San Francisco Police Did Assist Apple in House Search of iPhone 5

[BigPrince]

Um, I listed the known facts BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO. HOLY **** MAN IT ISN'T THAT HARD.

The SEPARATOR was when I used the word FURTHER.

HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR COULD THAT HAVE BEEN?

Oh, does not appear that clear to me and not the way I understood what you were saying. I asked you to list the facts and I understood everything you listed as fact, because when you make a list of something, then usually EVERYTHING LISTED FALLS INTO the same CATEGORY.

I didn't ask you to list FACTS AND CLAIMS, JUST FACTS, and thought the list you provided was just that, FACTS.


but we are are digressing now, so I'm sorry that i was confused by your list of facts and claims.

 

[kdarling]

Based on what? The fact they called the Police to report a missing device and the Police acted on a possible lead to help recover it?

The police didn't act by themselves on a possible lead. Otherwise they would have had a warrant and not leave it to Apple employees to do the searching.

Really a regular phone? To the competition this ANYTHING BUT A REGULAR PHONE....it doesnt matter how well the prototype works....IT STILL HOLDS TRADE SECRETS.

What lilo777 is trying to get across to you, is that it is Apple's obligation to protect its trade secrets, not the police's.

Apple wasn't going after this device because it lost a device worth about $500...They spent more then that on this investigation.

On that note, Apple should've offered more than $300 for its return. That might be used as evidence of what they think it's worth.

For that matter, the smart thing would've been to visit there WITHOUT the police and offer $10,000 on the spot, no questions asked, no law involved. The Apple security chief just thought he'd try to pressure the person instead.

 

[BigPrince]

The police didn't act by themselves on a possible lead. Otherwise they would have had a warrant and not leave it to Apple employees to do the searching.

Well that is why permission was sought to search the house?

What lilo777 is trying to get across to you, is that it is Apple's obligation to protect its trade secrets, not the police's.

I don't think Apple is wrong in asking the Police to assist in protecting their trade secret. The Police could of said no if it was not worth their time or if they had no responsibility to help Apple.

On that note, Apple should've offered more than $300 for its return. That might be used as evidence of what they think it's worth.

I would concede this is a good retort for claiming the device is not worth as much as I was implying in my prior line of thoughts.

 

[cere]

Oh, does not appear that clear to me and not the way I understood what you were saying. I asked you to list the facts and I understood everything you listed as fact, because when you make a list of something, then usually EVERYTHING LISTED FALLS INTO the same CATEGORY.

I didn't ask you to list FACTS AND CLAIMS, JUST FACTS, and thought the list you provided was just that, FACTS.


but we are are digressing now, so I'm sorry that i was confused by your list of facts and claims.

"A phone was lost. Mr. Calderon was visited by the police and Apple. His home, vehicle and PC were searched with nothing found. Calderon's statement agrees with all of this and further contained statements that were at first denied by others and later shown to be true. To this point his veracity holds up. Calderon further claims he was intimidated and threatened."

Do you honestly not see that I listed the facts, in fact they were all in a single sentence. Subsequently, the following sentences were not part of that list and that should be easily understood. At least, I thought so.

 

[gr8tfly]

For everybody but Apple (and this includes SF police) it is a regular phone. If, say, I lost a phone which was a gift from my late grand mother, it is priceless item for me. And yet, believe it or not, SF police is not going to dispatch their teams to fetch the phone on my request. And so that you knew, prototypes usually work worse than regular phones.

That statement has no basis in fact. I'm in your "everybody" category, and I absolutely do not consider a prototype to be an regular phone. It contains proprietary design elements - company secret - and, considering the market, any advance notice of an Apple device is a potential loss. You (and others here) don't seem to grasp the IP rights of - and value to - corporations. Especially an industry leader such as Apple.

Oh: also in your "everybody" category are shareholders, such as myself, who have a vested interest in Apple protecting it's IP.

I will admit, it's disturbing to see another bar/restaurant stolen prototype situation crop up a bit over a year after the last. But there's one important missing set of facts: those of the Apple employee who had the device at the establishment

As was the case last year, I suspect he/she didn't just walk off and leave it. We don't have any information on that aspect of the case at all. The iPhone didn't just up and create the GPS track data out of the blue. Even if it was just a current iPhone that was found, it shouldn't have left the establishment, should have contacted the owner, etc., etc., <insert relevant quotes from last year's threads>. Failing to do so makes it theft <insert relevant CA penal code, also found in last year's threads>. The high value of a prototype makes the crime a possible felony.

