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
Shiznit is about to go down!
And if the finder of the phone had returned it to Apple rather than selling it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Ya totally, big companies should, like, disregard the law. And stuff.
Perhaps Mr. Chen & Co. should have thought about this more carefully?
The Apple Haters Brigade is not known for rational thought.
Amen. I was mostly amused by the situation until they threw the engineer under the bus. Completely unnecessary and cruel. Payback time.
Gizmodo = sleaze. And it's too bad, as it's Engadget that tolerates the rabid anti-Apple propaganda machine in its comments section. Gizmodo has always done a reasonable job filtering out the trolls.
But Engadget was smart to steer clear of this fiasco and let Gizmodo stick their foot in it.
And if the finder of the phone had returned it to Apple rather than selling it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Ya totally, big companies should, like, disregard the law. And stuff.
Perhaps Mr. Chen & Co. should have thought about this more carefully?
The Apple Haters Brigade is not known for rational thought.
Amen. I was mostly amused by the situation until they threw the engineer under the bus. Completely unnecessary and cruel. Payback time.
Gizmodo = sleaze. And it's too bad, as it's Engadget that tolerates the rabid anti-Apple propaganda machine in its comments section. Gizmodo has always done a reasonable job filtering out the trolls.
But Engadget was smart to steer clear of this fiasco and let Gizmodo stick their foot in it.
No, it's proven. They paid $5000 for it because they thought it was an Apple prototype. By definition, no one other than Apple through official channels had a legal right to sell such a thing, hence it must have been stolen.
It's about time. I was wondering how long this would take.
I'm sorry, but I feel no sympathy for Chen or Gizmodo at all. They took the low road to get this story, purposely left pertinent details out, and then were asses about it.
Chen was an idiot too, not just Gizmodo. He agreed to this when he took the phone into his possession. If it were me, and the legal implications were not immediately clear, I wouldn't have gotten within 100 feet of this thing.
Obviously, they knew about the legal gray area surrounding this phone, otherwise they wouldn't have had a defense in place.
Hardly seems worth it for a million website hits.
I'm sorry, but I feel no sympathy for Chen or Gizmodo at all. They took the low road to get this story, purposely left pertinent details out, and then were asses about it.
Chen was an idiot too, not just Gizmodo. He agreed to this when he took the phone into his possession. If it were me, and the legal implications were not immediately clear, I wouldn't have gotten within 100 feet of this thing.
Obviously, they knew about the legal gray area surrounding this phone, otherwise they wouldn't have had a defense in place.
Hardly seems worth it for a million website hits.
Seriously, if you've ever worked retail management, half the comments in this thread could have easily come from ex-employees as they're led out the door in handcuffs.
Also, the police won't help you if someone pickpockets your wallet. They're not going to waste $50,000 to chase zero leads. But come to them with quality security footage, fingerprints, and compiled records, and you too can get the same door-busting treatment that Apple gets. We do this ALL the time with crime rings or employees that feel the heat.
Also, the police won't help you if someone pickpockets your wallet. They're not going to waste $50,000 to chase zero leads. But come to them with quality security footage, fingerprints, and compiled records, and you too can get the same door-busting treatment that Apple gets. We do this ALL the time with crime rings or employees that feel the heat.
not sure what section 901 states, but my guess is this applies to courtroom/interrogation scenarios and not the actual investigation process.
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
At this point I don't care who is "right" and who is "wrong". It no longer matters. Soon it will be each and every one of us [yes, even YOU] Maybe not today, and maybe not next week. . but soon enough. You have no law to hide behind, they have purchased it part and parcel. You have no enforcement agency to protect you. They own it.
You don't have to believe me, but I know you'll remember my words WHEN it happens.
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
At this point I don't care who is "right" and who is "wrong". It no longer matters. Soon it will be each and every one of us [yes, even YOU] Maybe not today, and maybe not next week. . but soon enough. You have no law to hide behind, they have purchased it part and parcel. You have no enforcement agency to protect you. They own it.
You don't have to believe me, but I know you'll remember my words WHEN it happens.
When my brother lost his credit card a couple years ago, the guy who stole it went to Walmart and a couple other stores. He spend b/t 4-5K before the account was closed.
All the stores had the picture of the guy but the police decided not to pursue the case. They just gave my brother a report so that he could get credit from the credit card co.
