California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor - Page 4

Umm according to California law if a reasonable attempt was not made to return the property to the rightful owner, it constitutes theft. Hence stolen.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

If the folks who found it at the bar turned it in to the lost & found the Engineer who lost the phone would have gotten it back.

Like it or not, they didn't turn it in & sold it to Gizmodo. The phone was stolen according to California law.

I've already stated that, but Apple must be willing to back the probable cause, saying it was stolen, or no case.

Like trying to get a rape victim to say in court they were raped, if they are unwilling to admit to the world it happened.

Essentially, good luck with that one.

Speaking as a shareholder, if the allegation that Gray left this prototype at a bar is true, I think he should be fired. He didn't lose his iPhone that was worth $99; the IP attached to the prototype iPhone is worth magnitudes higher than that. If that part of the story is true, then it was a very irresponsible move. Theres a lot of nuance here that we are not enlightened to however.



Yah sure, keep things in perspective and all that but at the end of the day, you're here posting comments in a thread on a tech blog just like the rest of us. You're the only one who mentioned prison rape. If this so morally offends you, why don't you go spend your time posting (and donating) on red crosses website?



Every situation is different and should be judged on its own merits. The behavior that Gizmodo so brilliantly and publicly displayed, in my opinion, was pretty sleazy and I'm looking forward to witnessing some retribution.

If you have a concrete example of Apple doing something - anything - comparable, by all means, don't keep us in suspense. I don't see how Apples unrelated court cases involving IP and licensing have anything to do with this one - but please, enlighten us.

Rob

Don't be so naive.
For example, my GF's car was broken and her purse was stolen. It happened on a parking lot and the police got video from a surveillance camera. What do you think the police did? Nothing! But if it was, for example, Paris Hilton's purse I'm sure that a lot of actions were taken

Which might be true, but in Gizmodo's case, they actually bragged about the scoop that it appeared to everybody that there might have been some impropriety involved in regards to the prototype.

Unless they were authorized to do so. Something neither you or I know for sure at this time.

He sold stolen property. This is not Apple getting to the guy, it is the police department getting to a thief.

No, you are likely wrong. The police are going after Jason Chen. The warrant specifically states the police are looking for property that may have been used in the commission of a felony. Namely, all the stuff that was seized. Otherwise, Gawker media's COO would be correct in stating Journalists are shielded from search warrants that seek to un cover the identity of a source. See her response here.

That exception to having to comply with a search warrant doesn't protect journalists who are thought to have participated in a felony. The police know this. Make no mistake, the warrant was exercised with the intent of going after Chen and perhaps his employer Gizmondo.

I agree with Gizmodo that outing Gray may save his job in the end because of the incredible amount of sympathy that he's received. If he was nameless/faceless it'd be easy to march him down to HR and process the exit paperwork like that engineer that allegedly showed Wozniak the iPad early; to his detriment.

Let's stop falling back on that. In a criminal case you must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed and if the "victim" is unwilling to state a crime has been committed against them, i.e.: a police report or ratified statement stating such, it makes this a difficult case to prosecute.

I doubt in that case the police actually knew the identity of the alleged criminal. Here the police do: namely Gizmodo.

gizmodo could argue that they did not know if that's really an iPhone prototype until they actually got their hands on it. And they did return it to Apple when requested. The felony's most likely for the guy who sold it.

Why does everyone supporting Gizmodo make these over-the-top exaggerated statements? It doesn't make the argument any stronger, it just makes you appear biased.

Needless to say it's a gigantic stretch to say Steve Jobs "loves" Gizmodo based on one time when someone saw him surfing (in a Keynote no less), and he had Gizmodo as one of the bookmarks.

I have lots of bookmarks myself. Some for sites I hate. When I do a software demo like Jobs was doing, I sometimes have those sites on the screen even. It doesn't mean I "love" them.

One more thing:

Does anyone here in this forum have actual record beyond the owner of Gawker Media stating it, that ANY funds ACTUALLY changed hands for this item?