As I mentioned earlier (along with others), officers regulary serve as peacekeepers and official witnesses in even minor domestic calls. In the case if a possible felony, and involving a high value piece of IP, you bet they would be willing to meet Apple's reps at that house. The fact there were four isn't significant in itself. It's almost guaranteed that two would show up on a routine call, as they commonly work with a partner. In this case, there happened to be two patrol cars worth of officers, instead of one. That's hardly what many here have deemed an intimidating show of force.

 

[BigPrince]

"A phone was lost. Mr. Calderon was visited by the police and Apple. His home, vehicle and PC were searched with nothing found. Calderon's statement agrees with all of this and further contained statements that were at first denied by others and later shown to be true. To this point his veracity holds up. Calderon further claims he was intimidated and threatened."

Do you honestly not see that I listed the facts, in fact they were all in a single sentence. Subsequently, the following sentences were not part of that list and that should be easily understood. At least, I thought so.

I honestly did not, but can definitely agree with what your saying when you explained it to me...but it was not how I initially read it or thought you meant it....

 

[lilo777]

Oh: also in your "everybody" category are shareholders, such as myself, who have a vested interest in Apple protecting it's IP.

That's your and Apple's problem not SF and not SF police. Did you as shareholder ask Apple management to take better care of company IP after they lost prototype phone last year?

in even minor domestic calls.

Have you ever heard of a case where two police cars were dispatched to help find a lost cell phone? I'd understand that police would have to intervene if someone was attacking secret Apple labs with an intent to grab their IP. However, when Apple loses some sample (and refuses even as much as to admit it) police have no business to help them.

 

[blahblah100]

You imply that just is some ordinary phone....very misleading.

To me this phone is a trade secret that Apple is obligated to protect.


Then you imply Gizmodo just nonchalantly gave the phone back to Apple. Your done. You are completely and conveniently ignoring everything that they published about the device that Apple did not want to be released publicly before its launch.

I completely agree with this statement. In fact, since Apple obviously violated that obligation (for the second year in a row), maybe they should face an SEC investigation and a shareholder lawsuit. After all, if the company is being irresponsible with "billions of dollars" worth of company assets, that would certainly subject them to a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty, right?

 

[BigPrince]

I completely agree with this statement. In fact, since Apple obviously violated that obligation (for the second year in a row), maybe they should face an SEC investigation and a shareholder lawsuit. After all, if the company is being irresponsible with "billions of dollars" worth of company assets, that would certainly subject them to a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty, right?

I think this is called "internal security" or something and I think your right that Apple should really evaluate who they let field test their phones because there is certainly market implications for it.

----------

That's your and Apple's problem not SF and not SF police. Did you as shareholder ask Apple management to take better care of company IP after they lost prototype phone last year?



Have you ever heard of a case where two police cars were dispatched to help find a lost cell phone? I'd understand that police would have to intervene if someone was attacking secret Apple labs with an intent to grab their IP. However, when Apple loses some sample (and refuses even as much as to admit it) police have no business to help them.

Stop ignoring the fact that this isnt a regular cell phone and none of arguments are valid when you do.

 

[blahblah100]

I think this is called "internal security" or something and I think your right that Apple should really evaluate who they let field test their phones because there is certainly market implications for it.

----------




Stop ignoring the fact that this isnt a regular cell phone and none of arguments are valid when you do.

Are you implying that as the value of an item increases, holding someone responsible for their carelessness decreases?

 

[BigPrince]

Are you implying that as the value of an item increases, holding someone responsible for their carelessness decreases?

what? I am saying that Apple should be more careful to not let his happen again, especially because of the stock market implications you mentioned earlier....

 

[blahblah100]

what? I am saying that Apple should be more careful to not let his happen again, especially because of the stock market implications you mentioned earlier....

Ah, ok - that makes sense. Next time I'll wear my glasses before reading .

 

[till213]

Why is Cava 22 pictured in this article? How is it relevant? Stop advertising for them.

Well, they do make an excellent lime marinated shrimp ceviche (as reported in the original post to this topic). Good tequila shots, too. And remember: it's on the corner of 22nd. There's a lost iPhone in there, maybe, but try the ceviche first!

----------

Anyone miss the days when preforming journalism required taking a reaching wand and ever so slightly dislodging ones ass from ones chair?


(also putting down the donut)

Journalism? Moving one's ass to actually do some research? But in what century do you live in again? It's all there on the Internet, you just have to re-assemble the "facts" out there!

 

[gr8tfly]

That's your and Apple's problem not SF and not SF police. Did you as shareholder ask Apple management to take better care of company IP after they lost prototype phone last year?

I would hope any corrections necessary would be made.