All the stores had the picture of the guy but the police decided not to pursue the case. They just gave my brother a report so that he could get credit from the credit card co.
These people are so stupid. They could have gotten all their pictures legally AND given the phone back in a reasonable amount of time. If the original finder had taken detailed pics and then given the phone back to the bar, he could have sent or even sold the pics to Gizmodo. There is no law regarding investigating a found item to determine its ownership.
But the act of keeping it and then selling it to Gizmodo (and Gizmodo publicizing the purchase) looks really bad. Surprised that Gizmodo doesn't have a lawyer to help them with these things. Sure looks like Gizmodo is in a lot of trouble and the phone seller's name will ultimately be revealed.
But the act of keeping it and then selling it to Gizmodo (and Gizmodo publicizing the purchase) looks really bad. Surprised that Gizmodo doesn't have a lawyer to help them with these things. Sure looks like Gizmodo is in a lot of trouble and the phone seller's name will ultimately be revealed.
Anyone blaming Apple for the actions of the POLICE just doesn't get it. They had more than enough evidence to investigate this and are just doing their duty.
Assuming they don't find anything they'll return what they seized and that will be that.
Assuming they don't find anything they'll return what they seized and that will be that.
For the record, I don't like the current heavy-handed methods of the police in breaking down doors over something like this where lives are not at stake.
I have a developer friend who was falsely accused of running a child porn site and had his business destroyed when the FBI raided his house and company and grabbed all his computers and tore them to pieces looking for evidence. (It later turned out that his credit card number had been stolen at a restaurant, then used to register a porn site overseas. He sued the Feds and won a lot of money but it didn't make up for a loss of a year of his life and his reputation.)
However, I also have no love for Gizmodo. They have repeatedly demonstrated almost zero technical knowledge, deleted my corrective comments many times, and are probably the most immature of all the so-called tech blog sites.
I won't wish jail on anyone, but I won't weep if Chen gets fined out of business. And I hope this helps some of the kids around here understand that finders are not always keepers.
I have a developer friend who was falsely accused of running a child porn site and had his business destroyed when the FBI raided his house and company and grabbed all his computers and tore them to pieces looking for evidence. (It later turned out that his credit card number had been stolen at a restaurant, then used to register a porn site overseas. He sued the Feds and won a lot of money but it didn't make up for a loss of a year of his life and his reputation.)
However, I also have no love for Gizmodo. They have repeatedly demonstrated almost zero technical knowledge, deleted my corrective comments many times, and are probably the most immature of all the so-called tech blog sites.
I won't wish jail on anyone, but I won't weep if Chen gets fined out of business. And I hope this helps some of the kids around here understand that finders are not always keepers.
The details of the guy who got the $5000 for the sale of property that wasn't his perhaps? It looks to me that as soon as the person who sold the phone took that cash, it went from a case of a lost phone that could have been returned to a case of theft.
No, because a proper paper like the Times would inform the police and get the guy arrested.
The scoundrels! How dare they take something that doesn't belong to them and dismantle it?!? Oh wait...
Hello Kettle? Yes, this is Pot. You're black.
The fact that so many people are outraged by this is terribly amusing and depressing at the same time. Imagine the prototype phone didn't belong to Apple, but a company contracting for the Department of Defense, would you still scoff at police involvement? The fact remains that Gizmodo had no legal right to do what they did, and now they must face consequences. Their arguement that they "didn't know it was a real iPhone" was moot at the point it was disassembled and there were components labeled Apple all over it. They made their bed, now they must lie in it.
Hello Kettle? Yes, this is Pot. You're black.
The fact that so many people are outraged by this is terribly amusing and depressing at the same time. Imagine the prototype phone didn't belong to Apple, but a company contracting for the Department of Defense, would you still scoff at police involvement? The fact remains that Gizmodo had no legal right to do what they did, and now they must face consequences. Their arguement that they "didn't know it was a real iPhone" was moot at the point it was disassembled and there were components labeled Apple all over it. They made their bed, now they must lie in it.
You miss the point
I think you miss the point. This is a person / company who actively chose to purchase what they knew was not the property of the person selling it, gee for $5,000 I think you know the phone your buying is not a normal phone belonging to the person who is selling it. You then know very well who the owner is, you choose to not return it, and dont give me that crap they tried ... they could have just walked up to the front desk at apple and talked to security and still got a good story out of it.
Hey sure take a few external photo's .. but return it.
