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 2

post #41 of 182
Still curious to know if he had File Vault activated on the macs.
post #42 of 182
Quote:
“We’re still not saying it’s a crime,” San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal “The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.”

During the search of Chen's home, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team seized a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and other items.

In response, Gizmodo invoked the California shield law, which protects journalists from having to turn over anonymous sources or unpublished material to law enforcement. As such, Wagstaffe said Chen’s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether he is indeed protected by the law.

“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.'

Wagstaffe also revealed that outside counsel for Apple, along with the Apple engineer who lost the iPhone, asked authorities to launch the ongoing investigation when they called the District Attorney’s office last week to report the theft of the iPhone prototype.


Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.

In Canada, making false accusations of criminal conduct would be a serious offence opening the door to punitive civil damages for maliciously attacking the reputation of Jason Chen and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.

My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.

or be bullied by Apple and lose your right to complain?


post #43 of 182
Gazing into my crystal ball, I see that no charges will ever arise from all of this. Gizmodo may well be less adulatory about Apple products in future.
post #44 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.

In Canada, making false accusations of criminal conduct would be a serious offence opening the door to punitive civil damages for maliciously attacking the reputation of Jason Chen and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.

My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.

or be bullied by Apple and lose your right to complain?



At best Jason Chen unknowingly bought stolen goods.
At worse Jason Chen personally stole the prototype.
After all he is the only person seen with the stolen prototype on video.

However you put it, the prototype was stolen.
post #45 of 182
actually there's a catch 22 here. if indeed the police retract the identity of the seller from Chen then he looses all credibility as a journalist as that's what the CA Shield Law is about, protecting your source. However in order to prove his innocence Chen will need the seller's to testify that Chen did indeed was not aware of the iPhone's dubious status.

But i do agree with the previous poster is that the authorities need to be absolutely clear of their purpose for a search warrant as this may reflect negatively to both the district office and Apple. You can't break into someone's property confiscating their belongings then try to justify it after the fact.
post #46 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

"We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."

WTF?

If it's not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?

Gizmodo would use anything they possibly could to avoid getting their ass handed to them, I'd think.

Their shield law claim is out and out BS. They just want to try and avoid being investigated for commission of a felony. And the law doesn't extend that privilege to anyone.
post #47 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.

Investigating the commission of an alleged crime certainly cannot be in breach of any rights, otherwise how could the police ever investigate said crime?

Obviously, if the police knew full well that no crime had been committed and continued to investigate the crime we'd have an issue. But in this case Gizmodo had left a lovely trail of evidence pointing to the commission of said crime all of their homepage.
post #48 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

My strong advice to Jason Chen: Seek legal advice from lawyers working for the American Civil Rights Association and seek punitive damages for aggravated breach of your constitutional right to privacy by both Apple and the San Mateo Police Department.

You're seriously joking right? Seriously? So much of the hatred towards Gizmodo is because THEY totally ignored the right to privacy of the apple engineer who lost the phone in the first place.

Tell me you were kidding... pot... kettle... sigh
post #49 of 182
http://daringfireball.net/

Good Luck Feigning Ignorance
Daring Fireball 10-04-28 2:16 AM John Gruber http://daringfireball.net/
Nick Bilton surveys legal opinion on the Gizmodo case:

In contrast to Mr. Zimmerman’s views, David Sugden, a California lawyer who specializes in intellectual property litigation, said the state shield law might not apply, if stolen property were involved. […]

Mr. Sugden cited an example with celebrity images that are often bought by gossip sites like TMZ.com or Us Weekly. He said, “When TMZ takes photos of a celebrity, it’s in plain view, which is legal,” but cautioned, “TMZ would be in trouble if the reporters were breaking into houses to take those photos of people.”

Mr. Sugden said Gizmodo’s best defense would be to argue that it didn’t know the phone was Apple’s property when it was shown to them.


Good luck to the editors of a web site that specializes in mobile gadgetry — owned by the same publisher that received this warning (http://gawker.com/5448177/update-app...scavenger-hunt) from Apple just two months prior — arguing that they didn’t know that a heretofore unseen iPhone prototype, for which they were willing to pay $5000, belonged to Apple. And that’s their best defense.

post #50 of 182
All of this fuss over a stolen iPhone. If one of us lost an iPhone and reported it to the police all that would happen is that the police would take a report and that would be the end of it. I doubt the police or anyone else would do more than take a report if one of us lost an iPhone. It certainly helps when you have lots of political influence.
post #51 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?

well... since they "work" for apple they had to remove every single Apple hardware from the premises... LOL... no more Apple for Chen...



I have to agree that the finder of the iphone 4G did commit theft... he could/should have turned it over to the bar's staff... or he could have walked over to the nearest police station & left it there... instead he took it home & went shopping for the highest bidder...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #52 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

No, because Chen might have found out or anticipated the seizure and destroyed evidence.

So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?

In the end, whether Giz is found guilty of something or they sue the police for violating their rights, then only people that are going to benefit from this are the litigation lawyers. This whole this has turned into a car wreck. We are all rubber necking and the lawyers are drooling waiting to take a side, any side.

"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 #53 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

However you put it, the prototype was stolen.

Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?

Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?
post #54 of 182
This, from cnet:

"One possible hitch: newsroom search laws are intended to protect only journalists. And as the Village Voice's blog pointed out, the site's editors have previously said: "We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention.""

Let me get this straight; they are not journalists when they want to break the rules, but they are journalists when they get caught? This is an example of being hoisted by your own petard.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #55 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by blur35mm View Post

Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.

Actually, it looks as though the 'finder' shopped it around and offered it to a number of sites. Gizmodo paid the most.

Those other sites will be testifying, as well. Won't it be interesting when Wired and Engadget say that the seller contacted them about buying an Apple prototype phone that he 'found' and they refused to deal with him because it wasn't his to sell.

So much for the 'I didn't know it was an Apple phone' argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

"We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."

WTF?

If it's not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?

Are you really that clueless?

The court granted a search warrant. The police are allowed execute that search warrant. At some time after the search warrant was granted, the police were notified that there might be legal issues involved. Since they had a legal search warrant, they executed it, but then (because of the legal threats) secured the devices and held them pending resolution of the other legal matters.

There's nothing nefarious about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Why would they take an AirPort Extreme?

Perhaps they thought it was a Time Capsule. Not that it matters. These are policemen, not techncial experts. They're going to err on the side of taking too much (as long as it falls within the scope of the search warrant) rather than too little. They are not going to get in trouble for taking a router, but if they had left a Time Capsule which had all the important information, the press would be on them like flies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Good points. Moreover, it seems somewhat silly, and a tad unfair -- if ultimately shown that Chen is a 'journalist' -- that the wares that make his livelihood (not just what he types on, but his files, past data, references, sources, notes of work-in-progress, etc) are being sequestered until this is all legally sorted out.

I think the police pulled the trigger first and decided to ask questions later. Not a good move.

I predict that the courts will throw this out.

If Chen wanted to stay out of trouble with the law, he shouldn't have been dealing in stolen property and misappropriating trade secrets. it's that simple.

The police have every right to investigate reported crimes and, with a search warrant, they have every right to search his home. He can (and did) raise objections later, but that doesn't mean that the police did anything wrong. They have a search warrant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

He's probably had to identify the seller of the phone to authorities. Poor guy will probably end up in court to testify when the case goes to trial. At least he was wise enough to not buy the phone though.

That may be where the police found out the seller's name. It does raise an interesting dilemma for Gizmodo.

Gizmodo has a legal right to protect their sources. They could argue that the name of the person who sold them the phone is protected under Free Press laws. The fact that they didn't publish his name supports that. However, the police now know who the guy was, so they don't need that information.

Gizmodo published everything else, so he doesn't have much to protect. The police got most of what they need from Gizmodo's web site, so the information on the computers will only be filling in gaps and corroborating. Gizmodo is sunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

Reporting a theft when no theft occured is making false accusations, attacking the reputation of Jason Chen, causing the police and taxpayers to incur unnecessary legal and investigation expenses, and inducing the police to breach the privacy right of Jason Chen.

What kind of nonsense is that?

A theft DID occur - under CA law. As has been pointed out here repeatedly, the person who 'found' the phone is guilty of theft under CA law unless the owner gave it to him. So theft DID occur. And since Gizmodo purchased stolen property, there is every reason to investigate them for that crime.

The police are simply doing their job - investigating a very public crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

http://daringfireball.net/

Good Luck Feigning Ignorance
Daring Fireball 10-04-28 2:16 AM John Gruber http://daringfireball.net/
Nick Bilton surveys legal opinion on the Gizmodo case:

In contrast to Mr. Zimmermans views, David Sugden, a California lawyer who specializes in intellectual property litigation, said the state shield law might not apply, if stolen property were involved. []

Mr. Sugden cited an example with celebrity images that are often bought by gossip sites like TMZ.com or Us Weekly. He said, When TMZ takes photos of a celebrity, its in plain view, which is legal, but cautioned, TMZ would be in trouble if the reporters were breaking into houses to take those photos of people.

Mr. Sugden said Gizmodos best defense would be to argue that it didnt know the phone was Apples property when it was shown to them.

Good luck on that. First, he paid $5 K for it. Why would he do that unless he knew what it was? Does he pay $5 K for any unknown phone that people call him about? If so, I probably have some very old phones in my garage that I no longer remember where they came from.

Equally important, the 'finder' shopped it around various web sites and sold it to the highest bidder. What happens when those other web sites testify that it was offered to them as a prototype Apple phone? So much for the 'I didn't know it was an Apple phone' defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post

All of this fuss over a stolen iPhone. If one of us lost an iPhone and reported it to the police all that would happen is that the police would take a report and that would be the end of it. I doubt the police or anyone else would do more than take a report if one of us lost an iPhone. It certainly helps when you have lots of political influence.

If you lost a prototype, unreleased phone worth many millions of dollars and the thief was very publicly telling the world that he had it, I would venture that the police would help you. Please stop with the 'it's just a phone' nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?

In the end, whether Giz is found guilty of something or they sue the police for violating their rights, then only people that are going to benefit from this are the litigation lawyers. This whole this has turned into a car wreck. We are all rubber necking and the lawyers are drooling waiting to take a side, any side.

Nothing gives them the right to illegally search and seize. They have a valid search warrant based on the information available to them which makes the search legal.

Now, Gizmodo can later challenge that and the search warrant may be withdrawn or declared illegal, but that doesn't mean that it was illegal at the time it was executed. The police were clearly acting in good faith. When you have a search warrant and someone says 'you can't do that', you don't go away and find a lawyer - all the evidence would be destroyed when you got back. You secure the evidence and THEN see an attorney - which is what the police did.

And please stop with the 'no one knows if a crime occurred'. Apple filed a police complaint over a stolen phone. Gizmodo publicly admitted to a crime. There is no question that a crime occurred.

The real problem here is that Gizmodo is apparently using Psystar's legal team.
"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 #56 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So, that that gives the them right to illegally search and seize? Or rather, to search and seize before they even knew if it was legal? And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?

I don't think the question is about the legality of the search. They reasonable suspicion that a crime had occured* and they had a search warrent. The search was legal.
The question is: will the evidence be admissable in court. Contrary to your inference, this would have to be hashed out by lawyers whether or not the computers were seized.

Look at it this way: suppose the police did not sieze the computers and, after a month or two in the courts (and hundreds of billable hours later) it was determined that the information in the computers was not shielded. The police then get a warrent and (surprise, surprise) find all pertinant records have gone missing. Now THAT would be a waste of money.


.
*I'm assuming that your position is NOT that they have to be positive that a crime was committed to undertake a search of private doccuments and such. Some posters do seem to be taking this rediculous stand...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #57 of 182
Apple Computer ---> Apple Inc ---> Apple Legal?

seriously, does it seem like that have lawsuits and criminal investigations all over the place, or is it just me?
post #58 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If Chen wanted to stay out of trouble with the law, he shouldn't have bee..... misappropriating trade secrets. it's that simple.

That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

Look at it this way: suppose the police did not sieze the computers and, after a month or two in the courts (and hundreds of billable hours later) it was determined that the information in the computers was not shielded. The police then get a warrent and (surprise, surprise) find all pertinant records have gone missing. Now THAT would be a waste of money

Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.
post #59 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by gFiz View Post

Apple Computer ---> Apple Inc ---> Apple Legal?

seriously, does it seem like that have lawsuits and criminal investigations all over the place, or is it just me?



Apple is a huge international corporate conglomerate.

Why would you expect it to be any different? They have but one goal: Extract as much money as possible from customers and give it to the stockholders.

If Apple thinks that something interferes with their goal, they will use any and all available means to fight, including lawsuits. They are no different from any other company.
post #60 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.

Last time I checked, AI wasn't purchasing stolen property.
"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 #61 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?

Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?

I don't know about a time limit. There certainly maybe one, but during that time, the finder is expected to make 'reasonable' efforts to return the phone. The finder may, after a period of time, reasonable efforts to return and perhaps reporting/submitting the found item to the police, expect that it would become his property. The story we have all heard includes efforts to return the phone. Whether this was enough to be considered 'reasonable' efforts is questionable. He didn't report it to the police.

Except for some that have some seemingly pathological need to believe a planned theft occurred, there has been no information released that implies the phone was stolen at any point before Giz took possession of it. We have really only heard one side, but that story says that it was found. At that point, there was no theft. The finder made an attempt to return it. Still no theft. But when the finder sold the device, it seems that is when it likely went from being considered found to being considered stolen. Giz, by paying for it and taking possession of it became involved in the theft.

There are question that are still open, regardless of the peanut gallery that is in a rush to convict with or without evidence and with predetermined opinions on the intent of the parties involved.
-Did Giz buy the phone with the intent to return it to the owner? I think the answer is obviously yes.
-Did they also intend to publish information they found while in possession of it? Again, obviously yes.
-Did Giz know, with any certainty that it was Apple property? Again, regardless of what people are saying now, when the detailed pictures, of the inside and outside, first leaked, many, many people here and elsewhere said that it absolutely was not an Apple device. So Giz is expected to have known, before seeing it that it was an Apple prototype? Obviously, since they paid $5k for it, then thought there was a good chance that it was, but like us, they could not have known. People now say it was obvious, but that is easy to say once it is confirmed. It is sort of funny how everyone becomes an expert in identifying Apple prototypes after Apple confirms it.
-Does this become a trade secret crime? Maybe. Was there reasonable expectation that a prototype allowed off of Apple property, disguised as a 3GS but allowed to be in public, with an employee that is drinking on his birthday and left unattended would remain a secret and therefore protected? Gray is an Apple employee and had the device in public in his role as an agent of the company. His leaving it unattended in public is in effect Apple leaving it unattended in public. Does Apple (Gray) leaving it in public negate the protections for trade secrets, as it might be argued that leaving it in public is the same as making it public? Or as some internet lawyers have claimed, does it remain a trade secret with trade secret protection as long as Apple doesn't announce it? If that was the case, nothing would ever lose trade secret protection until announced, and that simply is not the case.

I haven't decided where I am on all of the issue involved. I am not willing to bend the facts that are available or add to them, in order to make it fit my view of Apple, Giz and the other parties involved. We don't have nearly the complete story yet, but filling in the blanks with even wilder narratives and assumptions is just not worth the time. If Giz is found guilty, let them pay. Calling them name is just childish.

"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 #62 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And please stop with the 'no one knows if a crime occurred'. Apple filed a police complaint over a stolen phone. Gizmodo publicly admitted to a crime. There is no question that a crime occurred.

Umm, ok. That isn't what I wrote. I wrote "And to do so in search of evidence of a possible crime, which they have yet to acknowledge even occurred?"
if you don't like that fact perhaps you should ask the police. After all, the AI story itself reports "Were still not saying its a crime, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal". If you need the facts to be different, feel free to change them, I guess.

Nothing like a strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The real problem here is that Gizmodo is apparently using Psystar's legal team.

Wasn't Paystar's team the same that handled Burst.com? Didn't do too badly for them. Who would you suggest? WH? Foley? I am sure Gawker would take suggestions.

"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 #63 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That's nonsense. If that were the criterion, AI wouldn't be able to publish/parlay any of the new product intro stories that it publishes, based on info gathered from suppliers, etc. Be careful what you wish for.



Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.

Let me point out were I think you are being a little unrealistic.

Injunction is issued that no data be deleted.

Sorry your honor a virus/trojan/worm infect my network and all data was lost.
My house was broken into and all my equipment was stolen.
My office had a faulty outlet and burned, luckily I was able to get the fire department here before anything beyond the office was destroyed.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

These folks have a lot to loose if they actually complied with such a order.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #64 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Last time I checked, AI wasn't purchasing stolen property.

There are people who might argue that there is not much moral/ethical (I don't know about legal) difference between 'purchasing' and using confidential information about an as-yet unreleased product to generate ad revenue.
post #65 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

Let me point out were I think you are being a little unrealistic.

Injunction is issued that no data be deleted.

Sorry your honor a virus/trojan/worm infect my network and all data was lost.
My house was broken into and all my equipment was stolen.
My office had a faulty outlet and burned, luckily I was able to get the fire department here before anything beyond the office was destroyed.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

These folks have a lot to loose if they actually complied with such a order.

All that would be tempting fate. Any reasonable person knows that it will smell, and it will be investigated to death.

Oh, I suppose a meteorite might crash into the police dept and destroy evidence.
post #66 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Not necessary in the least. The police could easily get an injunction asking that no data be deleted from any of the computers as. Chen would have to comply, or face serious consequences.

If Chen actually had something to hide, do you honestly think he'd comply with that injunction? In your scenario, the police don't seize Chen's computers, hard drives, etc. but instead opt to sort out the legal issues first. Since they never seized his computers, how would they know what Chen may or may not have deleted defying the injunction. They wouldn't have any evidence to make Chen "face serious consequences".
post #67 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

All that would be tempting fate. Any reasonable person knows that it will smell, and it will be investigated to death.

Oh, I suppose a meteorite might crash into the police dept and destroy evidence.

Yes, but any reasonable person knows that calling AppleCare when you know how to get in touch with a phone's owner also smells and will be investigated. Any reasonable person knows that if you pay $5 K for something, you're going to have a hard time saying "I didn't know what it was". It's not at all clear that we're dealing with reasonable people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There are people who might argue that there is not much moral/ethical (I don't know about legal) difference between 'purchasing' and using confidential information about an as-yet unreleased product to generate ad revenue.

Legally, there's a world of difference. If a journalist receives information from someone who broke an NDA to deliver that information, the journalist is clearly covered under the Press Shield laws. Purchasing stolen property is entirely different.

Morally, I'm not sure there's much difference, either. The journalist is doing his job - which is to publish any information he can legally obtain. Since he can legally receive information from someone but can not legally purchase stolen property, there is a big difference. Of course, the person who breaks the NDA is morally a scum-bucket, but no one is arguing that he has any protection so that's a moot point.
"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 #68 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Morally, I'm not sure there's much difference, either.

Thanks for agreeing with my main point.

As to legalities of this everyone -- including you -- is purely speculating.

We'll all have to wait and see how it pans out, won't we. Until then, all the legal speculation is worth exactly zero.
post #69 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Thanks for agreeing with my main point.

Actually, I didn't. Nice job of pulling my statement out of context. As I said, there's a big difference between purchasing stolen property and simply publishing information that you legally receive. I guess my statement wasn't clear enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

As to legalities of this everyone -- including you -- is purely speculating.

SOME people, including me, but obviously not you, are capable of reading the CA statute along with Gizmodo's published statements and reach a conclusion. When what Gizmodo admits to meets the criteria of the law, no speculation is needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

We'll all have to wait and see how it pans out, won't we. Until then, all the legal speculation is worth exactly zero.

So why are you spending time speculating?
"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 #70 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Actually, I didn't. Nice job of pulling my statement out of context. As I said, there's a big difference between purchasing stolen property and simply publishing information that you legally receive. I guess my statement wasn't clear enough.

No I didn't 'pull it' out of context. I said that your legal opinion is worth squat. And that you agreed that AI receiving information about the details of an as-yet-unreleased product (including, often, info not just its external look/feel, but also info on its entrails) is morally suspect.

Perhaps you should think before you write.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

SOME people, including me, but obviously not you, are capable of reading the CA statute along with Gizmodo's published statements and reach a conclusion. When what Gizmodo admits to meets the criteria of the law, no speculation is needed.

I am sure you think you are a good lawyer. So, answer this one: If a 'source' at one of Apple's suppliers conveyed confidential product information to AI, would that person be violating a law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So why are you spending time speculating?

At least, I admit that I am. And, I caveat it adequately.
post #71 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamG View Post

Apple is a huge international corporate conglomerate.

Why would you expect it to be any different? They have but one goal: Extract as much money as possible from customers and give it to the stockholders.

If Apple thinks that something interferes with their goal, they will use any and all available means to fight, including lawsuits. They are no different from any other company.

I'm well aware...but I would say that for Apple's size, they seem to have gotten quite litigious over the last 12 months, so much so that it came up on their quarterly call. Don't fall for the potentially fleeting market cap number when analyzing the size of Apple as a company. Their revenue and income is still that of a mid tier large cap company, and a few bad results in the court room could have a disastrous effect on the stock price and obviously their market cap as a result. Just think Apple may be over extending themselves with all the patent lawsuits, both against them and on their behalf...and this current little incident just struck me funny that they're adding criminal cases to their portfolio.
post #72 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?

So if somebody raped you, it's absolutely legal for him to walk away on the condition that he cleans up your vagina, and pays for the vaginoplasty surgery.
It's like the raping never occurred.

nice....
post #73 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Are you really that clueless?

No. Why do you ask?
Quote:
The court granted a search warrant. The police are allowed execute that search warrant. At some time after the search warrant was granted, the police were notified that there might be legal issues involved. Since they had a legal search warrant, they executed it, but then (because of the legal threats) secured the devices and held them pending resolution of the other legal matters.

Did you even read what I posted?

Once the legal matters are sorted, why would the police wait some more to see if Gizmodo is going to file an injunction? If they do file an injunction, okay but why wait, if at that time, everything is legit?
And if it is not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?
Quote:
There's nothing nefarious about it.

Okay. I never said there was.
post #74 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

So if somebody raped you, it's absolutely legal for him to walk away on the condition that he cleans up your vagina, and pays for the vaginoplasty surgery.
It's like the raping never occurred.

nice....

What a fantastic example of completely misunderstanding the issue. Very crude, but very good as a demonstration how to form analogies that have no comparison. Could be used a a teaching tool. Rape isn't a crime that becomes a crime after the event.

Even our internet lawyers would explain to you that if you find something that is lost, simply leaving the premises with it is not theft, especially if you make attempts before and after leaving to return it (weak though those attempts might be). If you were to take it home, try to contact the owner and then hand it to the police, at no point would that be considered theft. In fact, after a period of time, if the police post a notice and the owner doesn't claim it, then the finder can pay the cost of the posting and guess what? It becomes the property of the finder. So, yes, timing comes in to play, along with actions after finding it.

Seriously, if you don't understand the question that he/she asked, why did you even bother replying?

"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 #75 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

No I didn't 'pull it' out of context. I said that your legal opinion is worth squat. And that you agreed that AI receiving information about the details of an as-yet-unreleased product (including, often, info not just its external look/feel, but also info on its entrails) is morally suspect.

Perhaps you should think before you write.

I am sure you think you are a good lawyer. So, answer this one: If a 'source' at one of Apple's suppliers conveyed confidential product information to AI, would that person be violating a law?

You most certainly did misrepresent my position - and the evidence is quite clear to see.

If someone supplied information to AI that breaks an NDA, they are not in violation of a law as far as I know - which is why theft of property is different.

They can be sued by their employer for breaking the NDA, but that's civil, not criminal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Once the legal matters are sorted, why would the police wait some more to see if Gizmodo is going to file an injunction? If they do file an injunction, okay but why wait, if at that time, everything is legit?
And if it is not protected, what would Gizmodo use as a basis for their injunction?

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

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.

If they can not get that injunction, they can futher:
6. Ask for the court to rule the evidence as inadmissible.

Even if #5 or #6 occurs, that doesn't make the search illegal. It simply limits what evidence can be used in trial. We're not at that stage of the process, so the police have done NOTHING wrong.
"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 #76 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

What a fantastic example of completely misunderstanding the issue. Very crude, but very good as a demonstration how to form analogies that have no comparison. Could be used a a teaching tool. Rape isn't a crime that becomes a crime after the event.

Even our internet lawyers would explain to you that if you find something that is lost, simply leaving the premises with it is not theft, especially if you make attempts before and after leaving to return it (weak though those attempts might be). If you were to take it home, try to contact the owner and then hand it to the police, at no point would that be considered theft. In fact, after a period of time, if the police post a notice and the owner doesn't claim it, then the finder can pay the cost of the posting and guess what? It becomes the property of the finder. So, yes, timing comes in to play, along with actions after finding it.

Seriously, if you don't understand the question that he/she asked, why did you even bother replying?

Did Gizmodo buy the prototype for 5 grand? yes
Did Gizmodo take apart the iPhone prototype? yes
Did Gizmodo give the iPhone back to Apple, or give it to a police promptly after receiving the iPhone prototype since they knew it was a lost item? no

Yes timing is everything.
post #77 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Did Gizmodo buy the prototype for 5 grand? yes
Did Gizmodo take apart the iPhone prototype? yes
Did Gizmodo give the iPhone back to Apple, or give it to a police promptly after receiving the iPhone prototype since they knew it was a lost item? no

Yes timing is everything.

No one said timing is everything, but it is a factor. Your reply simply irrelevant. Perhaps an attempt at humour, but usually one should understand the joke.

To correct your third question above...yes, they did return it. promptly? No. Within a reasonable time? Define 'reasonable'. As soon as requested after notifying the rightful owner? Yep.

"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 #78 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No one said timing is everything, but it is a factor. Your reply simply irrelevant. Perhaps an attempt at humour, but usually one should understand the joke.

To correct your third question above...yes, they did return it. promptly? No. Within a reasonable time? Define 'reasonable'. As soon as requested after notifying the rightful owner? Yep.

So you can legally just take apart any car on the street, and put it back together?
After all I am sure you'll be more than happy to give it back to the rightful owner.
post #79 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

So you can legally just take apart any car on the street, and put it back together?
After all I am sure you'll be more than happy to give it back to the rightful owner.

Wow, lots of irrelevant analogies from you today. Ok, in small words, a car on the street cannot be considered lost, unless and until it meets the definition of abandoned. So, you know, not related at all. Also, simply steeling a car has nothing to do with timing, which to unfortunately have to remind you of again, was what you were replying to...a question of the relevancy of timing with regard to taking possession of lost goods. To which you felt a thoughtful analogy involved vaginas and rape.

"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 #80 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Wow, lots of irrelevant analogies from you today. Ok, in small words, a car on the street cannot be considered lost, unless and until it meets the definition of abandoned. So, you know, not related at all. Also, simply steeling a car has nothing to do with timing, which to unfortunately have to remind you of again, was what you were replying to...a question of the relevancy of timing with regard to taking possession of lost goods. To which you felt a thoughtful analogy involved vaginas and rape.

I see. So if you come across a car in the street, you can not take it because that would be stealing, but if you come across a phone in a bar you CAN take it and it's not stealing?

Care to point to the relevant portions of California law which support that bizarre conclusion?
"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
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