Don't you mean, "Your theory is open to many problems, therefore I feel it is stupid"?
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.
San Francisco Police Did Assist Apple in House Search of iPhone 5
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't you mean, "Your theory is open to many problems, therefore I feel it is stupid"?
You know this for a fact? You know they weren't just there to lend some authority and intimidation to the request for entry? If they were there, in official capacity, of ensuring safety and security for all involved, one would think they would follow procedure and simply document their involvement.
Six police officers appear at your door requesting to search, implying actions against you and your family and your aren't intimidated? Wow, you have balls of steal. That's great. I would intimidated, even if I know my rights. Six people, cops of not, show up at my door, possibly lobbing accusations, threats and requesting entry, I would be intimidated and I know my rights too. I imagine a 22 year old kid might be too.
What crime did he commit? They had zero proof. They don't appear to have been in there in any official capacity.
And yes, I think threatening someone is a threat. Don't you?
Imagine if Calderon knows nothing about the missing phone. Of course that never entered anyone's mind, did it? Apple said the phone was at his house so that means he is guilty of theft. Maybe the GPS is wrong and it was at his neighbors house.And the Keystone cops were too dumb to figure that out.
Maybe this and maybe that. The guy was at the restaurant. It sounds like they got the right house.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
People need to remember that there are two courts. The Legal and the one of public opinion. Apple may or may not be legally guilty of anything. But that doesn't mean that they will escape the court of public opinion on whether they acted inappropriately and cause outrage amongst people who don't want corporations policing the public.
People need to remember that there are two courts. The Legal and the one of public opinion. Apple may or may not be legally guilty of anything. But that doesn't mean that they will escape the court of public opinion on whether they acted inappropriately and cause outrage amongst people who don't want corporations policing the public.
Last edited:
I dont know about everyone else, but I am a little concerned that these cops sat outside and let a PRIVATE company search the home of a citizen without a warrant, without real probable cause, and under the guise of official officers. Did they tell the man at the house he had a right to refuse? Did they announce that the men who searched his HOME weren't cops at all? Had he refused what would have happened as Apple's information isn't exactly warrant worthy?
This whole situation stinks, regardless of whether the Apple employees purposely, or accidentally, impersonated cops. The POLICE officers let private employees of a private company search someone's home. If nothing else, the police presence would represent duress on the part of the home owner. If I were that guy I would lawyer up in about -5 seconds, cause something is fishy about this whole story.
This whole situation stinks, regardless of whether the Apple employees purposely, or accidentally, impersonated cops. The POLICE officers let private employees of a private company search someone's home. If nothing else, the police presence would represent duress on the part of the home owner. If I were that guy I would lawyer up in about -5 seconds, cause something is fishy about this whole story.
No, I have that post and another that argue that it is stupid.
The guy also continues to claim that this person's house was "raided" when it clearly was not.
There's too much of a power play from Apple concerning stuff like this.
If an employee left the phone at a bar, treat it like a normal accident. This whole "we tracked it, and then searched someone's house" is absurd. It's a lost phone. That's it. It's not national security. They shouldn't have the right to do that. Since it was a mistake, NOW THE POWER IS WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS THE PHONE. Apple should ASK for it back.
Sadly, I'm completely serious.
I just don't like that much power pushed around against someone who simply ran across a phone. All other legal details just pale to me. I don't care.
If an employee left the phone at a bar, treat it like a normal accident. This whole "we tracked it, and then searched someone's house" is absurd. It's a lost phone. That's it. It's not national security. They shouldn't have the right to do that. Since it was a mistake, NOW THE POWER IS WITH THE PERSON WHO HAS THE PHONE. Apple should ASK for it back.
Sadly, I'm completely serious.
I just don't like that much power pushed around against someone who simply ran across a phone. All other legal details just pale to me. I don't care.
I fail to see how this story is now somehow less significant because it doesn't implicate Apple alone, and because Apple did not necessarily commit a felony. It's even more concerning that Apple and SFPD worked together to intimidate a citizen, question his family's citizenship without reason (other than intimidation), and conduct a search without reporting it. This is all completely improper.