But to pull it apart !
This is technology worth millions .. more. It is company research and development worth who knows how much. So where do we draw the line ... it's ok for a media company to knowingly obtain what under the law is stolen property and pull it apart and publish it causing Apple lost $$$$ and having a negative $$ effect on their business.
Hey lets go steal some american military research and pull it apart and steal it, hey lets go steal some gov secrets and sell them.
It does not matter that is was just a phone, a phone in this case is a companies major major business with years of development ...
Gizmo deserve the book thrown at them .. lock him up
I think you miss the point. This is a person / company who actively chose to purchase what they knew was not the property of the person selling it, gee for $5,000 I think you know the phone your buying is not a normal phone belonging to the person who is selling it. You then know very well who the owner is, you choose to not return it, and dont give me that crap they tried ... they could have just walked up to the front desk at apple and talked to security and still got a good story out of it.
Hey sure take a few external photo's .. but return it.
But to pull it apart !
This is technology worth millions .. more. It is company research and development worth who knows how much. So where do we draw the line ... it's ok for a media company to knowingly obtain what under the law is stolen property and pull it apart and publish it causing Apple lost $$$$ and having a negative $$ effect on their business.
Hey lets go steal some american military research and pull it apart and steal it, hey lets go steal some gov secrets and sell them.
It does not matter that is was just a phone, a phone in this case is a companies major major business with years of development ...
Gizmo deserve the book thrown at them .. lock him up
I actually think it has nothing to do with online vs print, etc. This issue is checkbook "journalism" vs real journalism. I don't believe that reporters who practice checkbook "journalism" and pay their way to a story should be immune to the law.
+1
@tdream: The warrant is to confirm by computer forensics what we already really know, that Chen knew in his heart acquiring the phone was improper. Did you actually think the cops were looking for another lost prototype?
Being a "journalist" protects you from divulging a confidential informant, not from paying for stolen property. To claim that guy is somehow immune from prosecution is the mouse desperately kicking its legs while halfway down the gullet of a fox.
---------------------
"Andre, you've lost another submarine?"
-Dr. Jeffrey Pelt
No this is the United States after the Patriot Act, get use to it, this is nothing, has anyone taken the time to see what is in it.
It probably didn't help Gizmoron that Apple had to demand the return of their property. Nor that Gizmoron decided to make that smartass remark when they posted the letter from Apple's attorney, but this last part is forgivable. Less so that they tossed the engineer to the wolves. Now they're not just utterly stupid. They'e also the worst kind of slime.
This "Jesus phone" isn't worth $200-$300. It's worth BILLIONS. There's an entire market at stake and the future of Apple's mobile competitiveness within that one little phone.
Oh please. I don't think people really "get" when it's right to quote this and when it isn't.
When it ISN'T (like today in this case) it's the highest form of insulting and disgraceful.
the facts
I think we really should keep the facts in mind:
-They bought a phone
-They knew it someone lost it (Apple)
-They knew who it was
-They posted proof on their site (the picture of an apple ipad prototype with the phone in the back).
-They made no attempt to return it.
This is stealing. They claim what they did is O.K. because the are journalists, but thats not why they got a busted. They did not get in legal trouble because they wrote about an apple product; they got in trouble because they were in possession of something that belonged to someone else, they knew who it was, and they made no attempt to return it.
Just because they are a big company and have their own websiteeek doesn't put them above the law. But if they don't think they did anything wrong, they should have nothing to worry about...
I think we really should keep the facts in mind:
-They bought a phone
-They knew it someone lost it (Apple)
-They knew who it was
-They posted proof on their site (the picture of an apple ipad prototype with the phone in the back).
-They made no attempt to return it.
This is stealing. They claim what they did is O.K. because the are journalists, but thats not why they got a busted. They did not get in legal trouble because they wrote about an apple product; they got in trouble because they were in possession of something that belonged to someone else, they knew who it was, and they made no attempt to return it.
Just because they are a big company and have their own website
eek doesn't put them above the law. But if they don't think they did anything wrong, they should have nothing to worry about...
The section they are citing is designed to prohibit reporters from having to give up sources/info about a story they are reporting on. The difference here, as I see it, is the Giz reporter is potentially accused of committing a crime himself. I don't think the journalist protections provided under this statute are intended to cover a reporter committing a crime himself.
It will be an interesting legal argument though.