However, you keep saying "lost". A lost item is when something is left somewhere accidentally. If that was the case (and, remember we don't have a statement from Apple or the employee involved), how does a "lost" item get up by itself and travel to the GPS coordinates Apple had, which were sent by the device, and, coincidentally, led to a house and occupant who had been to the same location it was "lost" from? That evidence leads leads much more to the conclusion that the device was deliberately removed from the establishment, than it was simply left behind (where it would have remained if someone hadn't moved it).

Have you ever heard of a case where two police cars were dispatched to help find a lost cell phone? I'd understand that police would have to intervene if someone was attacking secret Apple labs with an intent to grab their IP. However, when Apple loses some sample (and refuses even as much as to admit it) police have no business to help them.

Already covered that. They help citizens for much more mundane reasons.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well, we do have the statements from Mr. Calderon. So far, he has been the only party that has been both forthcoming and whose statements have been shown to be true. His statements, originally contradicted by the SFPD were subsequent proven to be true. So, should we assume his assertion of being threatened with possible deportation (whether that threat had any legal weight or not) is not accurate? What reason do you have to doubt him?.....

I have plenty of reason to doubt him, or anyone for that matter. He's not a non-biased third-party observer-- he's directly entangled with the possible legal implications of this case. As such, his testimony is not really that reliable; he could simply claim such an issue was brought up in order to play the immigration card to balkanize supporting parties or groups. As such it is a possibility that the statement was contrived for personal gain, which I think is entirely reasonable. We are human, after all.

What is funny is the entire reason for the police to be there was to act as a non-biased thirty party observer.

Yet some people accept claims by either of the two sides over that of the non biased observer. That is what is good about the situation.

I know why the police were there so if either side claims different they have instantly outed themselves as being dishonest. I would say apple posing as police officers would fit that bill.

That is why I find the whole story suspicious. If they police showed up at a domestic violence dispute and the husband claimed the police held his arms back so the wife could punch him I would know that not to be true.

If a guy called the police to help him get his stuff out of his house because his wife would not let him and then the wife claimed the police stole all her jewerly and makeup I would again no she was lying

The police are the observers of the real truth in this case as that is why they were there to make sure neither side did anything out of line.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Based on what? The fact they called the Police to report a missing device and the Police acted on a possible lead to help recover it?

The police didn't act by themselves on a possible lead. Otherwise they would have had a warrant and not leave it to Apple employees to do the searching.

Really a regular phone? To the competition this ANYTHING BUT A REGULAR PHONE....it doesnt matter how well the prototype works....IT STILL HOLDS TRADE SECRETS.

What lilo777 is trying to get across to you, is that it is Apple's obligation to protect its trade secrets, not the police's.

Apple wasn't going after this device because it lost a device worth about $500...They spent more then that on this investigation.

On that note, Apple should've offered more than $300 for its return. That might be used as evidence of what they think it's worth.

For that matter, the smart thing would've been to visit there WITHOUT the police and offer $10,000 on the spot, no questions asked, no law involved. The Apple security chief just thought he'd try to pressure the person instead.

The police were there to protect the peace. It is amazing how many people are ignorant about what the police do. Police assist people all the time in issues where the possibility for conflict might exist.

People saying they would not do this for a phone are wrong. They would do it for a pair of socks and underwear if the situation called for it.

The police were not there investigating a crime they were there to observe and make sure there are no problems.

 

[kdarling]

The police were there to protect the peace. It is amazing how many people are ignorant about what the police do. Police assist people all the time in issues where the possibility for conflict might exist.

Yep, as I had noted before, I had used the police in the same way with a renter who was late paying and who I worried was destroying property (turned out he did, too). Of course, he knew me and the cop was in uniform.

The police were not there investigating a crime they were there to observe and make sure there are no problems.

That's what I think. The police were not following a crime lead themselves, but were there for support.

I do think that the fact that they were in plainclothes was used by the Apple security guys to help confuse the suspect as to who and what they were. Which could be considered either sneaky or clever; either way, it worked and the suspect let them in to search.

Police clothing and Apple employee actions aside, I also believe that it's extremely likely that the suspect (who admitted to being in that bar) brought the phone home and gave/sold it away before the investigators showed up.

The only real problem in all of this is that it was simply poorly handled all around. While not illegal, Apple employees should not be searching non-employee homes.

 

[BigPrince]

I do think that the fact that they were in plainclothes was used by the Apple security guys to help confuse the suspect as to who and what they were. Which could be considered either sneaky or clever; either way, it worked and the suspect let them in to search.

There may of been a tactical purpose to this that is more innocent....when you have two marked cruisers and 4 cops visiting you it draws a negative stigma from the neighbors....going about this way was perhaps intended to be more low profile and cause less grief for the guy?

 

[kdarling]

There may of been a tactical purpose to this that is more innocent....when you have two marked cruisers and 4 cops visiting you it draws a negative stigma from the neighbors....going about this way was perhaps intended to be more low profile and cause less grief for the guy?

