or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Authorities waiting to analyze data seized in iPhone prototype case
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Authorities waiting to analyze data seized in iPhone prototype case - Page 4

post #121 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

next time I will add the <sarcasm> tag.

I've been trying to push the inverted exclamation point sarcasm mark used in Ethiopic languages but I seem to be gaining no ground. It's Option-1 in Mac OS X to invoke. Since it's only used at the end of a sentence it doesn't interfere with the Spanish usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_m..._sarcasm_marks
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #122 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

In fact, it's a lot simpler than that. He was supposed to have contacted Apple about it. Apple would have his identity. They didn't need the police or Chen to get it.

The key word is *supposed.* But the story goes that Apple didn't respond. If they didn't respond, they may not have gotten his name. The call may not have been recorded or memorialized in any way.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #123 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

Where a lot of people make a mistake is thinking that deleting files from your computer actually deletes them. I would think that Chen is smart enough to know this. You must either encrypt the data or overwrite the sectors or else the authorities can retrieve it.

That goes without saying.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #124 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

The key word is *supposed.* But the story goes that Apple didn't respond. If they didn't respond, they may not have gotten his name. The call may have recorded or memorialized in any way.

He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.
post #125 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

Where a lot of people make a mistake is thinking that deleting files from your computer actually deletes them. I would think that Chen is smart enough to know this. You must either encrypt the data or overwrite the sectors or else the authorities can retrieve it.

Your point? You say that you think Chen is smart enough to realize that a simple delete isn't sufficient - but you don't think Chen has heard of Secure Erase tools?
"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 #126 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.

That's assuming that:
a. He really did call Apple
and
b. He left his true contact information
and
c. His message was clear enough to understand and there were no transcription errors.

It's really a non-issue. We know that he contacted Wired and Engadget as well as Gizmodo, so the police could have gotten his info from them.
"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 #127 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

And once you have met those requirements and the 90 days have elapsed, then you the finder become the rightful owner and title will be transfered to you. Guess what? Then yuo can sell it or keep it.

(hint: that is why I intentionally answered yes to each of my own questions, except the one about selling it before meeting you finders obligations.

Now you are sounding like a Gawker lawyer.

You are purposely treading on conversational norms by intentionally trying to construct micro-logical-technical loopholes to wriggle through. That doesn't work in any reasonable debate. Not to mention your attempts to wriggle out are unfounded by the facts you actually presented. You conveniently add new criteria to the mix which you cite to automagically absolve yourself of perceived negative associations.

Your last attempt to construct a 90-day get-out-of-jail-free card is totally unfounded. Nobody can hold lost property themselves in CA for 90 days and automatically become the rightful owner. That is outright fiction! There are no other "requirements" to be met. You have to turn the property over to the Police. Period. And you have to ensure it is properly protected until the Police take custody.

What little fake criteria are you going to dream up this time to justify illegal behavior as reasonable without letting it seem as though that is what you are doing?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #128 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Sorry, I should have been more clear. It was sarcasm. of course Giz didn't pay someone to steal the phone. That is in no way plausible. Just some James Bond fantasy about Chen that keeps getting spouted.

next time I will add the <sarcasm> tag.

I'm not buying this a bit. Gawker has openly advertised a bounty on Apple trade secret information, and publicly rescinded the offer in a trite manner after being warned by Apple legal. I fully expect the offer never really was rescinded, just publicly stated it was rescinded.

Then when an appropriate chunk of information in the form of a phone "accidentally turns up" Gawker pays more than 15x what it would be worth if it was an iPhone 4th generation and 100x what a non-iPhone subsidized phone would run from a mobile provider. And you think that one to two order of magnitude price differential doesn't very strongly suggest the bounty was still in force?

To me it says the bounty was in force, just not in Apple's face. It says Gawker was waiting checkbook in hand for "enterprising individuals" to generate a hardware leak. The leak happened to be a theft and while Gawker didn't say steal me an iPhone, they are still culpable for creating the situation where someone believed Gawker or another website would reward them for such an action. Especially when Gawker did exactly that.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #129 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your point? You say that you think Chen is smart enough to realize that a simple delete isn't sufficient - but you don't think Chen has heard of Secure Erase tools?

I said "I would think" but maybe he's not that smart. Obviously Engadget was smart enough not to buy the phone but people at GIZ aren't so bright...
post #130 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Now you are sounding like a Gawker lawyer.

You are purposely treading on conversational norms by intentionally trying to construct micro-logical-technical loopholes to wriggle through. That doesn't work in any reasonable debate. Not to mention your attempts to wriggle out are unfounded by the facts you actually presented. You conveniently add new criteria to the mix which you cite to automagically absolve yourself of perceived negative associations.

Your last attempt to construct a 90-day get-out-of-jail-free card is totally unfounded. Nobody can hold lost property themselves in CA for 90 days and automatically become the rightful owner. That is outright fiction! There are no other "requirements" to be met. You have to turn the property over to the Police. Period. And you have to ensure it is properly protected until the Police take custody.

What little fake criteria are you going to dream up this time to justify illegal behavior as reasonable without letting it seem as though that is what you are doing?

Maybe reading isn't you strong suit, I don't know. I clearly said that after meeting requirements, one of which is turning it over to the police, then after 90 days owner ship transfers to the finder. I never implied or stated that the finder of the iPhone nor Giz met the requirements (or waited the 90 days). I didn't say they could hold it for 90 days, Perhaps rereading that post would help. I said if you turn it into the police, then 90 after they post a public notice, it becomes yours (after you pay for the posting)...duh

It isn't so much constructing a get out of jail card, it is simply stating the law. I am sorry you didn't understand the words I used to state it, but that isn't my concern, is it? The statute really is quite clear...ownership transfers to the finder. Use a dictionary if you need to, but it is clearly stated.

BTW, justto remind you, my comments were in response to your silly assertion that "And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item".". Silly because, obviously since the law clearly allows for it to transfer ownership, under conditions, to the finder after 90 days, you are allowed to sell what you own....well worth another 'duh'

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #131 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

I'm not buying this a bit. Gawker has openly advertised a bounty on Apple trade secret information, and publicly rescinded the offer in a trite manner after being warned by Apple legal. I fully expect the offer never really was rescinded, just publicly stated it was rescinded.

Then when an appropriate chunk of information in the form of a phone "accidentally turns up" Gawker pays more than 15x what it would be worth if it was an iPhone 4th generation and 100x what a non-iPhone subsidized phone would run from a mobile provider. And you think that one to two order of magnitude price differential doesn't very strongly suggest the bounty was still in force?

To me it says the bounty was in force, just not in Apple's face. It says Gawker was waiting checkbook in hand for "enterprising individuals" to generate a hardware leak. The leak happened to be a theft and while Gawker didn't say steal me an iPhone, they are still culpable for creating the situation where someone believed Gawker or another website would reward them for such an action. Especially when Gawker did exactly that.

So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?

That you buy? But not that it was left in a bar? Seriously?!


BTW, melgross, this is what I was talking about.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #132 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Maybe reading isn't you strong suit, I don't know. I clearly said that after meeting requirements, one of which is turning it over to the police, then after 90 days owner ship transfers to the finder. I never implied or stated that the finder of the iPhone nor Giz met the requirements (or waited the 90 days). I didn't say they could hold it for 90 days, Perhaps rereading that post would help. I said if you turn it into the police, then 90 after they post a public notice, it becomes yours (after you pay for the posting)...duh

It isn't so much constructing a get out of jail card, it is simply stating the law. I am sorry you didn't understand the words I used to state it, but that isn't my concern, is it? The statute really is quite clear...ownership transfers to the finder. Use a dictionary if you need to, but it is clearly stated.

