or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor - Page 8

post #281 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

What "substance"? Crack?

Grow up.
post #282 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

once again, Gizmodo said they paid for it.

I am just going by the story told by Gizmodo, since it's the only story right now.

Like if you tell a police you have cocaine, you will most definitely be searched. Why should anybody believe otherwise?

And in court that is hearsay until proven.

Also, Gizmodo didn't say that, The owner of Gawker did. The owner of Gawker is the one who's home should be searched, via that logic, as Gizmodo is part of the Gawker franchise and the owner of Gawker self professed he would pay any price to get a piece of tech from apple.

Also, there is a precedent there, and at most, until proven as fact, they would be guilty of false reporting. Though I don't know the precedent I am sure you would be capable of finding it.

Anyone can say anything, unless there is record of the transaction, or at most, record of $5k to $10k disbursed to someone associated to gawker ($10k just in case the "seller" chose to up the price in negotiation) then there is no record of such transaction having taken place.

Ever hear of Al Capone?
post #283 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

I'd like people to remember they have the potential of looking foolish in print (this forum) if it turns out this was a media spectacle gone wrong.

I will openly admit I was wrong if that is not the case, but I am willing to stake my life on the fact most of you demonizing Gizmodo will attempt to say you never said any of this later.

Chen didn't fight the warrant and are being cautious in their countering of it.

Besides it being a legal matter, why is that?

How did Chen have an attorney so quickly? They are essentially a tech blog.

Yes, Gawker may have gotten one for them but that implies this will not be an easy fight and facts may come out that may not have been supposed to see the light of day.

Of course, this is conjecture, as everything here is.

Are you REALLY willing to stake your life on that? Speaking of looking foolish in print - that seems like a huge load of hyperbole - or you hold your life pretty cheaply to stake it on anything so meaningless.

Please note that there was no arrest warrant served on Chen - just a seizure warrant for his equipment - this is a classic case of a DA trying to make a high profile case out of the Apple/Gizmodo links -count on it.

The lawyer in question is in fact the COO of Gawker Media - so that is essentially a no brainer - he's an officer of the corp as well as legal counsel.

I don't demonize Gizmodo, I simply choose to largely ignore their blog as a pastiche of arrested adolescent would-be journalists trying like crazy to drive page hits to generate ad revenue to get their fuzzy little asses paid for sitting in front of the screen. They are willing to do any outrageous thing to get that job done. It doesn't make them credible nor journalists - no matter what job title you throw in front of or behind their names. Their antics at CES and other conferences demonstrated this so conclusively that once they posted the results I simply removed Giz from my regular RSS feeds and bookmarks. They do, on occasion come up with some good material, but I don't care to put up with the dreck they offer at other times to enjoy it. There are many other sources out there for tech news and reviews - it's a competitive space. And I stand by my comments here.

And all of the above information I got from going - just briefly - to Gizmodo's site and reading a couple of entries, followed up with some additional other backgrounding - all of 10 minutes worth of my life taken to get a reasonable command of the facts on the ground for now. I commend the effort to the rest of my fellow posters here.
post #284 of 531
I think that Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP is about done with SCO.

They might appreciate the business
post #285 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

And in court that is hearsay until proven.

Also, Gizmodo didn't say that, The owner of Gawker did. The owner of Gawker is the one who's home should be searched, via that logic, as Gizmodo is part of the Gawker franchise and the owner of Gawker self professed he would pay any price to get a piece of tech from apple.

Also, there is a precedent there, and at most, until proven as fact, they would be guilty of false reporting. Though I don't know the precedent I am sure you would be capable of finding it.

Anyone can say anything, unless there is record of the transaction, or at most, record of $5k to $10k disbursed to someone associated to gawker ($10k just in case the "seller" chose to up the price in negotiation) then there is no record of such transaction having taken place.

Ever hear of Al Capone?

Like I said, I am just going by the story Gizmodo told.

If they say they paid for it, why should I believe otherwise? There is no other party that came out and said, no Gizmodo did not pay for it.

