Sidebar Sidebar
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

aristokrat said:
They posted the entire details of their "crime" on their website
Click to expand...

That's the most delicious tidbit of all. The chutzpah displayed by Gizmodo through this whole affair was astounding. It was like watching a increasingly-bold, drunk rioter taunting police as he set a car on fire. Right before they beat him to the ground, cuffed him and dragged him off. Did anyone really believe this wouldn't end badly?

At least the prosecutors will have an easier job of it, thanks to Gizmodo.com.

"WE TOTALLY BOUGHT A STOLEN PROTOTYPE APPLE iPHONE AND TORE IT APART. HERE'S EXACTLY HOW WE DID IT."

Amazing.
 
swingerofbirch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. But when a crimes like this occur and receive widespread media coverage, and people post comments on forums like this one demonstrating that members of the public are unaware of the legal duties owed by those who find the lost property of others, then law enforcement officers--police and prosecutors--exercise their powers of discretion so as to make a public example. This same principle motivates the IRS to publicize convictions for tax evasion in the early spring.
 
Alucardx03 said:
The most interesting and telling part of the seized inventory list is the box of business cards.

Let's extrapolate this... They already have access to Chen's personal information. They don't need the info that's on the cards. What they do need, however, is matching evidence. This leads me to believe that they've already seized property from the original sellers, and need to "match" the cards they found in their possession-- thus linking Chen to the deal.
Click to expand...

You get the CSI gold star for the day. ;)
 
CocoaPuffs said:
Very interesting. Perhaps this really is a marketing scheme of some sort, because it is certainly generating a lot of buzz...
Click to expand...

Do you mean a lot of fear, stuff like this does not do anything for buzz, but it does for fear, police state tactics weeee.
 
I understand that if he was in possession of a stolen phone they may search his house, but seize his personal property including computers, servers, etc? Makes no sense to me.
 
Wow, so many stupid comments.

First of all, Apple did not ask for or authorize this search. They have no authority to do so. This search was initiated by the Santa Clara police department (whether it was the DA or the detective assigned to the case, I dunno), and authorized by a judge! This had nothing to do with Apple being pissed about losing a prototype and everything to do with the commission of a felony (grand theft)!

Secondly, [restraining myself from the choice names I have in mind to call several posters in this thread], there is no "little guy" being bullied or "big guy" pushing him around. This is about one man who stole a phone from another man (yes, it happened to actually belong to a corporation, but my dad's phone also belongs to a corporation, and you can bet they'd take exactly the same steps Apple took if it was stolen and sold to some "journalist"), and the police enforcing the law, which is their job. I heartily applaud the Santa Clara PD for this action. My brother is a SWAT team member locally (not in Cali, here in Florida), and I have a great deal of respect for the police. In this case, they took action against a flagrant law-breaker who posted the details of his crime on a very public website. Not even close to uncalled for.

jW
 
This is standard procedure for theft of intellectual property

I worked for a small tech firm a while back and I quit because I felt the CTO and a few of his long-time cronies were being dishonest (using intellectual property from previous employers and contracts). I expressed my displeasure regarding the CTO to the CEO as I was leaving. The CEO decided to trust his CTO and his story and asked me to stay, but I did not.

Ultimately, the CTO decided he was going to form his own company and tried to steal intellectual property from that small firm I worked for. The CEO luckily was having the internal email communications monitored and got wind of the dishonest CTO's plan. He called the police who did the exact same thing to the CTO and his buddies as what happened to Gizmodo. The police seized all their computers. I got a call soon after asking if I would like to return, but I was too comfortable with new job at that point.

This is what happens when you are in possession of stolen intellectual property (which Gizmodo has on their servers and seemed to enjoy publishing even after returning the iphone). In this case Gizmodo purchased stolen property and from that dug into the intellectual property, but either way it is not their intellectual property and they should have known better.
 
Oops

That said, my friend had a car stolen once. The cops didn't break down any doors. I had my favourite bike stolen as a kid. The cops didn't break down any doors. But yah. Oops! LOL. I think it would have to be a LOT more than a cell phone for them to break down a door. Trade secrets? Industrial espionage? Would be nice to know the charge.
 
I'm not sure what percentage of the people in this thread are lawyers. I'm not, nor am I pretending to be.

There are several problems:

-'The guy' who found it didn't make reasonable efforts to return it.
-The guy then sold it...this is no different to me than finding an unattended bicycle, asking a couple of passerbys, then pawning it.
-Gizmodo knew the circumstances in which the guy came upon the phone and still bought it.
-Gizmodo then went on to profit from this.
-This isn't just a phone, it's a prototype and Apple could perhaps value it at far more than $5k. Back to the bike example, if someone takes a bike that's worth $2k and sells it for $100...that doesn't change the fact that the bike is worth $2k. I know that because I had a bike stolen (cut locks and the works) and the guy pawned it for about 1/20th the price I paid but was still charged with grand theft based on what it cost new.

It's also not like Gizmodo are the WSJ or NYT. In fact they're classless and opportunistic bottom feeders even in the confines of web journalism.
 
swingerofbirch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they think laws were broken. Unlike a typical case of a personal phone loss, this case was highly publicized. The case may have included selling/buying of what can be defined according to CA law as stolen property. If Gizmodo created so much noise they shouldn't be surprised that they got the CA DA office interested in this too.
 
Alucardx03 said:
The most interesting and telling part of the seized inventory list is the box of business cards.

Let's extrapolate this... They already have access to Chen's personal information. They don't need the info that's on the cards. What they do need, however, is matching evidence. This leads me to believe that they've already seized property from the original sellers, and need to "match" the cards they found in their possession-- thus linking Chen to the deal.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Everyone seems to be assuming that the purpose of the search warrant was to get evidence against Gizmodo, where in reality it probably has as much or more to do with painting a complete story of what went down with the guy they bought it from.
 
A bar is private property, not public. When you take something that doesn't belong to you out of that bar without the permission of the bar owner, you have stolen it.

Gizmodo then bought the stolen phone, disassembled it, photographed it and plastered it all over their web site without contacting Apple as to whether it was authentic or a Japanese knock-off.

tekboi said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
leaking an image of the next gen iPhone cost Apple some money, imo. Many believe it's a better looking phone (I'm one of them!) and will wait until it's released to purchase. Gizmodo should be held responsible for such damages.
 
twilson said:
I like (hate) how Gizmodo is trying to hide behind Section 1070.

Looks a bit like Section 1070 has a lot more to do with a warrant not being able to be used to seize articles that would reveal the identity of an anonymous source, which has absolutely no bearing on this case as the whole internet already knows the identity of your source.

This is instead, about determining the events pertaining to the alleged commission of a felony, which I'm sure the press are not exempt from in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...


Very true. Sec 1070 is a "shield law" as you note. If police are after Gizmodo for rec't of stolen merch., and not Gizmodo's source, then Sec 1070 isn't going to shelter them.
 
yg17 said:
**** you Apple.
Click to expand...

Its just them showing their true colors, oh well let the lawyers have fun now, and next time take the phone out of state, california is one crazy police state, don't think so go live in LA weeee.
 
mccldwll said:
At least until we read about the full cavity search of everyone at Gawker and Giz.
Click to expand...

Heh, I wonder if Gizmodo will post all the photos of that.

(Note: probably.)

wgilles said:
I understand that if he was in possession of a stolen phone they may search his house, but seize his personal property including computers, servers, etc? Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

Seriously? If your computer may have been involved in the crime (i.e. setting up the deal), it will certainly be seized as evidence.

Apparently you need to watch more crime dramas on TV. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back