Possibly.

Or more likely in this case, not to alert him to run out the back door or otherwise hide the phone.

After all, their purpose was to search his premises, computers, cars... not just to have a nice low key chat.

 

[Cartaphilus]

Bear in mind as well that Apple was likely very sensitive at that time to word getting out that one of its employees had lost a prototype--again. Not only would Apple be justifiably concerned about public embarrassment, but it wouldn't want to alert whoever had the device that it was something that unscrupulous media outlets--like, say, Gizmodo--would pay significantly to obtain. (Apple's concerns in this regard were no doubt exacerbated by the fact that Gizmodo and its co-conspirators were never prosecuted for their crime, consequently encouraging them and others to believe that they could receive stolen goods and infringe on Apple's intellectual property rights with impunity.)

Accordingly, Apple would not have wanted to take any actions that would inform anyone suspected of being involved with the stolen device that it was a prototype. Offering large sums for its recovery, like $10,000, would certainly have alerted the thief or receiver that the device had extraordinary value. Apple could not be certain that the possessor, being so informed, would accept Apple's offer, either out of fear of being prosecuted (since Apple can't prevent the police or the D.A. from seeking a conviction), or out of a greedy desire to see if another party would offer more than Apple was offering.

These concerns undoubtedly also played a part in the decision not to file a formal complaint, not to file an incident report of what turned out to be an insignificant event in any case, and not to seek a search warrant. Each of those actions would potentially expose Apple's loss to the public. Balancing the public's legitimate need to know against the potential harm to Apple, handling the matter as Apple and the officers did seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[BigPrince]

Bear in mind as well that Apple was likely very sensitive at that time to word getting out that one of its employees had lost a prototype--again. Not only would Apple be justifiably concerned about public embarrassment, but it wouldn't want to alert whoever had the device that it was something that unscrupulous media outlets--like, say, Gizmodo--would pay significantly to obtain. (Apple's concerns in this regard were no doubt exacerbated by the fact that Gizmodo and its co-conspirators were never prosecuted for their crime, consequently encouraging them and others to believe that they could receive stolen goods and infringe on Apple's intellectual property rights with impunity.)

Accordingly, Apple would not have wanted to take any actions that would inform anyone suspected of being involved with the stolen device that it was a prototype. Offering large sums for its recovery, like $10,000, would certainly have alerted the thief or receiver that the device had extraordinary value. Apple could not be certain that the possessor, being so informed, would accept Apple's offer, either out of fear of being prosecuted (since Apple can't prevent the police or the D.A. from seeking a conviction), or out of a greedy desire to see if another party would offer more than Apple was offering.

These concerns undoubtedly also played a part in the decision not to file a formal complaint, not to file an incident report of what turned out to be an insignificant event in any case, and not to seek a search warrant. Each of those actions would potentially expose Apple's loss to the public. Balancing the public's legitimate need to know against the potential harm to Apple, handling the matter as Apple and the officers did seems perfectly reasonable.

excellent counter points, equally plausible to many of the points.

 

[kdarling]

excellent counter points, equally plausible to many of the points.

I agree that those points sound plausible. At the same time, here's a question:

IF they had found the phone at that person's home, do you think Apple would've asked the accompanying policeman to arrest him?

Or do you think, to stay low key, they would've simply taken it and done nothing else ?

--

As for not offering $10,000... well, they left without the phone, which means their mission utterly failed by being low key and offering $300.

 

[Cartaphilus]

As for not offering $10,000... well, they left without the phone, which means their mission utterly failed by being low key and offering $300.

Yes, you're right, but thank goodness at least no one found out a prototype had been lost!

Alas, the best-laid schemes o' mice, men, and Apple aft gang agley.

 

[BigPrince]

I agree that those points sound plausible. At the same time, here's a question:

IF they had found the phone at that person's home, do you think Apple would've asked the accompanying policeman to arrest him?

Or do you think, to stay low key, they would've simply taken it and done nothing else ?

--

As for not offering $10,000... well, they left without the phone, which means their mission utterly failed by being low key and offering $300.

I am not sure. Which way do you think it would of gone? I am leaning towards they would of let it go because they wouldnt want the publicity of another stolen phone....had they arrested him it would of been bad PR.

 

[zub3qin]

Where is the lost/stolen/misplaced (whatever anyone wants to call it) prototype????

If it was indeed sold on craigslist- it has to turn up somewhere.....

The value of this invaluable item drops to nothing in a few weeks when the official iPhone5 is released.

Money talks, and one thing I am certain of is that in the coming days/week we will see some sort of photos of this device......

Either that, or Apple has successfully paid big $$$$$ to get it back from somewhere.