The fact that the police did not even conduct the search, and that it was the Apple employees (who did not ID themselves as such), is even more disturbing. Someone posted (paraphrasing) that, "Oh, well, Apple employees would know better where to find it and what it looks like." That doesn't make it legal for corporate employees to search someone's house. A search involves police procedure.
Furthermore, while I would always be willing to discuss the shortcomings of today's media, this is actually an example of how a news story should develop. The media brought attention to an issue using quotes from a primary source who was claiming to have been searched by the police about an unreleased Apple product. When the police department told SF Weekly (look, they're following up!) had no record of such an incident, it implied that Apple may have conducted the search on their own and impersonated police. Now, that doesn't make it fact, but a theory that is brought about and supported by the evidence.
Finally, the police department figures out that their officers were involved and that they simply didn't report it, and they agreed to wait outside while two Apple employees conducted a search, which is frankly the most shocking part of the story.
So, in summary: the media raises an issue, the police are prompted to investigate and shed more light on the issue, and now we have a developing story with more facts and a more focused picture of what really happened. The story has moved along a trail of facts and testimony; as opposed to others, who work backwards from the premise that Apple would never do something like this and immediately discredit the media.
I have a Macbook Pro, iPad, and two Ipod Touches, but I continually don't understand why anyone would defend a corporation with such stubborness in the face of facts.
The fact that the police did not even conduct the search, and that it was the Apple employees (who did not ID themselves as such), is even more disturbing. Someone posted (paraphrasing) that, "Oh, well, Apple employees would know better where to find it and what it looks like." That doesn't make it legal for corporate employees to search someone's house. A search involves police procedure.
Furthermore, while I would always be willing to discuss the shortcomings of today's media, this is actually an example of how a news story should develop. The media brought attention to an issue using quotes from a primary source who was claiming to have been searched by the police about an unreleased Apple product. When the police department told SF Weekly (look, they're following up!) had no record of such an incident, it implied that Apple may have conducted the search on their own and impersonated police. Now, that doesn't make it fact, but a theory that is brought about and supported by the evidence.
Finally, the police department figures out that their officers were involved and that they simply didn't report it, and they agreed to wait outside while two Apple employees conducted a search, which is frankly the most shocking part of the story.
So, in summary: the media raises an issue, the police are prompted to investigate and shed more light on the issue, and now we have a developing story with more facts and a more focused picture of what really happened. The story has moved along a trail of facts and testimony; as opposed to others, who work backwards from the premise that Apple would never do something like this and immediately discredit the media.
I have a Macbook Pro, iPad, and two Ipod Touches, but I continually don't understand why anyone would defend a corporation with such stubborness in the face of facts.
The thing that smells the most here is your definition of fascism.
Perhaps you prefer corporacracy? The needs of the corporate interest exceed those of the individual. (and, yes, that was a part of fascism).
It's highly unlikely that they mislead the police. They probably had GPS data that centered it around a location, went to the police saying this was what they had, and the police helped. They either extrapolated the potential house through deductive reasoning (who would go to the bar, etc), CCTV footage (many bars have this), or credit-card details, all of which would have been permissible since they were cooperating with the authorities. Chances are somebody forgot to file a report since we all know the esteemed quality of many such bureaucracies. Now of course it's possible that Apple told the SFPD to keep it secret, in which case they still didn't do anything wrong since the SFPD assisted and made that choice. Not to get all political but never underestimate the amount of information freely available to authorities without a warrant under the patriot act.
poppasketti It's not shocking at all. You do understand that if he allowed the two Apple employees to search his house, or the police officers for that matter, WITHOUT A WARRANT, then it's HIS fault. There's nothing shocking about this. No civil liberties were broken. He gave consent thus this is a non-issue; two strangers could search your house tomorrow if you gave them consent. The probability of this situation is this: they arrived at the house with the SFPD, said who they were, said why they were there, and asked if they could search his house. They probably stated that if he said no they could go and get a warrant based off of the GPS (and whatever other) data they had, and he probably consented on the spot. Why is this hard to understand?