Of course they could be lying when they say they paid for it. In fact Jason Chen might have stolen the iPhone prototype himself. Which is why the police are investigating.
post #286 of 531
Seeing that Gizmodo did not post anything related to this topic on their website, I don't think they saw this coming at all
This whole thing has taken a very ugly turn. What happens if the authorities find illegal content on his computer? Was it worth it after all? Maybe this will set a precedence on how far one can go to get a scoop...
post #287 of 531
I'm on Apple's side on this, but this specific warrant clearly forbids night searches. The search occurred after 9:00 PM. How is this legal?
post #288 of 531
The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.
post #289 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ePan View Post

I'm on Apple's side on this, but this specific warrant clearly forbids night searches. The search occurred after 9:00 PM. How is this legal?

This has been gone over a few times (or more) on this thread, but just in case you didn't catch it: a day search is defined as being served between the hours of 7am & 10pm.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #290 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.

The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.

In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.

In both cases, journalists should be able to alert the public.

It is in fact not at all the same case. Now if the prototype could demonstrate that Apple was using ground-up baby seals in the manufacture the iPhone in spite of claims to the contrary - then yes it would be the same thing. Those are not the facts on the ground - none of which we have any corroboration for by the way until the DA investigates. That's what this is all about, period.

A DA suspects that criminal activity has occurred, there seems to be enough circumstantial evidence (provided ironically by Gizmodo themselves) to merit further investigation under California law (apparently both criminal and trade it seems), and the allegations and circumstances were enough to convince a judge to issue a warrant for the seizure of Chen's equipment, especially if the DA is concerned that evidence may be in danger of being compromised or destroyed. Now, the DA may look on this as an opportunity to bolster a career in a high profile case as well. So there's additional motivation, but not necessarily so.

In the end more words and vituperation will be spend in speculation out here in the blogosphere
than it will take to bring the case to closure.

The problem for Nick is he HAD to shoot off his mouth about Gawker Media supporting checkbook journalism. The problem for Jason Chen is he HAD to have his picture taken with the device. The problem for Gizmodo is they HAD to take it apart , take pictures and post them on the internet. At no point did anyone take their meds, pause and ask, "is what we are doing the right thing to do?" Not right even from some golden moral standard - just right from the "can I get into trouble by doing this" - basic existential stuff. Nope. They instead only thought of the huge scoop this was, the page hits, the ad revenue for the site and the notoriety. When your commonsense fails, you pay the consequences. This is not Watergate. This is not a large corporate entity like Exxon hiding malfeasance and criminal negligence. What the consequences are for Gawker, Gizmodo and Jason Chen (if any) remains to be seen. It depends largely on the DA's investigation.

Now if Gawker/Gizmodo is smart they will keep the editorializing to an absolute minimum until the investigation is over - but I bet they won't. They may try to paint themselves as aggrieved and wronged servants of the tech community just trying to do their jobs (something they have already alluded to as they edited original posts and tried to minimize their role in this). But not only is the the original material there and witnessed to by a large audience, but all versions are archived on the internet as well. A reasonably tech-savvy DA will know this and add that to whatever is found on Chen's equipment.
post #291 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Seeing that Gizmodo did not post anything related to this topic on their website, I don't think they saw this coming at all
This whole thing has taken a very ugly turn..

You make it sound like the police doing their work is the ugly turn? Is that what you mean? As a firm believer in the rule of law, I think the ugly turns happened when the thief didn't return the property, and then also when Gizmodo paid $5K for the hot phone. Now, the wheels of justice are turning and the ugly turns are being properly addressed.
post #292 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.

now do we. Really?
post #293 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Are you REALLY willing to stake your life on that? Speaking of looking foolish in print - that seems like a huge load of hyperbole - or you hold your life pretty cheaply to stake it on anything so meaningless.

Please note that there was no arrest warrant served on Chen - just a seizure warrant for his equipment - this is a classic case of a DA trying to make a high profile case out of the Apple/Gizmodo links -count on it.

The lawyer in question is in fact the COO of Gawker Media - so that is essentially a no brainer - he's an officer of the corp as well as legal counsel.

