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 3

post #81 of 182
Free Pongo.
post #82 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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?

Seriously? You do this for a living?


Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.


As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
Quote:
CA CIVIL § 2080 - 2082
Duties of finder

Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.

Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....

I hope to god you are never my lawyer.

(and please everyone stop with the lame stolen vehicles and vagina analogies...they just don't relate)

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

Seriously? Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.


As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:

Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....

Aside from your smart remarks, the result is the same.

If you take a phone and do not make an honest effort to return it to the owner, you're just as guilty of theft as if you take a car without permission.

So none of your smart-ass drivel changes the results. Under CA law, taking a phone without making an honest effort to return it to the owner is just as much theft as taking a car.

And don't even try to claim that they made a good faith effort to return it to the owner. Going around to multiple web sites asking if they want to buy a prototype phone while ignoring all the reasonable ways to get ti back (since the knew the owner's name and facebook page and ignored the owner's phone calls) just doesn't meet any standard for 'reasonable'.
"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 #84 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....

Let's not even say that the iPhone prototype is considered a trade secret.

So it is legal for you to take apart properties that you know for a fact that doesn't belong to you?

The point is, not everything is reversible.
post #85 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Hey I have several blogs, does that make me a journalist too?

This is only my opinion... a blogger should be considered a journalist if and only if they claim all revenue or income generated to the Federal and State (if applicable) tax authorities.
post #86 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Aside from your smart remarks, the result is the same.

If you take a phone and do not make an honest effort to return it to the owner, you're just as guilty of theft as if you take a car without permission.

So none of your smart-ass drivel changes the results. Under CA law, taking a phone without making an honest effort to return it to the owner is just as much theft as taking a car.

And don't even try to claim that they made a good faith effort to return it to the owner. Going around to multiple web sites asking if they want to buy a prototype phone while ignoring all the reasonable ways to get ti back (since the knew the owner's name and facebook page and ignored the owner's phone calls) just doesn't meet any standard for 'reasonable'.

Aside from my smart remarks the results are the same, in that using a stolen car as an analogy for lost property is a really, really bad analogy (you know, what you interjected on) and is in fact not much better than an analogy involving rape and vaginas? yes, you are right. The result is the same.

The rest of what you mention, doesn't really differ from what I just posted. So, exactly what did I write in post 79 or 82 do you think you are actually arguing against? Windmills.

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

Seriously? You do this for a living?


Abandoned vehicles in Cali are covered by the California Vehicle Code (where as a lost wallet, phone, running shoe probably wouldn't). Abandoned vehicles may only be removed by authorized persons and only under strict conditions. I am not going to cite which sections os the vehicle code would apply, just to point out that abandoned vehciles are covered by the vehicle code and not the lost property provisions of the cali civil code. If you are not authorized by the vehicle code and if the vehicle doesn't meet the defintion of abandoned, then it is theft. For those that want to persue it themselves, it is California Vehicle Code Section 22650-22711.


As for the civil statues that would apply to a lost phone:
Quote:
CA CIVIL § 2080 - 2082
Duties of finder

Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.

Finder may take charge of found item and takes and responsibilities for the item and for restoring it to the rightful owner. Not theft. Take it home. Not theft. Call the owner. Not theft. Take some pictures. Not theft. Sell it before meeting all requirements of the finder? well....

I hope to god you are never my lawyer.

(and please everyone stop with the lame stolen vehicles and vagina analogies...they just don't relate)

Actually the legal section you quote from is titled Duties of Finder. Not Rights of Finder. The rights of the finder are covered in the Criminal Code. And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item". Once you take that step you leave all the "depositary for hire" protections behind. They become moot and totally irrelevant.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #88 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Let's not even say that the iPhone prototype is considered a trade secret.

So it is legal for you to take apart properties that you know for a fact that doesn't belong to you?

The point is, not everything is reversible.

I didn't say it was. There is a duty of care. If the phone was not damaged during the disassembly, was the duty of care violated? I don't know. I honestly believe that jragosta would know this much better than I, though I might not believe he would provide an unbiased answer.

jragosta: If a found item is in no way damaged but is partially disassembled and then fully reassembled, and in the same state that it was in when it was found, does that violate the duty of care? Does the act of opening it up, even without damaging it, automatically constitute a violation? (I guess you might not choose to answer and might not read this question, but given your activity in this thread, I might take no answer as a tacit No.)

"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 #89 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Actually the legal section you quote from is titled Duties of Finder. Not Rights of Finder. The rights of the finder are covered in the Criminal Code. And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item". Once you take that step you leave all the "depositary for hire" protections behind. They become moot and totally irrelevant.

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.

"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 #90 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.

Except, of course, that it is completely clear that neither the buyer nor Gizmodo made a reasonable effort to return the phone. They knew who the owner was (not to mention any of the other 50 ways to return the phone) and instead they made a call to AppleCare?

Give me a break.
"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 #91 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Except, of course, that it is completely clear that neither the buyer nor Gizmodo made a reasonable effort to return the phone. They knew who the owner was (not to mention any of the other 50 ways to return the phone) and instead they made a call to AppleCare?

Give me a break.

Again, you are tilting at windmills my friend. I never claimed they met those responsibilities. Obviously, the finder never reported it to the police and the finder didn't wait 90 days. I never claimed they did. I was simply responding to Hiro's comment that the code doesn't allow you to sell found items. Of course it does, since the statute says ownership will transfer after conditions are met. I never said those conditions were met. Never. Strawman or confusion, but you making arguments against some imagined assertions in my posts that I haven't made.

"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 #92 of 182
I just don't get it. I guess my life is pretty boring. We are talking about a phone right? a stupid phone! Some of you people need to get a life, get outside, enjoy the outdoors, get some exercise. A Phone! Daddy I lost my phone! Call the police!!!!
post #93 of 182
I don't like the direction Apple is going in lately. It seems as though they're suing everyone lately.
I don't like the fact they fired an employee for showing Woz an ipod yet the moron who lost the Godphone starting this whole mess gets to keep his and now it's costing tax payers money. This moron deserves to be fired
I don't like the fact Apple sent their thugs to the guys house who found the Godphone. What right do Apple employees have to search someones home?
I don't like the fact Apple is suing HTC instead of Google. Why don't they pick on someone their own size. Are they afraid of Google?
I don't like the fact that The Steve feels a need to bash competitors products. I don't know any other company that does this to the degree Apple does. It shows a lack of class.
I don't like the fact that The Steve has become a bitter grumpy old man who tucks his sweater into his pants.
In their quest to overtake MS they've become MS only much more greedy and spitefull.
Since returning from his "hormonal problems" The Steve's behavior has been erratic and disturbing I honestly believe he's unstable and most likely Bi Polar.
post #94 of 182
I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.

So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame or at least some of it onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device instead of the "finder" making that proposal which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.

I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.

Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.

So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.

Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" i.e., Gawker "doth protest too much, methinks."
post #95 of 182
Think you're cute? Comparisons like this make a mockery of the horror that the swastika represents.

You're not cute, you're sick.

Go play on the freeway, Apple hater.
post #96 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostBoughtaLisa View Post

I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.

So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame — or at least some of it — onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device — instead of the "finder" making that proposal — which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.

I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.

Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.

So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.

Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" — i.e., Gawker — "doth protest too much, methinks."

I feel the probable cause was already published by GIZ themselves. They had to have known when buying the phone that the phone was not received through proper channels... My understanding is that Engadget had the first opportunity to acquire the phone and wisely passed on it.
post #97 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostBoughtaLisa View Post

I can imagine a scenario where the unknown individual who "found" the phone at the bar was identified by the police relatively quickly. People who were at the bar at the same time as the victim would be able to at least narrow the field of suspects. Then the other bloggers/journalists who were contacted by this "finder" would be able to provide additional clues, if not conclusive evidence.

So let's say that our "finder" is identified, and then called in for questioning. It seems common in such circumstances for the suspect to try to shed the blame — or at least some of it — onto someone else. So this "finder" might well have tried to blame Mr. Chen for having proposed the theft in the first place. Or (more plausibly) "finder" could accuse Chen of originating the idea of the cash offer in exchange for the device — instead of the "finder" making that proposal — which would shift at least some culpability for the exchange of consideration for stolen goods.

I believe (but do not know) that such accusations by the "finder" would constitute probable cause for the search and seizure, an act which could ultimately serve to either convict or acquit Mr. Chen.

Why acquit, you might ask? If the "finder" claims that Mr. Chen originated the offer, but there is no evidence of such activity in Mr. Chen's possession, then Mr. Chen can be reasonably cleared of the charge. The longer Mr. Chen was allowed to control information that could potentially prove his own culpability and thus the "finder's" innocence, the more likely the "finder" would be able to contend that Mr. Chen destroyed exculpatory evidence.

So, in a scenario such as this, it could serve the pursuit of justice equally well for the State to seize Mr. Chen's property, whether the State chooses to prosecute Mr. Chen or the "finder." As such, then, I believe that the Judge and the REACT team did the right things, in fairness to both parties.

Gawker's attempt to invoke journalistic protections, however, seems (all the more so in light of this scenario) to send a signal that they believe that, absent such special exclusions, they are in some way responsible for wrongdoing. "The lady" — i.e., Gawker — "doth protest too much, methinks."

That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.

The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.
post #98 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Think you're cute? Comparisons like this make a mockery of the horror that the swastika represents.

You're not cute, you're sick.

Go play on the freeway, Apple hater.

I'm with you on this, nothing to joke about... it seems that the mods removed it from the thread
post #99 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.

The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.

You're missing one point. Gizmodo claims to have all sorts of inside information from sources within Apple (which, of course, makes it even more laughable that they didn't know how to return it).

It is not hard to imagine, for example, a secretary letting Gizmodo know that John Doe is an engineer who carries a prototype iPhone who's about 5'8", brown hair, slender and hangs around such and such bar, usually going there Fridays after work.

That'a a lot easier to believe than the long string of coincidences that Gizmodo's story requires.
"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 #100 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKRick View Post

I feel the probable cause was already published by GIZ themselves. They had to have known when buying the phone that the phone was not received through proper channels... My understanding is that Engadget had the first opportunity to acquire the phone and wisely passed on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.

The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.

I think both your points are good, but clearly I've accidently obscured my larger point while trying to give an example. My intent was to illustrate how the seizure of property for evidence can sometimes benefit the person whose property was seized, by sequestering it from tampering by either plaintiff or defendant. And mel, you'll note that I myself acknowledged that a conspiracy to "hunt down" a phone was less plausible than the offering of money for one already found.

Although, if some third person from Apple knew that that engineer had the phone on him and then alerted the other two, they could have...

Nah!
post #101 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're missing one point. Gizmodo claims to have all sorts of inside information from sources within Apple (which, of course, makes it even more laughable that they didn't know how to return it).

It is not hard to imagine, for example, a secretary letting Gizmodo know that John Doe is an engineer who carries a prototype iPhone who's about 5'8", brown hair, slender and hangs around such and such bar, usually going there Fridays after work.

That'a a lot easier to believe than the long string of coincidences that Gizmodo's story requires.

I'm not missing the point. You guys are talking about a conspiracy that's about as likely as me winning the race for President in China.

This guy would have to convince the police that it was not only possible that he would find this, but that is was probable.

It's VERY doubtful to believe that a secretary, even assuming the unlikely story that a secretary would even know, would tell someone, even for money.

When Gizmodo, or other sites claim they have contacts, it means that one or two people will give them a small bit of information from time to time. It's dangerous to do just that.

I know a few people in Apple engineering, both hardware and software, who are in management positions. They've been friends for a long time. But I rarely ever get more than a hint of something, and mostly, not even that. Sometimes, a Mona Lise smile, or a slight cough, or a looking up into space is the most I'll get. These are really close friends, and I don't publish what little I do get, and they know I wouldn't. Still, that's the best I can do.
post #102 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostBoughtaLisa View Post

I think both your points are good, but clearly I've accidently obscured my larger point while trying to give an example. My intent was to illustrate how the seizure of property for evidence can sometimes benefit the person whose property was seized, by sequestering it from tampering by either plaintiff or defendant. And mel, you'll note that I myself acknowledged that a conspiracy to "hunt down" a phone was less plausible than the offering of money for one already found.

Although, if some third person from Apple knew that that engineer had the phone on him and then alerted the other two, they could have...

Nah!

I just don't believe it. This is a much bigger crime. It amounts to corporate espionage. This is serious. Much more so than a felony. I don't see it happening for such a small payback.
post #103 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not missing the point. You guys are talking about a conspiracy that's about as likely as me winning the race for President in China.

This guy would have to convince the police that it was not only possible that he would find this, but that is was probable.

It's VERY doubtful to believe that a secretary, even assuming the unlikely story that a secretary would even know, would tell someone, even for money.

When Gizmodo, or other sites claim they have contacts, it means that one or two people will give them a small bit of information from time to time. It's dangerous to do just that.

I know a few people in Apple engineering, both hardware and software, who are in management positions. They've been friends for a long time. But I rarely ever get more than a hint of something, and mostly, not even that. Sometimes, a Mona Lise smile, or a slight cough, or a looking up into space is the most I'll get. These are really close friends, and I don't publish what little I do get, and they know I wouldn't. Still, that's the best I can do.

What, you think that if your friends were out with a prototype they wouldn't tell you? or that if they were out it, they wouldn't notice some creeper checking them out or drifting in 10 inches from them peering over their shoulder? or that someone hired to go steal it for Giz would offer it first to Engadget and Wired so that they could more readily be identified?
(maybe it is just me, but even if I was drunk at a bar, I'd still notice some guy grinding up on me...I might even move away, even it I didn't have a top secret prototype in my pocket)

"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 #104 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Shouldn't they have worked out this journalist issue before doing the seizure? Seems fishy to seize equipment to risk finding they cannot do anything with it but return it. A bungled investigation would feed right into Gawker's M.O.

Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #105 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

That would be a smart move, but I think that the guys in Gizmodo think that they have the law on their side, and may have even kept the evidence to try to prove they acted as proper journalists.

Yes, but they could have removed the evidence from the seized computers and kept it "in an undisclosed location."
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #106 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Clearly the training they received from the steering committee was inadequate.

Unless the AP Extreme had a hard drive plugged into it. Or maybe it was a Time Capsule and was misidentified.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #107 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Huh!?!?! By what book??! The book that says go ahead and execute a search warrant FIRST and THEN figure out if it was LEGAL for them to actually do it?!?!

If I were to 'perform a questionably legal act' FIRST and THEN tried to determine if it was actually legal I would not be able to talk my way out of the situation like the Wagstaffe seems to have no problem getting away with.



By the book... that's a good one!

You seem to be arguing against your own point. If they look at the stuff, and later it is determined to be inadmissible, then the evidence is tainted and cannot be used even if admitted on appeal. By the book can also mean exercising great care to avoid shooting themselves in the foot.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #108 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

What, you think that if your friends were out with a prototype they wouldn't tell you? or that if they were out it, they wouldn't notice some creeper checking them out or drifting in 10 inches from them peering over their shoulder? or that someone hired to go steal it for Giz would offer it first to Engadget and Wired so that they could more readily be identified?
(maybe it is just me, but even if I was drunk at a bar, I'd still notice some guy grinding up on me...I might even move away, even it I didn't have a top secret prototype in my pocket)

No, they wouldn't. I've signed a lot of NDA's, and have had a lot of others sign them. It's serious stuff. Sometimes some things leak out because the person wants to see the info out there while thinking "I did that!" But most people wouldn't.

Why would someone be peering over their shoulder in the first place? In a dark bar, you couldn't tell anyway.
post #109 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.
I don't like the fact they fired an employee for showing Woz an ipod yet the moron who lost the Godphone starting this whole mess gets to keep his and now it's costing tax payers money. This moron deserves to be fired
I don't like the fact Apple sent their thugs to the guys house who found the Godphone. What right do Apple employees have to search someones home?
I don't like the fact Apple is suing HTC instead of Google. Why don't they pick on someone their own size. Are they afraid of Google?
I don't like the fact that The Steve feels a need to bash competitors products. I don't know any other company that does this to the degree Apple does. It shows a lack of class.
I don't like the fact that The Steve has become a bitter grumpy old man who tucks his sweater into his pants.
In their quest to overtake MS they've become MS only much more greedy and spitefull.
Since returning from his "hormonal problems" The Steve's behavior has been erratic and disturbing I honestly believe he's unstable and most likely Bi Polar.

So you're going to boycott Apple because they're the only one in the industry who creates anything worth stealing and they try to protect their designs?

Whatever floats your boat.
"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 #110 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.

Other than a couple of e-mails, found on the servers anyway, there should be no other evidence on the computers. They surely wouldn't keep records of; "One illegally obtained iPhone. Paid so and so $5,000 for it." Now, would they? That would be off the record. All news organizations, magazines and such have cash for these kinds of things.
post #111 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by tania View Post

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.

That Chen doesn't ID the seller is moot. The guy shopped it around to a number of people, any of whom could either identify him or at least point the cops in the right direction.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #112 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

That Chen doesn't ID the seller is moot. The guy shopped it around to a number of people, any of whom could either identify him or at least point the cops in the right direction.

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.
post #113 of 182
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.

Serious reductionism. This wasn't just any iPhone. It was an unreleased product. The damages incurred from the compromise of trade secrets is substantial. As opposed to the few hundred bucks the average joe would lose in the theft of a released product.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #114 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, they wouldn't. I've signed a lot of NDA's, and have had a lot of others sign them. It's serious stuff. Sometimes some things leak out because the person wants to see the info out there while thinking "I did that!" But most people wouldn't.

Why would someone be peering over their shoulder in the first place? In a dark bar, you couldn't tell anyway.

if they were trying to get a good look at the phone to confirm it was the prototype they were told to steal, then looking over the shoulder would be the only way to see it well enough. Unless they took it out and were showing to complete strangers for fun.

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

if they were trying to get a good look at the phone to confirm it was the prototype they were told to steal, then looking over the shoulder would be the only way to see it well enough. Unless they took it out and were showing to complete strangers for fun.

Oh, come on! Really, this is getting too silly!
post #116 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 ?

Seriously? Your handle kinda speaks volumes about your analysis of this.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #117 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Oh, come on! Really, this is getting too silly!

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.

"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 #118 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.

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.
post #119 of 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrick42 View Post

I just don't get it. I guess my life is pretty boring. We are talking about a phone right? a stupid phone! Some of you people need to get a life, get outside, enjoy the outdoors, get some exercise. A Phone! Daddy I lost my phone! Call the police!!!!

Asked and answered. Many times.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #120 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.
I don't like the fact they fired an employee for showing Woz an ipod yet the moron who lost the Godphone starting this whole mess gets to keep his and now it's costing tax payers money. This moron deserves to be fired
I don't like the fact Apple sent their thugs to the guys house who found the Godphone. What right do Apple employees have to search someones home?
I don't like the fact Apple is suing HTC instead of Google. Why don't they pick on someone their own size. Are they afraid of Google?
I don't like the fact that The Steve feels a need to bash competitors products. I don't know any other company that does this to the degree Apple does. It shows a lack of class.
I don't like the fact that The Steve has become a bitter grumpy old man who tucks his sweater into his pants.
In their quest to overtake MS they've become MS only much more greedy and spitefull.
Since returning from his "hormonal problems" The Steve's behavior has been erratic and disturbing I honestly believe he's unstable and most likely Bi Polar.

April Registration Date, 1 Post, equals Troll. Go away.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
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