So your point is that Gizmodo could have owned the phone if they had done EVERYTHING differently than they did.

Not sure why you would even bother something so obvious.
"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 #133 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.

If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:

1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.

2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #134 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?

There is plenty of middle ground between public retraction and everyone but Apple knowing. Everyone didn't know it was still on offer. But it wouldn't take more than a phone call to find out. Our finder may or may not have known of the retraction, either way why not go fishing? In Silicon Valley the value of such a find is known by many people, especially those who frequent the same watering holes as Apple folk. All we need is sufficient greed to get things going. I doubt this was a planned event on anyone's part. Just a lucky break for the finder and Gizmodo.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #135 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So your point is that Gizmodo could have owned the phone if they had done EVERYTHING differently than they did.

Not sure why you would even bother something so obvious.

Not really. I guess if the finder had acted different then it would be his. It might be obvious, but some people were comparing lost property to stolen cars. Maybe they are familiar with the laws. I know I wasn't before all this happened. Hopefully the lawyers involved know the law better than any of us here.

Why bother? Why not. Better to state facts about the lost property statutes in cali, than to instead make up some fantasies and fairy tales to make the story fit a predetermined opinion. I am not advocating for or against Giz, for or against Apple. Just for common sense.

But mainly it was because of a question of timing in regards to lost property. No one has been able to answer how long a finder has to notify the owner, other than what the statute states, which is 'reasonable'. I mentioned the 90 day provision, as it is the only item regarding the status of a lost item that relies on time.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #136 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:

1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.

2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.

The original story said that he had a call ticket from Apple. Even if they 'lost' any of the details of this call, the ticket itself should be enough to confirm a call was made. They could have talked about the weather or sports for all we know.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #137 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The original story said that he had a call ticket from Apple. Even if they 'lost' any of the details of this call, the ticket itself should be enough to confirm a call was made. They could have talked about the weather or sports for all we know.

Or, more likely:

<rings>

"Hello, AppleCare? I found a lost iPhone. Can I return it to you?"

"No, we don't want it"

"OK. Thanks" <click>
"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 #138 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?

That you buy? But not that it was left in a bar? Seriously?!


BTW, melgross, this is what I was talking about.

Yeah, but that's still a lot different than paying someone to steal it where the deal is agreed to in advance which is what some are saying.

I won't argue about the "bounty" because I think that's what's happened. but as far as I know, there was never a specific amount of money mentioned. It was more of a; "Bring us a piece of secret Apple gear, and we'll make worth your while". Sort of a nebulous offer.
post #139 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:

1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.

2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.

I only see the first part of 1 as being possible. The calls aren't erased for some time. It's not done on an individual basic by the person contacted. It's an automatic system as it is with all companies. The calls are on a server, and they remain there for quite a while. there's no way one call is going to be selectively erased. It's done for legal purposes.
post #140 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Not really. I guess if the finder had acted different then it would be his. It might be obvious, but some people were comparing lost property to stolen cars. Maybe they are familiar with the laws. I know I wasn't before all this happened. Hopefully the lawyers involved know the law better than any of us here.

Why bother? Why not. Better to state facts about the lost property statutes in cali, than to instead make up some fantasies and fairy tales to make the story fit a predetermined opinion. I am not advocating for or against Giz, for or against Apple. Just for common sense.

But mainly it was because of a question of timing in regards to lost property. No one has been able to answer how long a finder has to notify the owner, other than what the statute states, which is 'reasonable'. I mentioned the 90 day provision, as it is the only item regarding the status of a lost item that relies on time.

If the finder had acted differently, it would still be Apples. Because Apple wasn't about to let that go unfound if they could help it. As soon as it was reported to them that it was lost, they got on the case. What else would anyone expect?
post #141 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Or, more likely:

<rings>

"Hello, AppleCare? I found a lost iPhone. Can I return it to you?"

"No, we don't want it"

"OK. Thanks" <click>

Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.
post #142 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.

Not a chance.

AppleCare isn't going to be interested in someone saying they found a lost phone. Why in the world would the tech support personnel get involved with that.

Heck, if it wasn't in their script, they wouldn't be able to answer if the customers asks "how are you today?"
"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 #143 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not a chance.

AppleCare isn't going to be interested in someone saying they found a lost phone. Why in the world would the tech support personnel get involved with that.

Heck, if it wasn't in their script, they wouldn't be able to answer if the customers asks "how are you today?"

They don't have to get involved. It's pretty simple to suggest he bring it to an Apple store as he's not far from one. The serial number would tell Apple who the phone belongs to.

The problem is that, according to what he said, he told them that he had a prototype, and they didn't believe him as they must get crank calls. But the call would still be in the servers.

I've dealt with Apple service, and they're not stupid as you seem to want to believe they are.

I got my Consumer's Reports in today, and Apple's service was rated FAR above anyone elses'.
post #144 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah, but that's still a lot different than paying someone to steal it where the deal is agreed to in advance which is what some are saying.

I won't argue about the "bounty" because I think that's what's happened. but as far as I know, there was never a specific amount of money mentioned. It was more of a; "Bring us a piece of secret Apple gear, and we'll make worth your while". Sort of a nebulous offer.

It is different. But even if Giz wasn't behind the planning or didn't direct the person as to where they could find the Apple engineer (and what he looked like, when he would be there, etc) the finder would still have to take a number of steps to steal the phone from the engineer that don't really seem plausible. They would need to:
-Find the right group of Apple employees to watch
-Find the right employee in the group to focus on, being the one that has the top secret, disguised prototype
-Get close enough to this person to see that the UI of the phone he was using was subtly different than a stock OS3 or a jailbroken iPhone. A person carrying a top secret device that is not allowed to be seen by anyone might just be a little wary of stranger staring at their top secret device up close.
-Find an opportunity to bump up to the engineer and lift the phone from his pocket without the engineer or anyone from his group noticing.

This doesn't seem reasonable by any stretch, unless the thief was very, very good and very experienced. And if he was, does it make sense that he would shop it around to multiple parties and risk exposure (as this person did) or that he, as an experienced thief, would go directly to the most likely party to pay immediately? This all just pushes the bounds of reality. It doesn't make sense. Some one actually invoked Occam's Razor to show this was the most reasonable series of events for the phone leaving the bar (except they also assumed Giz directed it all).

I suppose if the master pickpocket and thief wasn't fully aware of exactly how to identify a disguised iPhone prototype and exactly which Apple employee had a phone out that night (if at all) we might expect he would have been picking a lot of pockets trying to score the right one. We haven't heard any reports of mass thefts that night/week in the area. That also would have been a quick way to get caught. Faster even than calling a bunch of strangers to ask them if they want to buy it.

If it was stolen from the bar, the only explanation that makes any sense is that it was a simple crime of opportunity. They didn't know what to do with the strange device afterwards, realized it might be a prototype and shopped it around. Perhaps they had heard that some tech site was offering a bounty for early iPad access but weren't sure which, so they call the ones the could think of...Wired, Engadget and Gizmodo. Sure as hell makes more sense than the convoluted fantasies others have proposed.

Or a drunk dude left it behind at a bar.

Occam's Razor, indeed.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #145 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If the finder had acted differently, it would still be Apples. Because Apple wasn't about to let that go unfound if they could help it. As soon as it was reported to them that it was lost, they got on the case. What else would anyone expect?

I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.

Police departments probably don't do a whole lot of investigation regarding lost property that is turned in. If the finder had turned in the phone shortly after finding it, it might have gone in a bin as just another lost phone, the police would have made their public notice that no one reads. Who knows if Apple would ever reported it lost or inquired at the PD...it seems they didn't after 3 weeks of it being missing. This is what a truly honest finder would have done. I believe that finder in this case was unscrupulous. He likely realized that even if it all worked out well for him by turning it in and becoming its owner after 90 days, that would have essentially been in the time frame that it has generally been assumed the new iPhone would be announced or released. He could ebay it at that point, legally, but the value would have dropped substantially. Depending on how far away from the launch it was, he could have legally sold it to Giz for a substantial amount.

I didn't being up the whole 90 limit to give anyone a pass or to argue how they might covered themselves legally. It was simply someone asked how long a person has to turn in lost property after finding it (a day, a week, a month)? There is no specified time. I brought up the 90 day limit, as it is the only time limit specified in the civil lost property statutes. It hasn't even been 90 days since it was lost, so it isn't like this could be used to defend anyone. Simple a part of the discussion on the statutes involved.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #146 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.

OTOH, Apple may have been hoping that it simply WAS lost and would never surface again. If so, there would have been no harm done (other than having to build a replacement phone - which is insignificant compared to the loss of intellectual property). If it had gone the full 90 days, they would have been past the projected WWDC launch date, so if it came to light the second week of June, again, no major issue.

If Apple had filed a police report at the time, it would have been all over the news, so they may have wished to avoid that if it wasn't necessary.

But when it was plastered all over the news, they could no longer hope that it would disappear so there was no more value to waiting until June to file the police report. You keep trying to deflect the discussion from the real facts of the case. The 'finder' is a thief under CA law and Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets. Do you always go around trying to blame the victim?

I'm just curious - do you also go around saying that rape victims deserve what they got? Do you say that someone who has a Ferrari stolen deserves it for having such a nice car? Someone living in a nice neighborhood deserves to have their house broken into? The fact is that Gizmodo is guilty by their own admission - and Apple is the victim - whether you like it or not.
"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 #147 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

OTOH, Apple may have been hoping that it simply WAS lost and would never surface again. If so, there would have been no harm done (other than having to build a replacement phone - which is insignificant compared to the loss of intellectual property). If it had gone the full 90 days, they would have been past the projected WWDC launch date, so if it came to light the second week of June, again, no major issue.

Hey, thanks for stating exactly what I just did. That was helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If Apple had filed a police report at the time, it would have been all over the news, so they may have wished to avoid that if it wasn't necessary.

That is likely exactly why they didn't report it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

But when it was plastered all over the news, they could no longer hope that it would disappear so there was no more value to waiting until June to file the police report. You keep trying to deflect the discussion from the real facts of the case. The 'finder' is a thief under CA law and Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets. Do you always go around trying to blame the victim?

Umm, where exactly did I blame Apple? It is a simple fact that if Apple never reported it and if the finder followed the law (by turning it in and waiting 90 days) then there would be no crime. I never said the finder met these requirements. In fact I said they did not.

Do you never get tired of making shit up to argue against? You repeatedly assert that I have made arguments that I never did, and then irrationally argue against those fantasy assertions. Windmill son, windmills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I'm just curious - do you also go around saying that rape victims deserve what they got?

No, but then I am not a lawyer either. If that argument would actually work in court, I am sure some lawyers would use it. Would you? (BTW, what is it with some people here that need to keep bringing up rape and/or vaginas into this topic of conversation? A very strange preoccupation indeed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Do you say that someone who has a Ferrari stolen deserves it for having such a nice car?

Nope. What a dumb question. Is that what your strawman arguments have come down to? Sad really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Someone living in a nice neighborhood deserves to have their house broken into?

Please never be my lawyer. If these are your best attempts at misdirection and obfuscation of fact, I could surely find a better one.

Quote:
The fact is that Gizmodo is guilty by their own admission - and Apple is the victim - whether you like it or not.

If they are guilt, yes they are guilty whether I like it or not. But, I don't have a need to like it or not. You definitely seem to have a need to see Giz be guilty, even if you have to make up convoluted fantasies. That is the difference between you and me. I don't, in anyway, see myself involved in this case. It is an interesting issue for discussion, but I am just an objective observer. I am a huge Apple fan and enjoy Gizmodo, but that doesn't matter. You actually seem to be taking it personally. I wonder if you think Steve is actually going to call you to thank you for your unquestioning, unthinking advocacy and loyalty to the cause? Will you be disappointed when he doesn't call you?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #148 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

HUmm, where exactly did I blame Apple?

Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.
"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 #149 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.

Who me?

I don't BLAME Apple for much. I hold them to a higher standard that other companies, but that is because I have been a fan for so many years. But, that isn't related here at all. I don't see this issue in any light that requires shifting blame on or off of Apple. That haven't done anything here that requires blame. They are blameless in this whole fiasco.

Apple is a great company. But what is really sad is when someone fanatically devotes themselves to Apple or any other company, without having any actual relationship to the company other than as a consumer or trivial shareholder. These people take any criticism of Apple, mostly imagined but sometimes real, as personal insult against them. They stand out like a sore thumb. They aren't doing the Apple community any favour with their delusions. They share a lot of traits with other celebrity obsessives. With those that feel they are somehow linked to some actor or actress. They really are embarrassing to other Apple fans. They are the Justin Beiber groupies of the Mac/Apple world. Sometimes they seem to border on being more like John Hinckley, Jr.

I am sure that Steve personally appreciates your efforts on Apple's behalf. You should expect a call or maybe even a personal note expressing his gratitude.

I'll add that I have been a long time advocate of Apple and their products. But that doesn't have to mean thoughtlessly putting them on a pedestal. I am also an advocate against stupidity. Some people have a pathological need to deify Apple. That is stupid.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #150 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.

Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #151 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.

Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #152 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.

I suppose it is better to have to be right than to continually be wrong. Thanks for your input. Much valued.

I like people like you that love to argue (looked over a few of your posts-funny stuff) but then comment about other people arguing. But I guess some people argue to 'lose' (again, I've looked at your posts, so perhaps this is the case).

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #153 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's awfully hard to make sense of your rambling. Can you state in plain English what the question is?

You are making far, far, far more out of this than it needs to be and seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote.
I believe the cops have done good/correct and Gizmodo has done wrong. I'm not voting for Gizmodo here.
Quote from the story and my original post...
Quote:
"I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue, he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers."

I read this as the cops saying, "We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
At this point the cops are checking the status of the "protection". Gizmodo may seek an injunction after it is decided if it is not protected. Assuming it is not considered protected, what are the cops going to do after that ruling? Sit around and not do anything and wait to see if/until an injuction is filed?
Quote:
For the record, here is the process:

1. Police receive probable cause information that a crime has been committed and that evidence might be available.
2. Police go to judge to get a search warrant.
3. If the judge agrees that there's probable cause, judge orders a search warrant.
4. At that point, the police can legally search the premises as long as they follow the limits on the search warrant.

The police have done nothing wrong and there's nothing illegal about what they've done at this point.

Now, if the person who was searched has an objection, they can:
5. Go to court to ask for an injunction to stop future searches or to have the evidence thrown out and returned to the owner.

Okay. At this point the cops have seized the stuff and Gizmodo complained (not yet filed an injunction).
If it comes back and it is ruled as not protected, what are the police going to do? Wait and see if Gizmodo files an injunction?
Quote:
so the police have done NOTHING wrong.

I agree 100%

Lighten up Francis
Don't try to make someone's statment more than it is.
post #154 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Kool View Post

I don't like the direction Apple is going in lately. It seems as though they're suing everyone lately.

So what does this have to do with the cops doing a stolen property investigation?
post #155 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.

This is a bit of a red herring, because I don't think it was a reasonable effort to return the phone by calling AppleCare, a tech support line.

However, Gizmodo claims the "finder" received a case number from AppleCare. So to me the one thing that doesn't imply is that AppleCare said, "yes, we're authorized by Apple to grant you ownership of the phone. Do with it as you wish".

If they gave a case number, more than likely it was a "We're just tech support, we're not authorized to tell you to do anything and don't have any information about future products. Here's a case number and we'll notify our managers of the situation".

For what it's worth, I have insight into this from two places...One, I used to run one of the largest Apple authorized service centers and know a bit about how they operate. Secondly, I had a very weird legal situation recently where I needed to contact Apple and calling AppleCare was the only way to deal with the situation. I was given a case number and it took weeks before the right person in Apple's legal department could get back to me. Along the way, there was a lot of "we aren't authorized, and we can't" but they never once tried to terminate the communication or my request for help in the situation.
post #156 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.

It's the only logical explanation for his posts. Either that or he lives in one of those Alternate Universes from Fringe.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #157 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

It's the only logical explanation for his posts. Either that or he lives in one of those Alternate Universes from Fringe.

yes, those are the only two logical explanations. They must be teaching a new, special type of logic these days. It's cute.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #158 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

I suppose it is better to have to be right than to continually be wrong.

If you're ever right about something, it will be a first, so be sure to tell us how you feel if it ever happens.
"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 #159 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If you're ever right about something, it will be a first, so be sure to tell us how you feel if it ever happens.

If I have ever responded to you with incorrect or inaccurate information, please also feel free to share...I am a big boy, I can take it. I'll even admit it when I am wrong. While you have been repeatedly shown to be factually wrong or just wrongheaded in many cases, you tend to fall back to ad hom in those cases.

I'll wait.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #160 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It is different. But even if Giz wasn't behind the planning or didn't direct the person as to where they could find the Apple engineer (and what he looked like, when he would be there, etc) the finder would still have to take a number of steps to steal the phone from the engineer that don't really seem plausible. They would need to:
-Find the right group of Apple employees to watch
-Find the right employee in the group to focus on, being the one that has the top secret, disguised prototype
-Get close enough to this person to see that the UI of the phone he was using was subtly different than a stock OS3 or a jailbroken iPhone. A person carrying a top secret device that is not allowed to be seen by anyone might just be a little wary of stranger staring at their top secret device up close.
-Find an opportunity to bump up to the engineer and lift the phone from his pocket without the engineer or anyone from his group noticing.

This doesn't seem reasonable by any stretch, unless the thief was very, very good and very experienced. And if he was, does it make sense that he would shop it around to multiple parties and risk exposure (as this person did) or that he, as an experienced thief, would go directly to the most likely party to pay immediately? This all just pushes the bounds of reality. It doesn't make sense. Some one actually invoked Occam's Razor to show this was the most reasonable series of events for the phone leaving the bar (except they also assumed Giz directed it all).

I suppose if the master pickpocket and thief wasn't fully aware of exactly how to identify a disguised iPhone prototype and exactly which Apple employee had a phone out that night (if at all) we might expect he would have been picking a lot of pockets trying to score the right one. We haven't heard any reports of mass thefts that night/week in the area. That also would have been a quick way to get caught. Faster even than calling a bunch of strangers to ask them if they want to buy it.

If it was stolen from the bar, the only explanation that makes any sense is that it was a simple crime of opportunity. They didn't know what to do with the strange device afterwards, realized it might be a prototype and shopped it around. Perhaps they had heard that some tech site was offering a bounty for early iPad access but weren't sure which, so they call the ones the could think of...Wired, Engadget and Gizmodo. Sure as hell makes more sense than the convoluted fantasies others have proposed.

Or a drunk dude left it behind at a bar.

Occam's Razor, indeed.

I agree with your last paragraph. That's the only reasonable explanation. and later, when he found out that he could get money for it, he jumped at the chance.

It's interesting that Engadget also published some pictures of the phone before Gizmodo did that this guy had sent, or they took themselves, I forget which. But they aren't in trouble, because they didn't buy the phone, and didn't take it apart.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Authorities waiting to analyze data seized in iPhone prototype case