The power play going on in the smartphone market which already has the potential for huge amounts of money has already produced tons of lawsuits and counter suits. The paranoia of corporate and industrial "espionage" has led many towards more aggressive behavior. Apple by definition has been very button-lipped about all of their products and very controlling. coupled with the huge amount of economic impact it has in the SF-SJ area, employing a huge work force and the secondary and tertiary effects on local businesses, I could see where the police might be pressured to investigate it doesn't necessarily make it right, however. On the other hand, the temptation of the person who found the phone to sell it to a competitor or leak it doesn't make it right either if that is done.
Was he the only person at the bar? Did anyone go with him? Come back to his house afterwards. Drop him off. GPS isn't as accurate as Apple claims? Please fill me in on all the details since you know it so well. Guilt by association?
Calderon himself has stated that they never identified themselves as Apple employees and had he known the two people searching his house were not police officers he would not have let them in. What would you think if six people showed up at your house saying they were with the SF police and showing badges? You would assume they were all with the police, unless told otherwise, right? He consented to what he thought was a police search, not one by Apple employees.
And again, corporate employees should not be allowed to search people's houses with a police escort, because it implies that it's some sort of official police business that requires police procedure.
I dont see how a private security firm (apples security) can search ANY residence. With SFPD back stepping on their story, seems the top brass wasn't informed until they inquired and found out the truth. Am sure the guy is getting a boat load of offers from lawyers to represent him. This story is not dead but presume either apple or SFPD will throw a bunch of cash to keep this quiet. Both apple and SFPD screwed up.
re aapl employees that lost "priceless" iphone prototypes at bars (x2)
so when is aapl gonna fire these homer simpsons
so when is aapl gonna fire these homer simpsons
Perhaps you prefer corporacracy? The needs of the corporate interest exceed those of the individual. (and, yes, that was a part of fascism).
Corporacracy doesn't exist, you must be referring to corporatocracy, which means that corporations have power over governments.
And no, fascism doesn't involve the corporate interest exceeding that of the individual. If you would have bothered to look up the definition of fascism you would see that it is this (Merriam-Webster):
Fascism doesn't have anything to do with this situation or Apple.
Godwin etc...
That's how it is supposed to work but it looks like Apple did not need police help at all. According to police spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield:
"Apple employees called Mission Police station directly, wanting assistance in tracking down a lost item.
Apple employees were then referred to the Ingleside station because the house in question, on Anderson Street, was in that police district."
So, it would appear that Apple police knew exact address when they contacted SF police.
Not quite if it is true that the Apple security guy said he was police its still the same thing, especially if the SFPD was outside of the house and not with the Apple personnel.
Corporacracy doesn't exist, you must be referring to corporatocracy, which means that corporations have power over governments.
And no, fascism doesn't involve the corporate interest exceeding that of the individual. If you would have bothered to look up the definition of fascism you would see that it is this (Merriam-Webster):
Fascism doesn't have anything to do with this situation or Apple.
Godwin etc...
No, I mean "Corporacracy". A simple search using Google will find it for you.
and if people don't think our government responds to their corporate masters, then they're smoking something very good.
Fascism denies the right of the individual over the right of the state or corporate power (typically guild or group power or needs under pure fascist theory). The police in this instance would obviously respond to Apple, a huge company with deep pockets, good lawyers, and a definite influence on the Bay Area in terms of economics, job creation, and community involvement. You know, there was no real debate when Cupertino approved Apple's new spaceship headquarters. There really didn't need to be. Money talks, and the needs of the corporation must be heeded post-haste.
Individual rights against warrantless search-and-seizure? Just a technicality.
I love Apple products. But don't like apparent corporate heavy-handedness, or public officers being used in corporate investigations.
Of course, corporations are people too, according to our Supreme Court.
Apple should just get their own police force. To chase the perps who stole the next iPhone prototype. Because in USA that's the biggest problem.
This whole ordeal reminds me of a good little song called "California Uber Alles". I'll just switch the year in there so it makes more sense:
"Now it is 2024
Knock-knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.
DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched"
This whole ordeal reminds me of a good little song called "California Uber Alles". I'll just switch the year in there so it makes more sense:
"Now it is 2024
Knock-knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.
DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched"
i hate to say this but im starting to hate apple.. i still love their products but as a company they are getting very microsoft ish now..