I don't demonize Gizmodo, I simply choose to largely ignore their blog as a pastiche of arrested adolescent would-be journalists trying like crazy to drive page hits to generate ad revenue to get their fuzzy little asses paid for sitting in front of the screen. They are willing to do any outrageous thing to get that job done. It doesn't make them credible nor journalists - no matter what job title you throw in front of or behind their names. Their antics at CES and other conferences demonstrated this so conclusively that once they posted the results I simply removed Giz from my regular RSS feeds and bookmarks. They do, on occasion come up with some good material, but I don't care to put up with the dreck they offer at other times to enjoy it. There are many other sources out there for tech news and reviews - it's a competitive space. And I stand by my comments here.

And all of the above information I got from going - just briefly - to Gizmodo's site and reading a couple of entries, followed up with some additional other backgrounding - all of 10 minutes worth of my life taken to get a reasonable command of the facts on the ground for now. I commend the effort to the rest of my fellow posters here.

The point was the extremes I have seen going on in this thread with no actual proof, but still seemed to elicit the public burning at the stake supposed peanut gallery and shareholders were putting gizmodo through.

I haven't read the rest of your post, only the beginning, so this will only address that.
post #294 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

snip

Let's go backward:

Didn't photos of the phone show up on Engadget first? Why are their offices not being searched?

snip

engadget photographed, speculated on, but didn't purchase the phone, so they didn't commit the crime of buying stolen property?
post #295 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Like I said, I am just going by the story Gizmodo told.

If they say they paid for it, why should I believe otherwise? There is no other party that came out and said, no Gizmodo did not pay for it.

Of course they could be lying when they say they paid for it. In fact Jason Chen might have stolen the iPhone prototype himself. Which is why the police are investigating.

I'd honestly love to know how he would have accomplished that. Unless he's Tom Cruise, I more feel this piece of tech was handed to them, but that's just my opinion based on holes and the public nature of the circumstances.

Any fool would not have stated they paid for an item that was obviously a potential piece of corporate espionage unless there was reason to distance themselves from whomever gave it to them.

Misdirection.

Stating they paid for it in any nature puts them behind the 8 ball and in the cross hairs, so to say so means they were distancing themselves.

I have avoided saying this, but I live in the DC and have a friend working for the FCC (they already have the new all aluminum samsung TV, btw. A gift from samsung when the president of said company saw what he stated to be "sony crap" on the wall of their conference room.)

He has told me what apple does when the FCC tests their equipment. And apple guard is with the tech. Windows are blacked out. Several logs are signed, and when testing is done it is under lock and key. So WSJ was pretty accurate and this is a government agency no less.

So yes, my friend, the FCC and I really have issue that an apple baseband engineer was allowed to take a prototype to a bar, get drunk, and then lose the prototype.

The entire thing seemed flakey when it was explained, and pretty ostentatious in its explanation.

So lets just take into account the possibility the CA police more than likely decided to be gun-ho with the potential of a high profile case and may have stepped on more toes than they anticipated.
post #296 of 531
Too bad police did not have time to leave. If they did the story would have went something like this:

"We were just passing by the house and the Garage door was open. So we walked in and saw all these computers that no one seemed to claim. We yelled around once or twice, and while we saw the phone number on Chan's GS, we did not call him. In fact we sold his possessions to a rival tech blog engadget, who posted Chan's personal information all over the internet. When Chan contacted us about his lost property we said we will give it back right away, now that we know for sure it's his. But before we do that we will post his passwords and user names on the internet as well. Can't sue us, we are just doing anything for a story."
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #297 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

engadget photographed, speculated on, but didn't purchase the phone, so they didn't commit the crime of buying stolen property?

It was probably leaked to endgadget first and when the desired amount of hits wasn't generated it went directly to gizmodo for the desired affect.

There is still no proof a purchase was made and $5k is pretty cheap for future apple gold, don't you think?
post #298 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.

Agreed.

And finally a truly perceptive statement.

Apparently some are capable of learning how things work in the real world.
post #299 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Very adult.

Relax, it was a joke.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #300 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

They are going to portray themselves as victims of the apple machine and do a ton of giz vs apple articles.

It's pretty funny because Giz rarely ever wrote this many articles in the span of a single week. Most of their other blogs are 50-word summaries of press releases, followed by a load of pictures.

This prototype has improved Giz's content in more ways than just one.
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #301 of 531
Wow there is some crap on this forum Why not add to it...

1) The reason Apple NEED to pursue a case here is to not set a precedent of doing nothing. If they just let this slip under the radar then the next time someone steals some trade secrets from them or similar, they would argue that Apple did nothing last time, so they should not be prosecuted. Apple need to clearly maintain a precedent, which is in many ways the same as showing a precedent for protecting your trademark. If you don't, don't expect to win a case one day when you do.

2) The warrant was allegedly served around 7am, though no one was home. What time the search concludes is irrelevant to a night time clause, it could have gone into the wee hours and the only ones that would be upset would be the caffeine deprived cops.

Oh, and why did the super troopers have to kick the door in etc etc... usually when entering a house they will take extreme caution, you never know what gun wielding nut is on the other side of the door. Better to be safe then sorry.
post #302 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

It's pretty funny because Giz rarely ever wrote this many articles in the span of a single week. Most of their other blogs are 50-word summaries of press releases, followed by a load of pictures.

This prototype has improved Giz's content in more ways than just one.

If you want an idea of what I am doing right now, I am sitting here in front of my 24 in iMac, petting my flame point siamese and drinking grey goose on the rocks.

It should be said, if anyone in this forum needs to relax, it's not me.
post #303 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Police officers break the law all the time. Some are punished but a surprising amount get off with little more than a suspension.

The contention here about the warrant is that Chen being an online Journalist should have been exempt from the search and seizure because of his connection with Gawker media.

The issue regarding whether they knew or didn't know the iPod was stolen and the legal ramification there are separate.

Sorry, but that kind of logic doesn't make sense.

Being a journalist gives you some protection - but not against theft. The crime here is trafficking in stolen property - and I don't care if he's the Editor of The Wall Street Journal. That is no defense.

As for whether he knew it was stolen, please stop repeating that fallacious argument. Under CA law, it was stolen - it's not even a gray area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero View Post

Can Jason be compelled to give up the password? Not in the criminal case. Mr. 5th Amendment likely applies. But probably not in any civil case someone in Cuppertino might wish to bring against him (and his employer.)

He can most certainly be ordered to turn over any relevant documents on the computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.

Please reference these reports.

There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.

So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.

Why? First, you don't know if Apple reported it stolen.

More importantly, there's no such requirement in the law. If you go on vacation and I break into your house and steal your TV and car and the police see me doing it, they can arrest me - even though you have clearly not filed a stolen property report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

What if a file is found showing that a car company knew that a deadly defect existed, but that they didn't want to spend the money to fix it.

The file belongs to the car company. A journalist pays a guy who found it. The journalist spills the beans and it becomes an international news story.

In all respects the situation is similar top Apple's: Inside info exists that a big company wants to keep secret.

That last sentence is the ONLY similarity - but it's not enough to justify what you're proposing. If the reporter believed that the phone caused a risk of imminent harm to the public, he MIGHT be able to make that argument. In this case, he's simply stealing and publishing trade secret information - which is illegal in both CA and NY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitro View Post

this is total BS. apple needs to wake up and understand that any R&D work has its hazards and GIZMODO was just reporting or tabloid reporting the product. "Gizmodo returned the iPhone to Apple after the Cupertino, Calif., company requested it be given back, "

How does that have anything to do with this case? R&D has its hazards, sure. But why does that give the 'finder' the right to steal Apple's property, Gizmodo the right to buy stolen property, and Gizmodo the right to misappropriate and publish trade secrets? How does returning the phone negate those crimes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The best thing that Apple could do at this stage would be to take the high road: ask the authorities to cool it, i.e., drop it and move on (regardless of whether they listen). .

Yes, if Apple's target is to make juvenile delinquents who can't tell right from wrong happy, that might be a reasonable approach.

But Apple is a business which has to protect its trade secrets. They have every right to prosecute and most people who are old enough to own anything of value understand that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

Just because an attorney says something does not mean that it is always correct. For example, the Giz attorney supposedly stated that the seizure was not legal for the following reasons.

* Chen was a journalist.
* He worked out of his home.
* Section 1524(g) of the CA penal code clearly states that a journalist cannot be subpoenaed for refusal to reveal a source.
* Section 1070 of said code clearly states that a warrant cannot be issued for seizure of any objects described in section 1524(g)
* An 'X' mark by "Night Search Approved" would disallow any seizure during the evening hours. The search commenced at 9:45 PM.

Chen was not just reporting he himself may have committed a crime therefore this does not apply

Exactly. He can refuse to reveal a news source. But when HE is involved in the crime, that protection doesn't apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp View Post

Apple is guilty in the Court of public opinion.

Not at all. Most people don't know anything about the case, but if you ask the majority if it's OK for Gizmodo to steal Apple's prototype phone (using the CA legal definition), take it apart, and publish trade secrets on the internet, most people will say that's not OK.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #304 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

It was probably leaked to endgadget first and when the desired amount of hits wasn't generated it went directly to gizmodo for the desired affect.

There is still no proof a purchase was made and $5k is pretty cheap for future apple gold, don't you think?

So a written admission and a public boast no longer constitute "proof" in your perfectly objective mind?
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #305 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

I guess it's okay then if I steal your car and sell it to Gizmodo so they can do a story on your stereo system. Freedom of the press, right?

You're really going crazy here. Gizmodo bought stolen property - is that so hard to understand?

It is really, really scary how many unthought-out knee-jerk replies there were to my post. Yours was the worst.

No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??

As for all of you who doubt that the police are acting differently because Apple is involved, consider how this would have went down if ANY other product from ANY other company had been reported on. Don't lie and say that a raid on an editorial office (yes, that IS what it is, as he works from home) would have netted computers and cameras if this were Cisco or Nokia. You know darned well this case was given special, expedited treatment.

What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.
post #306 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by gchriste View Post

Wow there is some crap on this forum Why not add to it...

1) The reason Apple NEED to pursue a case here is to not set a precedent of doing nothing. If they just let this slip under the radar then the next time someone steals some trade secrets from them or similar, they would argue that Apple did nothing last time, so they should not be prosecuted. Apple need to clearly maintain a precedent, which is in many ways the same as showing a precedent for protecting your trademark. If you don't, don't expect to win a case one day when you do.

2) The warrant was allegedly served around 7am, though no one was home. What time the search concludes is irrelevant to a night time clause, it could have gone into the wee hours and the only ones that would be upset would be the caffeine deprived cops.

1) That assumes that a baseband engineer was allowed to go out partying with a prototype in the first place.

2) Apparently no one being home wasn't a problem.
post #307 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn View Post

Exactly, so barring hiding behind the defense they are "reporters" why out the phone and the engineer in the manner they did when the legal backlash could destroy them?

I leave you to think about that.

Because they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. There, I said that. I've been a user here since 2002, and I'm not going anywhere. If it turns out I'm wrong about anything here I'll stand by my posts and apologize to them as needed.

However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies). In either case, they're not credible journalists/reporters. We should've learned our lesson from CES, but they seemed contrite so we forgave them. Not again.

To more directly answer your question, they are technically/legally reporters/journalists/press/etc... It's a reasonable defense, but not in this case since the police are going after criminal acts that they claim they did. As far as outing the engineer, that wasn't a criminal offense, it was just douchebaggery.
post #308 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

So a written admission and a public boast no longer constitute "proof" in your perfectly objective mind?

It constitutes show boating, PT Barnum style and nothing more.

In court it would be circumstantial evidence.

Many more high profile cases have been lost with more.
post #309 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

Because they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. There, I said that. I've been a user here since 2002, and I'm not going anywhere. If it turns out I'm wrong about anything here I'll stand by my posts and apologize to them as needed.

However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies). In either case, they're not credible journalists/reporters. We should've learned our lesson from CES, but they seemed contrite so we forgave them. Not again.

To more directly answer your question, they are technically/legally reporters/journalists/press/etc... It's a reasonable defense, but not in this case since the police are going after criminal acts that they claim they did. As far as outing the engineer, that wasn't a criminal offense, it was just douchebaggery.

Or, adversely, protecting their high profile source.
post #310 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

The only reason the techno cops are doing anything about this is because it's a high profile story. PR for them = more funding. Except they look like a bunch of zealous steroid freaks.

This is a case of a lost/stolen (however you want to phrase it) prototype that is worth millions of dollars. Companies would likely pay millions to obtain that unit. Of course the police will be after this like rabid dogs. This is not just some dude's lost iPhone (as much as some philosophers on this forum continue to bring up that absurd analogy).
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
32" Sharp AQUOS (1080p) > 13" MacBook Pro 2.26GHz. 4Gb RAM . 32Gb Corsair Nova SSD >>> 500Gb HDD
Reply
post #311 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

I'd honestly love to know how he would have accomplished that. Unless he's Tom Cruise, I more feel this piece of tech was handed to them, but that's just my opinion based on holes and the public nature of the circumstances.

Any fool would not have stated they paid for an item that was obviously a potential piece of corporate espionage unless there was reason to distance themselves from whomever gave it to them.

Misdirection.

Stating they paid for it in any nature puts them behind the 8 ball and in the cross hairs, so to say so means they were distancing themselves.

I have avoided saying this, but I live in the DC and have a friend working for the FCC (they already have the new all aluminum samsung TV, btw. A gift from samsung when the president of said company saw what he stated to be "sony crap" on the wall of their conference room.)

He has told me what apple does when the FCC tests their equipment. And apple guard is with the tech. Windows are blacked out. Several logs are signed, and when testing is done it is under lock and key. So WSJ was pretty accurate and this is a government agency no less.

So yes, my friend, the FCC and I really have issue that an apple baseband engineer was allowed to take a prototype to a bar, get drunk, and then lose the prototype.

The entire thing seemed flakey when it was explained, and pretty ostentatious in its explanation.

So lets just take into account the possibility the CA police more than likely decided to be gun-ho with the potential of a high profile case and may have stepped on more toes than they anticipated.

Harleigh, the blogs have covered in several different venues that Apple prototypes go out into public for testing purposes, hence the attempt to disguise this particular device as a run-of-the-mill iPhone 3G as was mentioned by Gizmodo. There have been network logs and everything shown to have detected odd Apple devices out and used in public. It has been speculated that Apple does this as a part of its final testing to ensure that the device works as desired "out in the world". And of course they are going to have the FCC lock down - the gov is notorious for leaking tech information out of the approval process. I have friends in the Fed as well - we could burn a year's worth of evenings regaling each other with what we've heard from these sources if we really felt like it - at least I know I could.
post #312 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??

I think you will find that in most computer crimes the first thing that happens is the computers are siezed. Doesn't matter if it is a single person working at home or a global corporation. Think Enron, think Mitnick. Taking the computers is no different to taking DNA from your clothing or taking the hammer you used in an assault, you are taking the implements that *may* have been used in the procurement of a crime.

Stop being so paranoid.
post #313 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Harleigh, the blogs have covered in several different venues that Apple prototypes go out into public for testing purposes, hence the attempt to disguise this particular device as a run-of-the-mill iPhone 3G as was mentioned by Gizmodo. There have been network logs and everything shown to have detected odd Apple devices out and used in public. It has been speculated that Apple does this as a part of its final testing to ensure that the device works as desired "out in the world". And of course they are going to have the FCC lock down - the gov is notorious for leaking tech information out of the approval process. I have friends in the Fed as well - we could burn a year's worth of evenings regaling each other with what we've heard form these sources if we really felt like it - at least I know I could.

And all of these blogs point to high profile apple execs testing said devices, such as SJ himself, not a low level engineer.

Find an apple employee that states a low level programmer gets to take home a high level device and do whatever with it.

Also, lets be honest here, if you were an apple tech would you take your new prototype out to the bar with you, or the 3GS you were issued for being a loyal apple employee?

Apparently common sense does not reign in this venue.....

I'm not here to do a pissing contest, though I could tell you things that could either curdle your blood or make you laugh, but I would like people to actually think about the circumstances rather than shooting from the hip.
post #314 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

It is really, really scary how many unthought-out knee-jerk replies there were to my post. Yours was the worst.

No, of course it is not OK for Gizmodo to steal my car and report on it. But the proper police reaction is to arrest them for theft, NOT TO TAKE THEIR COMPUTERS AND CAMERAS. How hard is THAT to understand??

As for all of you who doubt that the police are acting differently because Apple is involved, consider how this would have went down if ANY other product from ANY other company had been reported on. Don't lie and say that a raid on an editorial office (yes, that IS what it is, as he works from home) would have netted computers and cameras if this were Cisco or Nokia. You know darned well this case was given special, expedited treatment.

What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.

Actually, if Gizmodo stole my car and the evidence was reasonably suspected to be on their computers and cameras, I would expect and demand that the police seize those computers and cameras. I would say that analogy fits almost perfectly except Gizmodo only claims they participated in knowingly purchasing stolen property. Gizmodo doesn't claim to be the ones who stole the property.

This case may have been given special treatment. However, the main reason for that is isn't Apple, but rather it's high profile because of the coverage of it. The coverage started with Gizmodo and they brought it smack dab into the spotlight here.
post #315 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

And in court that is hearsay until proven.

Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).

Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.
post #316 of 531
I don't get it. All these tech sites do this. Buy people's lost and found stuff and disassemble it. What's so different about Jizzmodo? I think the police should focus on real criminals instead of wasting time confiscating computers, taking away photographers' cameras, assaulting Ivy League professors for trying to get into their own homes and countless other violations.
post #317 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by donarb View Post

Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).

Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.

Your definition matches my statement, no matter how you attempt to interpret it, as it was reported to be said, and not from the mouth of the stater.

You would have been better to state I was mistaking it for libel, in which case you would still be incorrect.

(Also, the story can change with evidence and the threat of perjury)
post #318 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

However, if what Gizmodo claims they did is true, then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons. If what they claimed happened turns out not to be true and thus they were lying in their reporting...well then they're hit whoring idiotic douchebags who may not be felons (depending upon their lies).

Your unflagging logic made me laugh out-loud. I believe next time I'm in an argument (despite what the argument is about, or who it is with - why spoil the fun?), I shall use the phrase "hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons" just for the hell of it. I can but anticipate the wide-eyed looks of wonder and amazement.
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
"I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused."
Macbook Pro 2.2
Reply
post #319 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post

Your unflagging logic made me laugh out-loud. I believe next time I'm in an argument (despite what the argument is about, or who it is with - why spoil the fun?), I shall use the phrase "hit whoring idiotic douchebag felons" just for the hell of it. I can but anticipate the wide-eyed looks of wonder and amazement.

I will admit the original statement wasn't as funny but this synopsis of it made my cat get off my lap due to my laughing out loud.
post #320 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by gchriste View Post

Wow there is some crap on this forum Why not add to it...

1) The reason Apple NEED to pursue a case here is to not set a precedent of doing nothing. If they just let this slip under the radar then the next time someone steals some trade secrets from them or similar, they would argue that Apple did nothing last time, so they should not be prosecuted. Apple need to clearly maintain a precedent, which is in many ways the same as showing a precedent for protecting your trademark. If you don't, don't expect to win a case one day when you do.

2) The warrant was allegedly served around 7am, though no one was home. What time the search concludes is irrelevant to a night time clause, it could have gone into the wee hours and the only ones that would be upset would be the caffeine deprived cops.

Oh, and why did the super troopers have to kick the door in etc etc... usually when entering a house they will take extreme caution, you never know what gun wielding nut is on the other side of the door. Better to be safe then sorry.

Very sound and valid observations.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor