I don't have a citation, but I recall the original story being that the engineer tried to call it, and the person who found it recognized the incoming call as being from the person who lost it, but he did not accept the call.
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.
Search Warrant For Lost Next-Generation iPhone Ordered Unsealed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't have a citation, but I recall the original story being that the engineer tried to call it, and the person who found it recognized the incoming call as being from the person who lost it, but he did not accept the call.
I believe the parents of some kid caught up in a balloon recently got a lot of police involvement. And then a whole lot more after that.
And all those missing white girls...
You're all directing your ire at the wrong target. Law enforcement involvement is directly proportional to media involvement. Even with this warrant being unsealed - it was because of media involvement.
So, you prefer to speculate on Apple's evils, but then want to wait "to see what it reveals".
Got Agenda?
Meh. Language is arbitrary and made up and we all know it. Everyone understood what the poster meant when he said corporatocracy, and whether or not the beloved OED has given the term its blessing is irrelevant.
Even if they returned the phone (only after Apple asked them to BTW) it still does not change the fact that Gizmodo broke the law. It is undisputed fact that Gizmodo bought stolen property, and buying stolen property is a felony. If I stole your car, and returned it to you 2 weeks later after you pleaded me to return it, I would still be breaking the law.
If Gizmodo wanted to behave in ethical and LEGAL manner, they should have contacted the police and/or Apple the moment the thief approached them with his offer.
Buying stolen property makes theft profitable business for thiefs. Through their actions, Gizmodo has perpetuated the problem. They should be dragged to the court, even if they returned the phone. Why? Because they broke the law. It's as simple as that.
I am pretty sure that an average citizen could do that, if the house being broken into was a) suspected of being a fence or b) was fingered as having orchestrated the theft in the first place or c) any of a number of different scenarios of varying plausibility.
The stolen property had already been returned by the time the police kicked down the door to Chen's house.
If the police were going to investigate any other corporation for industrial espionage they wouldn't kick down the doors of those corporate offices. They would raid the offices and collect the evidence they were looking for, but they'd do it when employees where there in the office, not in the middle of the night when nobody was there.
The police had no reason to break into Chen's house. The stolen property had already been returned. There was no proof whatsoever that there was any other stolen property in the house, and making that sort of assumption would not have convinced a judge to sign off on a search warrant unless there was actual hard evidence to suggest it.
The ONLY reason the police kicked in the door to Chen's home was because it was a private residence. If Chen worked in an actual office instead of out of his home they wouldn't have broken into the office.
But YOUR phone isn't a yet-to-be-released prototype for a multi-billion dollar product.
I don't understand how people can't comprehend the difference between a consumer's personal property and commercial prototypes of products that make billions. Why do you think the website was willing to pay FIVE GRAND for it? There is confidential information, trade secrets and other intellectual property that product contained that should not have been made public. That has value. A lot of value.
And for those who think they shouldn't have searched his house or taken his computers---(1) he worked out of his house (2) the computers could have e-mails, letters, financial information regarding the alleged crime (3) just because the guy said it was his personal computer---that doesn't mean the cops should believe him and there isn't any information relevant to the crime.
The average citizen doesn't own a muli-billion dollar product prototype that contained protected trade secrets that were published on the friggin internet.
And that would achieve... What exactly? It might be of some use if the finder was an honest person. But an honest person would have given the phone to the bartender or handed it over to the police. Or he would have contacted the owner directly (remember, the finder knew the name of the person who had lost the phone). The person who found this phone did none of those things.
Besides, when a phone that has sensitive information gets lost, the first thing you do is to wipe it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
In the same day, he got 74 other calls also from someone named Steve Jobs asking for the new iphone to be "returned" to addresses all over the U.S.
Getting something in writing validates that it wasn't "Steve Jobs" from Dell, HP, Microsoft, Google, etc.
Otherwise, please send me your phone number and I'll have Steve Jobs call you. Please have your credit card ready for Steve Jobs call.
After you had gotten it back...only because you found the person who had it and asked for it back....and in came back in pieces... with all your private information taken out of it and distributed for money.
At the very least I would sue the fracker.
If Gizmodo had purchased it for $5000, realized it belonged to Apple, and made a point of seeking out Apple and returning it, I'm sure the state would not pursue the matter. However a giant media corporation knew they had stolen property, and they knew that it was worth a lot of money to them. So they took advantage of that and made a ton of money, and waited for Apple to contact them.
Do you see the difference now?
Sure you can, but as a private individual don't expect much. Even if somebody bought your stolen car and returned it to you (as Gizmodo bought the iPhone and then returned it to Apple) I wouldn't expect the police to do much. They'd just tell you to consider yourself lucky that you got your car back and to leave them alone since they have more important crimes to deal with. But if you're a huge corporation like Apple they'll apparently bend over backwards to help them out.So, if someone steals my car I can't call the police?
Since he wasn't home, they needed to enter the house and execute the search warrant. They can break in under those circumstances. It isn't as though the police are going to leave one of those nifty door tags that say "Hi, we're the police and we missed you at your home to serve a search warrant, we will try again tomorrow--sign here if we can kick in your door"
And the search warrant doesn't need to just look for additional stolen property. There was computers and other potential evidence that can allow the police to establish whether the purchase of the phone was indeed a crime. Its kinda like raiding a large drug dealer's accountant---yeah, the accountant doesn't have the blow, but he probably has financial records.
And when you mention executing search warrants on businesses and their lack of kicking down doors of corporate offices... First, if the business isn't open, they'll kick in the door. Second, most of the time, they'll raid the offices early in the morning as the offices open. I can assure you that if Chen was home, they wouldn't have broken down the door unless he refused to open it for them.
Wow, I love that Katherine Martinson is the one smart person in this scenario.
She contacted Rick Orloff (Apple's Director of Information Security) to absolve herself of any wrong doing that might be pinned on her, due to her moron roommates (Hogan) bad behavior.
They do say girls are smarter than boys. She's the one person that clearly understood the gravity of the situation.
She contacted Rick Orloff (Apple's Director of Information Security) to absolve herself of any wrong doing that might be pinned on her, due to her moron roommates (Hogan) bad behavior.
They do say girls are smarter than boys. She's the one person that clearly understood the gravity of the situation.
that still does not change the fact that Gizmodo committed a felony.
they were there to obtain proof of the felony Gizmodo committed. And that felony is trafficking in stolen goods. Gizmodo bought stolen goods, and that is illegal. It does not matter one bit that Gizmodo returned the phone to Apple.
My thought's exactly after reading B. Lam's email to Steve. He basically tried to use the phone as leverage to get them to 1.) admit publicly that it was their phone so that Gizmodo could break the story and 2.) give Gizmodo more access and/or "work with them" to make their jobs' easier in the future covering Apple products. You would think that a phone call from Steve Jobs is proof enough, but instead he felt the need to twist Apple's arm to further his/Gizmodo's gain from the events. Sounds like black mail/extortion to me too.
In the same day, he got 74 other calls also from someone named Steve Jobs asking for the new iphone to be "returned" to addresses all over the U.S.
You're really reaching here. If there's one address anybody who's familiar with Apple knows, it's theirs. Go on, I bet even you know off the top of your head without having to look it up. Here, I'll start you off:
Mr Steve Jobs
Apple Inc.
1...
Stop the Apple Hate
A lot of people seem to be up in arms against Apple on this case. Some are saying that this is nothing more than "Someone stole your phone, you asked for them to give it back, they gave it back, then you called the cops" Which if taken that simply seems like an jerky thing to do.
However, in this case it is a lot more complex. Someone took Apples phone, sold it to Gizmodo, who then proceeded to take it apart piece by piece, describing all of the phones details on the internet, generating millions of hits. They kept insisting that it was Apple's phone, and possibly would have gone into more information about OS features on the phone, and potentially given away information about the person who was in charge of the phone as well. However when Steve Jobs personally asked for the return of their phone, they wanted to have definative proof that it was in fact Apple's prototype.
Gizmodo is in the wrong here. They were pretty sure it was Apple's phone from the get go, or they wouldn't have forked over 5 grand for the acquisition of it, which means they are potentially dealing in fenced goods. Did they do any real research on how the original person obtained the phone? or did they just take him for his word "Someone left it in a bar." He could have just as easily stolen it, and they would have been none the wiser.
This isn't corporate bullying. Yes the press does have rights when it comes to revealing their sources, but if the press is committing crimes (like potentially buying stolen goods, which the leaked iPhone pretty much was) they can't hide behind those rights.
Also, if you want to have a dedicated "office" and a dedicated "home" you need to have that. Working from the home is one thing, but that makes your home your office and vice versa. Trying to get sympathy from the masses saying "They violated my home" is kinda pathetic.
Overall, I am sick and tired of people making it seem like Apple is some grand evil corporation. I am sure that if you made something, you sure as hell wouldn't want some guy A: making off with it, and B: tearing it apart, and documenting it so everyone could see how you did it.
A lot of people seem to be up in arms against Apple on this case. Some are saying that this is nothing more than "Someone stole your phone, you asked for them to give it back, they gave it back, then you called the cops" Which if taken that simply seems like an jerky thing to do.
However, in this case it is a lot more complex. Someone took Apples phone, sold it to Gizmodo, who then proceeded to take it apart piece by piece, describing all of the phones details on the internet, generating millions of hits. They kept insisting that it was Apple's phone, and possibly would have gone into more information about OS features on the phone, and potentially given away information about the person who was in charge of the phone as well. However when Steve Jobs personally asked for the return of their phone, they wanted to have definative proof that it was in fact Apple's prototype.
Gizmodo is in the wrong here. They were pretty sure it was Apple's phone from the get go, or they wouldn't have forked over 5 grand for the acquisition of it, which means they are potentially dealing in fenced goods. Did they do any real research on how the original person obtained the phone? or did they just take him for his word "Someone left it in a bar." He could have just as easily stolen it, and they would have been none the wiser.
This isn't corporate bullying. Yes the press does have rights when it comes to revealing their sources, but if the press is committing crimes (like potentially buying stolen goods, which the leaked iPhone pretty much was) they can't hide behind those rights.
Also, if you want to have a dedicated "office" and a dedicated "home" you need to have that. Working from the home is one thing, but that makes your home your office and vice versa. Trying to get sympathy from the masses saying "They violated my home" is kinda pathetic.
Overall, I am sick and tired of people making it seem like Apple is some grand evil corporation. I am sure that if you made something, you sure as hell wouldn't want some guy A: making off with it, and B: tearing it apart, and documenting it so everyone could see how you did it.
well...
mtwilford...who cares what you have to say...or what I have to say...sheesh...
mtwilford...who cares what you have to say...or what I have to say...sheesh...