Yes, but according to many news outlets, Apple has talked to the police. So, Apple told the police something to cause the police to suspect a crime. Apple isn't required to give a public statement about it's thoughts on the matter, anymore then you or I would be if somebody broke into our house and took something. Apple suspects theft. It has told the police so.

Further, neither Apple nor it's engineer has publicly stated that the phone was lost. That comes solely from Gizmodo. Apple's engineer could suspect the phone was taken from him at the Bar, which would explain why the finder failed to tell the bar owner about the lost phone [as any reasonable person would do].

The story reeks set up.

As far as I have gathered, the only one "publishing original text" was Gizmodo - that then got republished and speculated by both internet and print media.

Apple is not exactly talking -- to corroborate or deny the sequence of events, or their validity. While there were reports about the Apple employee that left the alleged iPhone in the bar, all the scenarios were from second hand sources (e.g., the Father). The bar owner indicated that the Apple employee called the bar several times; there was no report of anyone "finding" the alleged lost item.

To my knowledge (mostly from Gizmodo and secondary or umpteenth repetition from other sources):

1. Gizmodo has identified who was the original holder of the alleged iPhone G4.
2. Note: "Alleged" because there was no confirming evidence from Apple that it was indeed an iPhone G4. Gizmodo, or anyone else is not yet privy to the technical specifications of the actual iPhone G4 widely known to be released around June 2010.
3. Gizmodo has not identified the person who got "it" and was not very forthcoming about the sequence of events after.
4. Eventually the alleged iPhone "magically" reached someone associated with Gizmodo.
5. Gizmodo admitted to paying $5,000 for access to the alleged iPhone G4.
6. Gizmodo was certain the "alleged" was actually an iPhone G4 -- the basis of its scoop. For the same reason, Gizmodo must then have realized also that the existence the alleged iPhone G4 remains restricted, as it is not yet released.
7. As such, the alleged iPhone G4 must be treated as a propriety property under the protection of "trade secrets".
8. There is no indication that Gizmodo ever contacted Apple to inform the latter that they (Gizmodo) are in possession of a proprietary property that Gizmodo believed to be the iPhone G4 -- not yet released and not readily available to the public -- that belongs to Apple.
9. In spite of all the aforementioned, Gizmodo decided to take photos, disassemble the alleged iPhone G4 to learn more about how it worked. And published their findings.
   

I could go on, but we really do not know the full story. What is certain is that the California statutes have definite rulings on how to deal with "lost or stolen" properties.

Gizmodo believed it did not violate any laws. Obviously, the law enforcement offices and officers, at the very least in California, believed otherwise (assuming I summarized the alleged events as dispassionately as I can).

CGC

Yes, but according to many news outlets, Apple has talked to the police. So, Apple told the police something to cause the police to suspect a crime. Apple isn't required to give a public statement about it's thoughts on the matter, anymore then you or I would be if somebody broke into our house and took something. Apple suspects theft. It has told the police so.

Further, neither Apple nor it's engineer has publicly stated that the phone was lost. That comes solely from Gizmodo. Apple's engineer could suspect the phone was taken from him at the Bar, which would explain why the finder failed to tell the bar owner about the lost phone [as any reasonable person would do].

The story reeks set up.

I think them saying that they paid for it is enough evidence, unless there are other motives... like they don't want to pay the guy, so they are like "did you see the post on twitter? we said we paid already"...

As far as I have gathered, the only one "publishing original text" was Gizmodo - that then got republished and speculated by both internet and print media.

Apple is not exactly talking -- to corroborate or deny the sequence of events, or their validity. While there were reports about the Apple employee that left the alleged iPhone in the bar, all the scenarios were from second hand sources (e.g., the Father). The bar owner indicated that the Apple employee called the bar several times; there was no report of anyone "finding" the alleged lost item.

To my knowledge (mostly from Gizmodo and secondary or umpteenth repetition from other sources):

1. Gizmodo has identified who was the original holder of the alleged iPhone G4.
2. Note: "Alleged" because there was no confirming evidence from Apple that it was indeed an iPhone G4. Gizmodo, or anyone else is not yet privy to the technical specifications of the actual iPhone G4 widely known to be released around June 2010.
3. Gizmodo has not identified the person who got "it" and was not very forthcoming about the sequence of events after.
4. Eventually the alleged iPhone "magically" reached someone associated with Gizmodo.
5. Gizmodo admitted to paying $5,000 for access to the alleged iPhone G4.
6. Gizmodo was certain the "alleged" was actually an iPhone G4 -- the basis of its scoop. For the same reason, Gizmodo must then have realized also that the existence the alleged iPhone G4 remains restricted, as it is not yet released.
7. As such, the alleged iPhone G4 must be treated as a propriety property under the protection of "trade secrets".
8. There is no indication that Gizmodo ever contacted Apple to inform the latter that they (Gizmodo) are in possession of a proprietary property that Gizmodo believed to be the iPhone G4 -- not yet released and not readily available to the public -- that belongs to Apple.
9. In spite of all the aforementioned, Gizmodo decided to take photos, disassemble the alleged iPhone G4 to learn more about how it worked. And published their findings.
   

I could go on, but we really do not know the full story. What is certain is that the California statutes have definite rulings on how to deal with "lost or stolen" properties.

Gizmodo believed it did not violate any laws. Obviously, the law enforcement offices and officers, at the very least in California, believed otherwise (assuming I summarized the alleged events as dispassionately as I can).

CGC

The "that" which is being fallen back to is precisely the point.

Everyone needs to realize GIZMODO REPORTED THE CRIME. They did so in excruciating detail over and over and over again like the hit whores that they are.

Was an iPhone found?
Yes, see pages and pages of Gizmodo stating this.

Was the iPhone turned into the police, the bar owner, an Apple employee, sent to Apple headquarters or store, or was the engineer contacted (the finder had his Facebook profile)?
No, again see Gizmodo's website.

Was the iPhone purchased?
Yes. And once again we see Gizmodo stating that they did (for $5,000).

Was the iPhone taken under their own usage
Yes. They disassembled it. See gizmodo.com if you're still confused on where this comes from.

So clearly, we have a felonies here under California Penal Code 485 and 496.

Apple didn't need to report the iPhone stolen. Apple didn't need to do anything for charged to be brought. One could argue that Apple needed to provide proof of ownership, but that's certainly not going to be contested, and it doesn't matter. The finder stole the phone from someone, it doesn't matter who.

If you're going to hate on Apple, hate on me as well...

A few years ago, I had a phone stolen from my car. I never reported it. Police found someone with my phone and they tracked me down through the service provider. I went in to claim the phone and fill out paperwork stating I owned the phone and how much it was worth. It was enough to charge the guy with a felony. He had claimed he had found it, and that was enough to charge him since he admitted that he hadn't tried to return it. The prosecution of the guy had nothing to do with me. And this all happened in the same county as Redwood City.

Nice strawman. I guess because I'm this forum while engaging in other things I can't possible be concerned about other things.


So your argument is now "hypocrisy brought on by ignorance"? Excellent! There are too many cases so you can just google Apple and lawsuit for plenty of examples. I really don't care if you stand on your soapbox all day spouting how awful Gizmodo is and how we should never contribute to their pagehits. I'll still read their articles if they interest me.

Karma is the Law of Cause and Effect.

While I agree that the case may be difficult to prosecute, it is still not too late for either Apple or the Apple engineer to make such a statement. If the engineer was or will be fired I would think he would make the claim that it was stolen from him.

Typically (key word) a judge will not issue a search warrant unless the DA can produce some significant evidence that a crime was committed.

You know what the best part of this whole fiasco is?

Like, the best?

