tricky. Gizmodo would have to have the requisite mens rea to possess stolen property. To do so you must evince an intent to deprive the owner of the property. They may have only intended to hold onto the item in order to run their story. What goes against that is paying $5,000.00 for something does not really show them as intending to return it.
The trade secrets argument mentioned is preposterous. When a person responsible for handling a "sensitive" item acts negligently by taking it to a bar, consumes alcohol (presumably) and leaves it in the bar...that is on Apple and their employee. Anyone who picks up that phone and turns it on would be violating trade secrets under previous posts' theories. One solid theory is that if Gizmodo knew without question that this was a prototype and taking it apart was an attempt to reverse-engineer the technology, then they could have some problems...in a civil suit. They could always claim they thought it was a custom phone...that is flimsy, but remember, it is beyond a reasonable doubt so every little detail counts.
One would think that this would have been GPS-enabled and would have had some remote technology to inform the "thief" that it was Apple property and promptly return it. I can do that with my 3GS and my 3G. Even have some software in the phone that can send a signal or send a message when it is connected to an unauthorized computer.
I think Apple's shares a little negligence and Gizmodo was more than a little bone-headed for doing what they did. Come on, if you left your new iPhone in a bar, Gizmodo couldn't buy one because they are sold out, pays the bartender $5,000.00 for your phone, you'd be pretty pissed since they know it is not theirs.
Second, purchasing the property is a bit tricky. Gizmodo would have to have the requisite mens rea to possess stolen property. To do so you must evince an intent to deprive the owner of the property. They may have only intended to hold onto the item in order to run their story. What goes against that is paying $5,000.00 for something does not really show them as intending to return it.
The trade secrets argument mentioned is preposterous. When a person responsible for handling a "sensitive" item acts negligently by taking it to a bar, consumes alcohol (presumably) and leaves it in the bar...that is on Apple and their employee. Anyone who picks up that phone and turns it on would be violating trade secrets under previous posts' theories. One solid theory is that if Gizmodo knew without question that this was a prototype and taking it apart was an attempt to reverse-engineer the technology, then they could have some problems...in a civil suit. They could always claim they thought it was a custom phone...that is flimsy, but remember, it is beyond a reasonable doubt so every little detail counts.
One would think that this would have been GPS-enabled and would have had some remote technology to inform the "thief" that it was Apple property and promptly return it. I can do that with my 3GS and my 3G. Even have some software in the phone that can send a signal or send a message when it is connected to an unauthorized computer.
I think Apple's shares a little negligence and Gizmodo was more than a little bone-headed for doing what they did. Come on, if you left your new iPhone in a bar, Gizmodo couldn't buy one because they are sold out, pays the bartender $5,000.00 for your phone, you'd be pretty pissed since they know it is not theirs.
^QFT
The fact that the phone was never in police custody proves that the finder didn't do his due diligence. Calling an Applecare line is not the same as trying to contact the responsible party for the phone.
As I said earlier. IMO Chen will be lucky if he is able to plead this down and I would be very surprised if Apple doesn't make a claim against Gawker in civil court for lost trade secrets and intellectual property to imitators and competitors (the breach of trade secrets comes from posting teardown pictures of a prototype product on the internet), marketing & advertising loses, & potentially lost sales.
OBVIOUSLY the finder didn't do his due diligence. We're talking about from Gizmodo's perspective.Something is not stolen by virtue of being a prototype. If you leave your prototype sitting outside, and I find it, I didn't steal it.
Where did I say anything like this "it's stolen because it's a prototype" silliness? And yes, you DID steal it if you kept it without making an attempt to find its proper owner (including turning it over to the authorities).
Yes if the courts, which they won't, decide the finder did his due diligence, then no crime was committed. However it clearly states in the law that the finder did not do enough and thus committed theft.
Look back at my connect the dots post, see where i typed that Giz publicly stated they bought a stolen iPhone... You believe everything else Giz has posted about this incident but you glanced over this rather big fact.
Ok, it wasn't prudent to buy the phone, but that doesn't alter the fact that the cops were legally required to get a subpoena, not a warrant, under the circumstances. The cops probably acted too quickly under real or perceived pressure from Apple.
It doesn't matter from Giz's perspective, they bought stolen property and for the THIRD time they openly admitted to it on their site.
Gizmodo tried to take a bike out of Apple. But instead it got a whipping it will never forget!!!
You said that it became stolen when they determined the owner and didn't return it? When did they determine the owner? I would argue they determined the owner when Apple said it was their's and wanted it back, at which point they returned it. You seem to be saying they determined the owner when they took it apart and found Apple written inside.
There you go. Transport stolen property across state lines, and involve those sweeties at the FBI instead of those big bad detectives from that fascist San Mateo Sheriff's Office.
So let me get this straight, am I stealing in the following situations?
#1) My friend has his car stolen and I happen to find out who stole it, but I'm afraid of reporting them to the police for whatever reason. However, being rich, I decide to buy the car and give it to my friend immediately since I figure he will be happy to have his car back unharmed, and I couldn't care less about wasting a couple thousand dollars so as to do good.
#2) Same as first situation, but while driving it over to my friend's house I decide to take pictures of the car and share them with some of my other friends.
#3) Same as #2 but I also am curious to know about the mechanics of this car, so I take a couple of hours to dissemble it. I carefully rebuild the car to the exact way it was and then return it.
Which cases are theft, which not, and why?
#1) My friend has his car stolen and I happen to find out who stole it, but I'm afraid of reporting them to the police for whatever reason. However, being rich, I decide to buy the car and give it to my friend immediately since I figure he will be happy to have his car back unharmed, and I couldn't care less about wasting a couple thousand dollars so as to do good.
#2) Same as first situation, but while driving it over to my friend's house I decide to take pictures of the car and share them with some of my other friends.
#3) Same as #2 but I also am curious to know about the mechanics of this car, so I take a couple of hours to dissemble it. I carefully rebuild the car to the exact way it was and then return it.
Which cases are theft, which not, and why?
You have no clue... A subpoena is a writ to appear in court before a judge. A warrant is a lawful document giving law enforcement agents the ability to search the location and seize said property that falls under the guidelines of the warrant.
The search warrant was granted because there was probable cause that a crime was committed and that property was to be seized to investigate what Jason/Giz truly knew about the device in question.
This only matters if Gizmodo KNEW that the guy didn't do due diligence. So, if the courts decide the finder didn't do due diligence, how does this have any bearing on Gizmodo if they were under the impression that he had? It seems like you're assuming that Gizmodo is responsible for whatever the guy did or did not do, which is a complete misreading of the law. It only matters if they KNEW the guy was doing something illegal, and bought it anyway.
Subpoena - a writ issued by a government agency that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence, the agency most often a court, under a penalty for failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena
If they are looking for corroborating evidence that Chen knew that he was taking possession of stolen property or that by posting pictures of a prototype (see trade secrets) device on the internet, he was potentially breaking the law, then why would they be required to get a subpoena? They are probably not trying to get Chen to give up the seller as they can or already have gotten his identity through investigation or forensics.