California authorities seize computers of Gizmodo editor - Page 10

Originally Posted by macslut

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.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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

Originally Posted by masternav

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.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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?

Originally Posted by macslut

What‽‽‽‽‽‽

Care to cite that?

Originally Posted by macslut

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.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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.

Originally Posted by Wil

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.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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.

Originally Posted by Tri3

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.

Originally Posted by masternav

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!

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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?

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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.

Originally Posted by DaveGee

http://www.ehow.com/how_5137713_buy-...s-legally.html

Originally Posted by ktappe


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??

Originally Posted by macslut

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.

Originally Posted by min_t

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.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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

Originally Posted by Mark Booth

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

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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

Originally Posted by Wil

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.

Originally Posted by Apple 1984

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

Originally Posted by addabox

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"?

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Eeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxaaaaaaaaccccccccctttttttttlll llllllllllyyyyyyyyy

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

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.

Originally Posted by ktappe

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?

Originally Posted by rmg007

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.

Originally Posted by addabox

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

Originally Posted by Macadamias

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?

Originally Posted by macslut

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.

Originally Posted by macslut

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.

Originally Posted by harleighquinn

Why attack Gizmodo?

The rest of you are doing that just fine.

I'll defend the underdog, thank you.

Originally Posted by applebook

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?

Originally Posted by Wil

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.

Originally Posted by Apple 1984

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.

Originally Posted by Clive At Five

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