We're all getting a free education in Californian law. Two more weeks of this crap and I'll be able to sit the bar half drunk on German beer.




Hope nobody nicks my iPhone while I do.

Made my day, thank you!

I know. Things seem to have been moving very very quickly. One has to wonder why.

I pray to god Steve Jobs did not influence anyone. It is getting harder and harder to support Apple.

Yes, but almost always applied to a non-direct causality so that action itself is not the cause, but instead the negative or positive aspect of the action translating to a circuitous effect.

I am absolutely amazed what these b******s have done. In spite of the fact that the chief a*******e DID see the email (stating that Jason would be covered by a journalistic privilege) he could not even take the trouble of finding out if this was right. I hope that Jason had all his files encrypted, since no doubt there was other sensitive information on his computers. I suppose this is a lesson for all of us who have sensitive information on our computers - whether it is just private stuff that we want to keep private or if it involves data about other people as well : ENCRYPT YOUR FILES !!!

Hi,

I can't name sources, but Gray is a friend of a friend, and he is staying very quiet about it, and it quite devastated by the whole thing. One fact I did get was that the phone WAS STOLEN, NOT LOST. This is a fact direct from the source. In the coming weeks I am sure evidence will come out to back this up. Gizmodo stooped very low to do what they did and to out Gray like they did. And he hasn't lost his job.

I know.
Apple make all their computer in Aluminum. It's getting harder and harder to buy aluminum to make tin foil hat.
Soon enough I can't even make tin foil hat without buying a macbook pro.

The word "journalism" keeps getting thrown around here like it involves a special entitlement.

Being a journalist does not entitle you to knowingly purchase stolen property or to divulge trade secrets, both of which Gizmodo has done.

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

Apple becoming a Gestapo-like entity, complete with black helicopters, is another issue entirely.

we need another thread just for that

Those cost extra for no apparent reason. The white ones are much more affordable.

Here are the remarks from Neowin members, for everyone's amusement.

http://www.neowin.net/news/gizmodo-e...eized#comments

LOL

Because you would expect this kind of operation for hunting down Columbian drugs lord or weapons dealer, not someone who got into possession of and made article about bloody phone, prototype or not.

Much as I am aware of, Apple's engineer was not killed (or even harmed) in all this, so even if this turns out to be robbery, police action is, at best, extreme, and at worst, not legal... which might point to someone in Apple pulling strings and ties to make an example. Because otherwise, you don't spend tax money to employ special team, damage property, and spend number of workhours on sorting through gigabytes of data in order to confirm circumstances related to one smart phone device.

In lights of this, I cannot forger that Chinese guy who has committed suicide for loosing his iPhone.

I don't think these kind of stories are something Apple would like to be linked to.

Regarding Gizmodo, this might end up being best-ever advertise for them.

This isn't Apple nor Jobs forcing the investigation,
as this post points out

Gray told you this? Otherwise it's not direct. It's hearsay.

Yes it does appear clear cut because you are in a messageboard forum versus sitting in a courtroom with opposing counsel before a judge.

Everyone has watched far too much TV with mythicizes Law to the point where they have a distorted view of how difficult it is to proved right or wrongdoing along the path of due process. It took Apple's legal counsel month to dispatch Psystar, a company with no explicit agreement to make clones, under summary judgment. What makes people think that San Mateo or whomever chooses to take on this task is going to be able to run the gauntlet (journalistic privilege) and slay Gawker/Gizmodo.

As the Doc said

"You'll be a daisy if you do"

Actually it's really not that bad.

Once upon a time my neighbor was arrested because of not paying for a ticket or something like that. 5 police car surrounded his house, several police pulls out a gun pointing at his door. Thankfully he was at home.

This isn't your buddy's phone that got swiped .

This is sensitive property of the third-largest corporation in the United States. It's not just a "bloody phone." It's not worth a few hundred bucks. It's worth BILLIONS. Apple's market position depends on it. There is a great deal at stake. Use your head.