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 10

post #361 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

It's not just being fired. I could understand that.

It's being unemployed in the career you prepared for during the rest of your life because the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons outed you and there would be no way someone in this industry would hire you after doing the Google check for just a few seconds and seeing this.

Also, we don't know all the details around the loss of the phone or his possession of it. There may be circumstances that make it more understandable...was he required to always have it? Was he drugged? Did the "finder" really find it, or was it out right stolen?

Whatever the case, I don't like seeing people without malice having their lives ruined.

How about, and I am surprised no one has even touched on this yet, how did Gizmodo know it was he that lost the phone when they stated that by the time they received it, the handset was killed remotely and there was no way to get past the iTunes setup screen?

How do you track an engineer or the loser of the handset when you have no way of gaining any information from the handset?

How did they know he left the post and from that phone?

Seriously? No one thought of that? Really?
post #362 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.

What‽‽‽‽‽‽

Care to cite that?
post #363 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

According to Gizmodo (if you will) he CLAIMS to have found it on a barstool, asks around, got no response and decided to take it home. Checking it out, found Powell's Facebook link on it (and so had his name) but instead of doing the logical thing and returning it to the bar where it was left, he attempted, according to Gizmodo, to call the Apple support lines to return it, etc. This stuff is all out there in GIzmodo's recount of it. He removed it from where it was found. That alone according to Cailfornia law is considered theft. Further when Gizmodo finally contacted Powell he said he had called the bar several times to see if anyone has TURNED IT IN. A logical and expected behavior by an honest person. All of this has been hashed and rehashed.

And it is all too neat, too clean, too pat.

That is the point I am making.

And then the person that "found" said item, remembered and wrote all this down, didn't try to contact Powell on Facebook, but instead contacted Gizmodo?

If that is true, then everyone involved deserves a Darwin Award.
post #364 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

How about, and I am surprised no one has even touched on this yet, how did Gizmodo know it was he that lost the phone when they stated that by the time they received it, the handset was killed remotely and there was no way to get past the iTunes setup screen?

How do you track an engineer or the loser of the handset when you have no way of gaining any information from the handset?

How did they know he left the post and from that phone?

Seriously? No one thought of that? Really?

The "finder" of the phone is claimed by Gizmodo as posted on their site, to have looked through the phone that night before it was wiped. That is how he supposedly saw his Facebook profile. It's also where the confusing 80GB came from.
post #365 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

What‽‽‽‽‽‽

Care to cite that?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.....

(though it's already been cited in this thread alone...and not by me.)
post #366 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

The "finder" of the phone is claimed by Gizmodo as posted on their site, to have looked through the phone that night before it was wiped. That is how he supposedly saw his Facebook profile. It's also where the confusing 80GB came from.

See the post above the one you quoted.
post #367 of 531
harleighquinn

You are doing some very serious double standards yourself . in your post at 1125pm, you stated that nothing is obvious here and everything we know are conjecture and speculations and let's wait until there is proof of such is found. But on the same post, you have no problem accusing Apple in influencing the police in to search Jason Chen's house for evidence ! But you have no evidence of Apple telling the the DA of doing such as thing. Only speculations, innuendos and guesses.

As for your post at 1127pm, you stated that DA was fishing and it's an equivalent of a wiretap. There is one big problem with your post which you are ignoring, the fact that Gizmodo practically admitted that they bought the phone for 5000 dollars from somebody who found the prototype at a German bar , they opened the Damn thing and posted pictures and videos and they practically demanded that Apple send them a legal letter in order to get their device back , but they are such A*@%^#es that they printed that letter on their website as well. So now, they are fair game to some ambitious DA and they can be charged with buying and possession of stolen property, trade secrets violations and oh yes, blackmail and extortion ( remember the demand for the letter). Apple did not have anything to do with. It was all Gizmodo.

Returning it to the real owners after opening, taking pictures and videos and posting it to the internet and boasting about it does not help them one bit. Idiotic amateurs.
post #368 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Plainly because the circumstances, the explanation, and the way it was reported was too pat, too simple, too not their style for this type of reveal.

The timing is too conspicuous, the way it was obtained and how it was stated it was obtained seems too by design.

And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.

You of all people should know that there are time limits to testing as well as geographic requirements in order to adequately and accurately test said device and you should also know that you would not have taken a piece of equipment to a bar, bordello, or whatever you chose to do for fun for fear of losing a clients valuable piece of tech, much less your employer's.

BTW, I stopped drinking congac in 2002. I made a decision to only go to clear liquors. Too much congac, too many manhattans, and a nearly destroyed stomach lining will do that.

Fine then we establish your line of argument as leaning towards conspiracy where incompetence adequately explains the situation.

And no we don't. Not at all. and if you are going to allege that behavior cite the instances where Apple has consistently pulled this stunt. You are moving now into conjecture and ridiculous attribution. Please don't. There are enough other issues with how Apple allegedly does business without trumping up nonsense.

I do know, and I also have known moments of panic when my judgement was flawed in just such a situation and have risked getting my ass canned for such stupidity. SO yeah - BUT you consistently argue for conspiracy when stupidity or poor judgement clearly match the situation better.

I'm sorry to hear about your stomach. I enjoy clears along with everything else, but have the genetic constitution to withstand the assault of all that drinking and still be able to (much more discretely now) enjoy the vissitudes of this lovely old spirit. Prosit!
post #369 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

harleighquinn

You are doing some very serious double standards yourself . in your post at 1125pm, you stated that nothing is obvious here and everything we know are conjecture and speculations and let's wait until there is proof of such is found. But on the same post, you have no problem accusing Apple in influencing the police in to search Jason Chen's house for evidence ! But you have no evidence of Apple telling the the DA of doing such as thing. Only speculations, innuendos and guesses.

As for your post at 1127pm, you stated that DA was fishing and it's an equivalent of a wiretap. There is one big problem with your post which you are ignoring, the fact that Gizmodo practically admitted that they bought the phone for 5000 dollars from somebody who found the prototype at a German bar , they opened the Damn thing and posted pictures and videos and they practically demanded that Apple send them a legal letter in order to get their device back , but they are such A*@%^#es that they printed that letter on their website as well. So now, they are fair game to some ambitious DA and they can be charged with buying and possession of stolen property, trade secrets violations and oh yes, blackmail and extortion ( remember the demand for the letter). Apple did not have anything to do with. It was all Gizmodo.

Returning it to the real owners after opening, taking pictures and videos and posting it to the internet and boasting about it does not help them one bit. Idiotic amateurs.

Again, Conjecture and I have stated as much, therefore no double standard.
post #370 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

And it is all too neat, too clean, too pat.

That is the point I am making.

And then the person that "found" said item, remembered and wrote all this down, didn't try to contact Powell on Facebook, but instead contacted Gizmodo?

If that is true, then everyone involved deserves a Darwin Award.

That's covered in the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons

What's really stupid here is that Gizmodo and the "finder" could have avoided violating sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code by following the processes in California Civil Code 2080 and along the way covering it as a story. In other words Gizmodo could've paid the finder $5K for exclusive rights to the story...shot video, taken pictures and all of that and then posted it on their site as "Hey, is this your phone? It was found and the finder wants to return it"

Instead, they purchased the phone (again, again, by their posted claims) and they really crossed the line in taking it apart as well as holding on to it for so long without following the processes in 2080.
post #371 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri3 View Post

Wow that was pretty fast. Guess money and good lawyers buys speed in these type of cases. Image this was your phone that got taken. There is no way the police would go after someone like Gizmodo for you.

The difference is an Apple prototype leaked more than two months before it's release gives competitors a substantial headstart. The material harm to Apple from this kind of leak could be in the millions. Apple commands the market lead it currently enjoys partly because nobody knows what's coming next -- and Apple continues to impress. Again, this kind of leak really steals the thunder of a release.

Imagine we never saw this device. When Steve whipped it out on stage, we'd all be like "Oooo, ahhh! A front facing camera! Look how thin! Better battery life! Camera flash! Wow, a beautiful high-res screen! Gimme Gimme!" But now, when he pulls it out, we'll be like "Yeah, seen that. What else you got?" If that's not materially damaging to Apple, I don't know what is.

austingaijin
post #372 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Fine then we establish your line of argument as leaning towards conspiracy where incompetence adequately explains the situation.

And no we don't. Not at all. and if you are going to allege that behavior cite the instances where Apple has consistently pulled this stunt. You are moving now into conjecture and ridiculous attribution. Please don't. There are enough other issues with how Apple allegedly does business without trumping up nonsense.

I do know, and I also have known moments of panic when my judgement was flawed in just such a situation and have risked getting my ass canned for such stupidity. SO yeah - BUT you consistently argue for conspiracy when stupidity or poor judgement clearly match the situation better.

I'm sorry to hear about your stomach. I enjoy clears along with everything else, but have the genetic constitution to withstand the assault of all that drinking and still be able to (much more discretely now) enjoy the vissitudes of this lovely old spirit. Prosit!

I alleged nothing but another point of view seasoned with common sense, the one thing a number of these emotionally salted posts seem to be lacking.

NO ONE knows what happened, most of all the DA, hence why they WANT to know and went to this extreme to find out.

IF apple conducted a controlled leak, they are NOT going to say anything until they have to.

IF the item was stolen by someone inside apple and then leaked, it will come out.

IF the item was ACTUALLY lost and then found (that story has more holes than a colander) then THAT will come out.

But if nothing else I have illustrated how outlandish it is for ANYONE to prosecute ANYONE in a public forum without ANY shred of evidence.

Didn't we just destabilize a very well known middle eastern country with even LESS evidence?

Has ANYONE not learned ANYTHING from the last 7 to 8 years?

To me, this is a social exercise.

Nothing more.

I believe what I am saying no more than the Lincoln Group believes they propaganda they spew on the masses (if you are who you say you are, you know who they are. Their new name is Fulcrum International) but I will state it to as fact as much as anyone here will state as fact what they truly know nothing about.
post #373 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

How about, and I am surprised no one has even touched on this yet, how did Gizmodo know it was he that lost the phone when they stated that by the time they received it, the handset was killed remotely and there was no way to get past the iTunes setup screen?

How do you track an engineer or the loser of the handset when you have no way of gaining any information from the handset?

How did they know he left the post and from that phone?

Seriously? No one thought of that? Really?

If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.

Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.

You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.

Mark
post #374 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Plainly because the circumstances, the explanation, and the way it was reported was too pat, too simple, too not their style for this type of reveal.

The timing is too conspicuous, the way it was obtained and how it was stated it was obtained seems too by design.

And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.

You of all people should know that there are time limits to testing as well as geographic requirements in order to adequately and accurately test said device and you should also know that you would not have taken a piece of equipment to a bar, bordello, or whatever you chose to do for fun for fear of losing a clients valuable piece of tech, much less your employer's.

BTW, I stopped drinking congac in 2002. I made a decision to only go to clear liquors. Too much congac, too many manhattans, and a nearly destroyed stomach lining will do that.

You know, for someone who keeps demanding proof for any and all opinions about this case, you sure do indulge in a lot of made up stuff.

So I put it to you:

Where's your proof that this was an Apple publicity scheme?

Where's your proof that the DA was on a fishing expedition?

Where's your proof that Apple in some way caused any of this to happen?

These are highly charged, highly speculative ideas about the case that run contrary to simplest explanation (guy left phone in bar, guy found it and sold it, laws were broken, at least in the estimation of the DA), so I imagine you have something some reason for thinking those things beyond "I bet Apple/and or the DA are the bad guys"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #375 of 531
Quote:

If the stolen goods are not claimed from the police, they EVENTUALLY sell the goods at auction. By this time of course, anybody will be able to buy a comparable iPhone LEGALLY.

Stop muddying up the water by trying to misdirect from the finder's criminal action of selling property that didn't belong to him. No theorizing on the possible actions of the police once the item was turned in dismisses the factual criminal action of the finder.
post #376 of 531
I'll say this though: if Apple has its way, Gawker Media could end up with a couple of high-level employees in jail and possibly be sued by Apple, Inc. out of existance. Now that's really scary.
post #377 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??

Pretty hard, Arresting is one thing, how do you expect them to convict without evidence?
post #378 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

That's covered in the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons

What's really stupid here is that Gizmodo and the "finder" could have avoided violating sections 485 and 496 of the California Penal Code by following the processes in California Civil Code 2080 and along the way covering it as a story. In other words Gizmodo could've paid the finder $5K for exclusive rights to the story...shot video, taken pictures and all of that and then posted it on their site as "Hey, is this your phone? It was found and the finder wants to return it"

Instead, they purchased the phone (again, again, by their posted claims) and they really crossed the line in taking it apart as well as holding on to it for so long without following the processes in 2080.

And you neglect the obvious:

If that is the case, why state those were the circumstances in the first place, when it obviously could come back on them?

Especially since they obviously have a point of contact for the return of the item?

Admit you COULD have returned it but instead you elected to report it?

I honestly doubt that.

If that is the intelligence level of Northern California, the American civilization is doomed.
post #379 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by min_t View Post

I think the fact that you made Steve call you instead of just giving up the iPhone probably made this a reality. And it really didn't help that you made that snarky remark when posting the letter from Apple's attorney requesting the phone back.

Except that this is not being done by Apple. This is a criminal suit. So Apple is really out of the picture.

And it is Gizmodo's fault for being so cavalier about things. They admitted they paid and how much. Their parent company pulled that stunt with the ipad etc. I'm sure after that move the DA has been watching Gawker to see if they would actually do it. They did, they get dinged big time .

Even if there are no criminal charges filed and no civil lawsuit by Apple, Powell might have cause for a suit over being called out. And companies may think twice about advertising on Gawker sites or offer any kind of info/review copies to their sites. And that could kill them more than the legal stuff cause they can't spin it as some kind of back ass wards win

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #380 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Again, Conjecture and I have stated as much, therefore no double standard.

But those conjectures of yours have accusatory undertones that is directed at Apple but never at Gizmodo. Let me point this out to you, Apple never said a word about this iPhone brouhaha only Gizmodo, Apple never made an official statement about the lost except for that one letter which it asked Gizmodo to return the prototype back to Apple. Everything we know about the next gen iPhone came from Gizmodo, how it was found, how the finder knew the engineer who lost it, how Gizmodo got hold of it , how much they paid for it , that they opened and examined it, that they posted photos and videos in their website, that they call Apple and have Apple legal wrote a letter to them asking the device back and the return of the prototype to Apple. That my friend is not conjecture . Those are the facts according to Gizmodo. The conjecture is about Apple's response to the situation.
post #381 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

If you are going to make an argument, at least take the time to research what you are arguing about. GIZOMODO EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSON THEY PURCHASED THE IPHONE FROM TOLD THEM THAT GRAY POWELL WAS THE OWNER! Got that?! The THIEF (yes, thief!) that "found" the iPhone and sold it to Gizmodo browsed the contents of the phone BEFORE it was wiped by Gray Powell or Apple. That THIEF (yes, thief!) made note of Gray Powell information and reported it to Gizmodo.

Everyone needs to remember... the only "evidence" we have of this person that "found" the iPhone is the STORY that was published by Gizmodo. For all we know, the situation went down differently than how Gizmodo described it. The person that "found" the iPhone (eg, the THIEF) is quite obviously of low moral character. Did it occur to anyone that this person might LIE?! Even the editors at Gizmodo had to wonder how much of his story was the truth.

You should go back to congac. It may rot your stomach but the clear alcohol has apparently rotted your brain.

Mark

I think I have already made that point, but maybe it will go down better coming from you....
post #382 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

but I will state it to as fact as much as anyone here will state as fact what they truly know nothing about.

The dirty truth of this forum comes out. harleighquinn, nicely said. In many ways, this whole thread has been a colossal waste of time.
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
post #383 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

But those conjectures of yours have accusatory undertones that is directed at Apple but never at Gizmodo. Let me point this out to you, Apple never said a word about this iPhone brouhaha only Gizmodo, Apple never made an official statement about the lost except for that one letter which it asked Gizmodo to return the prototype back to Apple. Everything we know about the next gen iPhone came from Gizmodo, how it was found, how the finder knew the engineer who lost it, how Gizmodo got hold of it , how much they paid for it , that they opened and examined it, that they posted photos and videos in their website, that they call Apple and have Apple legal wrote a letter to them asking the device back and the return of the prototype to Apple. That my friend is not conjecture . Those are the facts according to Gizmodo. The conjecture is about Apple's response to the situation.

Why attack Gizmodo?

The rest of you are doing that just fine.

I'll defend the underdog, thank you.
post #384 of 531
Subject of the e-mail message I got THIS evening from Gizmodo (with links to post written by Jason Chen):
Quote:
How Apple Conceals Prototype iPhones
post #385 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple 1984 View Post

The dirty truth of this forum comes out. harleighquinn, nicely said. In many ways, this whole thread has been a colossal waste of time.

Eeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaccccccccctttttttttlll llllllllllyyyyyyyyy
post #386 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You know, for someone who keeps demanding proof for any and all opinions about this case, you sure do indulge in a lot of made up stuff.

So I put it to you:

Where's your proof that this was an Apple publicity scheme?

Where's your proof that the DA was on a fishing expedition?

Where's your proof that Apple in some way caused any of this to happen?

These are highly charged, highly speculative ideas about the case that run contrary to simplest explanation (guy left phone in bar, guy found it and sold it, laws were broken, at least in the estimation of the DA), so I imagine you have something some reason for thinking those things beyond "I bet Apple/and or the DA are the bad guys"?

State your ABSOLUTE proof it was not.

(Sorry. Couldn't help it.)
post #387 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Eeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaccccccccctttttttttlll llllllllllyyyyyyyyy

A colossal waste of time of which about every other post is yours?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #388 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

I alleged nothing but another point of view seasoned with common sense, the one thing a number of these emotionally salted posts seem to be lacking.

NO ONE knows what happened, most of all the DA, hence why they WANT to know and went to this extreme to find out.

IF apple conducted a controlled leak, they are NOT going to say anything until they have to.

IF the item was stolen by someone inside apple and then leaked, it will come out.

IF the item was ACTUALLY lost and then found (that story has more holes than a colander) then THAT will come out.

But if nothing else I have illustrated how outlandish it is for ANYONE to prosecute ANYONE in a public forum without ANY shred of evidence.

Didn't we just destabilize a very well known middle eastern country with even LESS evidence?

Has ANYONE not learned ANYTHING from the last 7 to 8 years?

To me, this is a social exercise.

Nothing more.

I believe what I am saying no more than the Lincoln Group believes they propaganda they spew on the masses (if you are who you say you are, you know who they are. Their new name is Fulcrum International) but I will state it to as fact as much as anyone here will state as fact what they truly know nothing about.

At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.

The key point of where I'm disagreeing with you is that this isn't a "Is OJ guilty of murder" or "Did Tiger's wife cause the accident" or anything like that where people are bringing into the argument nothing but speculation based on their biases.

If I were a juror and the defense quoted everything Gizmodo posted, the prosecution could simply introduce the defense and say nothing more and I'd find Gizmodo and the "finder" guilty of grand theft under California Penal Codes sections 485 and 496.

That's the thing...we've read the statements from the accused, and they're as damning as they possibly could be. And as I've mentioned, they're douchebags, so I don't mind seeing them being prosecuted for the crimes they claimed to have committed.

I hope that what comes out of this is that people realize that "finders keepers" isn't the law, and that they face serious consequences for not turning in found property as well as buying found property, because that, in California, amounts to theft and receiving stolen goods.
post #389 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Oh really? Apparently you're unable to put 2 + 2 together and realize how dangerous a precedent this is for our free media. If the rich (Steve Jobs) can influence the police to raid the homes of his enemies, even after the police are legally notified their warrant is invalid, that means you can no longer trust what you read in the press. You must assume going forward that everything published has been put through a filter of "we had to make sure this wouldn't piss off anyone rich who might raid us", which puts a tinge of doubt into every article. And that's a scary thing indeed. Cold War Pravda, anyone?

Maybe the police were influenced to investigate an actual crime. Maybe they knew the law better than Gawker's lawyer.

California Penal Code 1533 -- Direction as to time for search; grounds for search at night; good cause. ("Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.")

And maybe this will put a filter of "we had to make sure this won't piss off anyone who rightfully owns the stolen property we try to buy" Or is going after people who may have broken the law too scary a notion for you. Anarchy anyone?
post #390 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmg007 View Post

The warrant was signed by the judge at 7:00 p.m. on Friday night. It did NOT authorize night service. I think the search and seizure may have been unlawful.

Cali law defines 'night' as after 10 pm. So as long as they had the right to enter the house and remove anything without the owner present they should be in the clear.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #391 of 531
I like this commend from Engadget reader Jack:

Wrong. What Gizmodo paid for it is automatically what it's worth. And the original finder didn't try very hard to return it to Apple, he obviously knew it belonged to Apple, and then he SOLD it to Gizmodo.

Selling found property that you know belongs to somebody else automatically makes it stolen, and buying stolen property is a felony. As people have been saying this entire time, if the guy really wanted to return it to Apple he could have given it to the bartender. Apple did, in fact, call the bar multiple times looking for that phone.

There is no excuse for what happened. Both the guy who sold it and Gizmodo are going down for this, or at least their editors are, since we're talking about a felony here.
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 #392 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

A colossal waste of time of which about every other post is yours?

I'm the one responsible for the "colossal waste of time" comment. I don't mean to offend anyone, there have been many good points raised here. I think it is time for me to sign off and get some sleep.
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984.
Reply
post #393 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

Maybe the police were influenced to investigate an actual crime. Maybe they knew the law better than Gawker's lawyer.

California Penal Code 1533 -- Direction as to time for search; grounds for search at night; good cause. ("Upon a showing of good cause, the magistrate may, in his or her discretion, insert a direction in a search warrant that it may be served at any time of the day or night. In the absence of such a direction, the warrant shall be served only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.")

And maybe this will put a filter of "we had to make sure this won't piss off anyone who rightfully owns the stolen property we try to buy" Or is going after people who may have broken the law too scary a notion for you. Anarchy anyone?

And, in classic proper police fashion, rather than serve the warrant at a time that would have been convenient to the defendant, they elected what they ascertained to be the most inopportune time.

That, actually, is the only thing in any of this that applies to how things work in the real world. It's not like television, where they are nice and congenial. It's more inconvenience and passive aggression.

i.e.: how cops really are.

I feel they served the warrant when it was convenient to THEM, as well as being well within the guidelines. Having read it and seeing their attorney's response (though the entire warrant is obviously not shown) I must say that is the case.

Though the grounds for the issuing of the warrant may be questionable, how it was carried out is more or less "procedure"....
post #394 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.

The only thing that I will credit him for is being relatively civil. However, I cannot respect the opinion of a guy who thinks that written public admissions are simply "hearsay." Even if it is not admitted into court, it is still damning evidence. In fact, almost no one else even disputes the FACT that Giz paid $5,000 for the prototype. Why is he so hung up over a given FACT?
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 #395 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

At least we've all been civil to ourselves. I'm enjoying this debate. I disagree with you on many points, but respect your point of view.

The key point of where I'm disagreeing with you is that this isn't a "Is OJ guilty of murder" or "Did Tiger's wife cause the accident" or anything like that where people are bringing into the argument nothing but speculation based on their biases.

If I were a juror and the defense quoted everything Gizmodo posted, the prosecution could simply introduce the defense and say nothing more and I'd find Gizmodo and the "finder" guilty of grand theft under California Penal Codes sections 485 and 496.

That's the thing...we've read the statements from the accused, and they're as damning as they possibly could be. And as I've mentioned, they're douchebags, so I don't mind seeing them being prosecuted for the crimes they claimed to have committed.

I hope that what comes out of this is that people realize that "finders keepers" isn't the law, and that they face serious consequences for not turning in found property as well as buying found property, because that, in California, amounts to theft and receiving stolen goods.

For apple's sake, I would like the story to be as reported, what comes out in the end MIGHT be another story, but no one will no until that happens, so again, let Gizmodo be innocent until PROVEN guilty.
post #396 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

Why attack Gizmodo?

The rest of you are doing that just fine.

I'll defend the underdog, thank you.

Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.
post #397 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook View Post

The only thing that I will credit him for is being relatively civil. However, I cannot respect the opinion of a guy who thinks that written public admissions are simply "hearsay." Even if it is not admitted into court, it is still damning evidence. In fact, almost no one else even disputes the FACT that Giz paid $5,000 for the prototype. Why is he so hung up over a given FACT?

Nothing is proven fact until it is PROVEN fact, and that is what the courts are for (though criminal courts are famously unfair and slanted....)

Have a drink and let it go.
post #398 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil View Post

Unfortunately, your position is untenable because Gizmodo itself was the one who made itself the villain.The Gizmodo posts were damning and no amount of moral and legal twisting in the air could changed that.

Already addressed.
post #399 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple 1984 View Post

I'm the one responsible for the "colossal waste of time" comment. I don't mean to offend anyone, there have been many good points raised here. I think it is time for me to sign off and get some sleep.

There was nothing wrong with you making a statement of fact.
post #400 of 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

I love how people continue to use the word "stolen."

Assuming the story as we've heard it is true, if I were to leave my car keys in a public bar, return later to find that my car was gone, and proceed to not call the police, that is not theft. That's a donation. Until it is reported as theft, or witnessed by an officer of the law as the possibility thereof, our legal system cannot recognize it as a "possible theft" -- and even then, they won't be able to CONFIRM it as theft until it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Stop the hyperbole... please.

-Clive

The penal codes of Cali and several other states disagree with you. They all define theft as taking something that is not yours either by direct force, trickery or not making sufficient attempts to return a found object.

This guy called AppleCare, not Corporate. He did not report to the bar owner that he found the phone, he did not message the guy on the facebook account he says was visible on the phone. He didn't fed ex the prototype back to Apple, drive there or hand it over to the manager of the nearest store.

He removed the phone from the bar with intent to keep it. I wouldn't be surprised if a check of Chen's computer finds an email telling the guy to call Apple just so he could get a ticket as 'proof' that he tried. Or even conversations before hand saying Gizmodo would pay if he could get his hands on a iphone etc.

Which by the by is why they took all his computers, phone etc. and anything that might have a backup of information he deleted when things get hot.

My guess is that there's actual California office or they would likely have seized from there also to prevent destruction of potential evidence

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor