or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › SFPD launches internal investigation over role in search for iPhone prototype
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SFPD launches internal investigation over role in search for iPhone prototype

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
The San Francisco Police Department has initiated an internal investigation into the role some of its officers played in assisting Apple security officials in a search for a lost prototype of Apple's unreleased fifth-generation iPhone.

Lt. Troy Dangerfield revealed to CNet on Wednesday that an investigation is underway which may involve interviewing Sergio Calderón, the man whose house was searched by Apple employees.

Details emerged last week that Apple was on the hunt for a missing iPhone prototype that had been left in the Cava22 bar (pictured below) in San Francisco's Mission district in late July. Apple reportedly tracked the device to a residence in the Bernal Heights neighborhood and enlisted the help of the police to pay a visit to the house.

The SFPD originally claimed that it had no record of such an investigation, but then confirmed that "three or four" plainclothes officers had accompanied Apple security personnel to the house without going inside.

For his part, Calderón alleges that he was led to believe that the people searching his house were police officers. According to him, he would not have consented to the search had he known that they were Apple employees. The 22-year-old also noted that the officers had vaguely threatened him by questioning the immigration status of members of his household. He said that he is "talking to an attorney," but did not indicate whether he intends to formally press charges.



SFPD Chief Greg Suhr told the San Francisco Chronicle the police regularly assist independent private investigators. "The reason we do civil standby is to make sure there isn't a problem," he was reported as saying. "Whatever conversations the (Apple) employees had with the resident, I can't say."

As of earlier this month, Apple is shopping for two new managers of "New Product Security" to help prevent incidences like lost prototypes from reoccurring. The company is known for its tight security and has a variety of measures in place to protect itself from leaks.

However, in spite of its security protocols, Apple has now had two iPhone test device leaks in less than two years. Last year, an iPhone engineer lost an iPhone 4 prototype in a Redwood City, Calif., bar. The device was reportedly sold to Gawker Media for $5000. The two individuals who received payment for the prototype have been charged for "misappropriation of lost property.
post #2 of 63
This phone may be really lost. Why haven't pics of it come up on the internet? Maybe because it looks just like a regular iPhone 4?
post #3 of 63
I don't understand what this person is alleging: that there deliberate deception or that he wasn't sure or misunderstood who was asking for his consent to search his home? I can understand how easy it might be for a bunch of guys to show up, and if no one is in uniform, you might think they were all from the same agency. Seriously, if they're not in uniform, ask to see a badge number.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #4 of 63
Perhaps Apple should screen the employees that they give their prototypes a little better? ;-) I mean both prototypes left in a Bar??
post #5 of 63
They did nothing wrong the way I see it, SFPD. They waited outside so there won't be any problems. That Calderon guy should have checked credentials. Whatever it is, it is Apple security team that need to be looked at and definitely them crocked test engineers. I'm pretty sure the phone was there initially but seeing this has happened before, it gets hot pretty quickly so must have been ushered out of the building pretty quickly and have been off grid since.
post #6 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post

They did nothing wrong the way I see it, SFPD. They waited outside so there won't be any problems. That Calderon guy should have checked credentials. Whatever it is, it is Apple security team that need to be looked at and definitely them crocked test engineers. I'm pretty sure the phone was there initially but seeing this has happened before, it gets hot pretty quickly so must have been ushered out of the building pretty quickly and have been off grid since.

Since it's not clear exactly what the plainclothes did, there's no way for any of us to make any definitive judgement whether they did anything wrong or not.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I don't understand what this person is alleging: that there deliberate deception or that he wasn't sure or misunderstood who was asking for his consent to search his home? I can understand how easy it might be for a bunch of guys to show up, and if no one is in uniform, you might think they were all from the same agency. Seriously, if they're not in uniform, ask to see a badge number.

I guess he is saying that the police introduced themselves as a group of police, without qualifying that only some of the were police. Something like "Hi, I'm detective Smith [shows badge]. We're with the SFPD and we'd like to ask some questions".

It might not have been intentionally deceptive, but if Calderon is being honest, it was deceptive nonetheless. If Calderon only consented to the search because he was told the group was a group of SFPD officers, then that could be argued to be consent under false pretenses. If the consent was also assisted with 'vague' threats, then that might count as undue duress.

Additionally, if the Apple security people might be held to the same standards for search as police, if they meet certain criteria where they are or appear to be acting as police. Did they work in cooperation with or under supervision of police, were they moonlighting police, were they identified as police, are they licensed security officers, were they wearing police-like uniform or badges?

Consent gained through fraud or undue duress is not always considered consent. And if the Apple security people are found to meet the criteria of appearing to be police, then they are held to the same standards and have the same limitations gaining consent.

The part of the SFPD statement that sticks out to me is "The reason we do civil standby is to make sure there isn't a problem". That's great, but if you are there to make sure there isn't a problem, why are you all waiting outside while the involved parties are together, out of sight and indoors? Hard to make sure there isn't a problem if all you are doing is holding up a wall outside. Then it would appear all they were really there for was to be there.

"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 #8 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoX360 View Post

Perhaps Apple should screen the employees that they give their prototypes a little better? ;-) I mean both prototypes left in a Bar??

Maybe Apple should start SELLING iPhones out of bars... Would give Genius Bar a whole new spin.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 63
Notice how they say the phone was tracked down to this bar.

If the phone wasn't there, what were they tracking?

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #10 of 63
Somthing is weird about this strory. If apple used find my i to find this guy, how is it possible that they could not find the phone? Gps is hella accurate and unless this guy lives in a giant apartment complex, how cohuld they not find it.

Also, if he was at the bar AND the find my i brought them to him, he must freaking know something about where the phone is.

How can you have "plain clothes" police go out for a search. I am pretty sure they have to have a warrant and be proprely dressed to conduct a search, and certainly cant stand by if someone is conducting a search without warrant.

I am no expert, but gizmodo case made more sense, and they got away with it. If this guy stole the phone AND gets to sue apple for thousands, i will be scratching my head pretty hard.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #11 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Maybe Apple should start SELLING iPhones out of bars... Would give Genius Bar a whole new spin.

Nice. Maybe they should open a genius bar instead so their engineers could attend those instead
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #12 of 63
In related news, Samsung has begun buying up bars in the area. As of today, they've already acquired 11 bars and more deals are to be finalized early next week. The amount they paid in total is peanuts for a large company like Samsung. The company is ensuring that the next lost Apple prototype will end up in their hands and this is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to make that happen.
post #13 of 63
Lt. Troy Dangerfield. Really? That's an AWESOME name for a cop. Is Inspector Harry Callahan still with the SFPD? Put him on the case, he doesn't take crap from anyone.
post #14 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

In related news, Samsung has begun buying up bars in the area. As of today, they've already acquired 11 bars and more deals are to be finalized early next week. The amount they paid in total is peanuts for a large company like Samsung. The company is ensuring that the next lost Apple prototype will end up in their hands and this is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to make that happen.

Free drinks all night, every night for Apple employees would probably ensure a steady supply of various prototypes. Samsung could probably write it all off as R&D.

"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 #15 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

but if Calderon is being honest,

That's a huge IF.

for all we know, the police were told it was a private matter of a lost phone. Not a lost prototype. For all we know, they made it 100% clear that the other folks were not cops. For all we know, those other folks don't really work for Apple or where not there in an official capacity, .

According to my sources, Apple ID badges don't have any info about where you work. This Tony guy could be a janitor who trumped up that LinkedIn profile (might explain why he put up a gomba looking photo on a professional network) with some friends that work at said bar to pull a 15 minutes of fame. He dresses up a little nice and goes to the police and says that he's a security guy from Apple and they need the police to help them keep the peace and so on. Which is in keeping with their duties. But with no warrant perhaps they can't come inside. Only the private folks can ask etc. But little do the cops know, this Sergio is Tony's buddy so of course he's going to say "I didn't take anything, why don't you come in and look for yourself" . and then go rat out the twisted version of the story to CNET etc. and then they pull the trumped up profile after everyone has had a change to go search the name and find it. All to make things look fishy.

It's just as plausible as the reported story given how little we know and how much we only have 'as told by' data regarding
post #16 of 63
Nobody gives a fukk. This 'story' is only a 'story' for 2 reasons.

1) The iPhone protoype lost last year was found and then sold to Gizmodo. Who first ripped it apart and took a 100 pictures of it to post all over the internet. People want an early look at the iPhone5 and that simply isnt going to happen again.

2) The iHaters make such a big deal out of the "Apple Security Force" searching this man's house. Apple did nothing more than any normal person would have wanted to have done. If I lost my iPhone tonite.. and the Find-My-iPhone feature said that my phone was sitting in a house down the street. You can bet everything you have, that I would call the cops and wait outside that house until they arrived. When they arrive, I'd show them proof on the computer that it says my phone is in that house and I'd damn sure want to get it back.

Where the story gets fuzzy is DID or DID NOT the homeowner allow the Apple employees to search the house. If the homeowner did allow it, then thats it. Story over. The homeowner gave his persmission for a stranger to search the house.. had the homeowner thought about it.. then yes he should have asked for ID/Credentials of the people specifically searching. If the homeowner DID NOT the Apple employees to search, and they falsified their ID to say they were SFPD. Then those employees (not Apple as a corporation) broke the law and the proper legal action should be taken.

Either way it turns out.. nobody will even give a damn in a couple of weeks when the iPhone5 is officially released, and the world finally knows what it looks like. The hype behind this story is all about people either a) wanting an early peak at what the iPhone5 looks like or b) using this story to show why "Apple is the debil".
post #17 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

Nobody gives a fukk. This 'story' is only a 'story' for 2 reasons.

1) The iPhone protoype lost last year was found and then sold to Gizmodo. Who first ripped it apart and took a 100 pictures of it to post all over the internet. People want an early look at the iPhone5 and that simply isnt going to happen again.

2) The iHaters make such a big deal out of the "Apple Security Force" searching this man's house. Apple did nothing more than any normal person would have wanted to have done. If I lost my iPhone tonite.. and the Find-My-iPhone feature said that my phone was sitting in a house down the street. You can bet everything you have, that I would call the cops and wait outside that house until they arrived. When they arrive, I'd show them proof on the computer that it says my phone is in that house and I'd damn sure want to get it back.

Where the story gets fuzzy is DID or DID NOT the homeowner allow the Apple employees to search the house. If the homeowner did allow it, then thats it. Story over. The homeowner gave his persmission for a stranger to search the house.. had the homeowner thought about it.. then yes he should have asked for ID/Credentials of the people specifically searching. If the homeowner DID NOT the Apple employees to search, and they falsified their ID to say they were SFPD. Then those employees (not Apple as a corporation) broke the law and the proper legal action should be taken.

Either way it turns out.. nobody will even give a damn in a couple of weeks when the iPhone5 is officially released, and the world finally knows what it looks like. The hype behind this story is all about people either a) wanting an early peak at what the iPhone5 looks like or b) using this story to show why "Apple is the debil".

besides that Apple never (according to the home owner) identified themselves AS apple. Instead they let the owner assume they were ALL cops and then proceeded to search his home under that assumption (and they didn't find it)

I agree, no one will give a damn once the iphone 5 is released, and that's really sad. Tech is great. But that kind of search that occurred is unacceptable. the ONLY people that guy gave permission to search his home were the cops, and they didn't enter. How would you like it, if I showed up with the cops, they flashed their badge and then I went through all your stuff?
post #18 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

But that kind of search that occurred is unacceptable. the ONLY people that guy gave permission to search his home were the cops, and they didn't enter. How would you like it, if I showed up with the cops, they flashed their badge and then I went through all your stuff?

You don’t let them in. Rule of thumb, if you have any doubts, you ask for a warrant or you demand ID from all parties. That’s your right. The police cannot just flash their badges and enter your house without your explicit consent. If you grant them that, that is your fault (outside of deception).

We don’t know if any deception has happened and I doubt that we will ever know. Caledron has not filed any charges and even if he does, it comes down to a he-said-she-said scenario. A bunch of hearsay that is not enough to hang a case on.
post #19 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

You dont let them in. Rule of thumb, if you have any doubts, you ask for a warrant or you demand ID from all parties. Thats your right. The police cannot just flash their badges and enter your house without your explicit consent. If you grant them that, that is your fault (outside of deception)..

Exactly. If you have any doubt you ask to see badges (yes every badge) and warrants. We all know what happens when you ASSume things.

If this story was anymore than that, we would have already seen more legal action taken. To include some sort of a get-rich-quick civil suit.
post #20 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

How can you have "plain clothes" police go out for a search. I am pretty sure they have to have a warrant and be proprely dressed to conduct a search, and certainly cant stand by if someone is conducting a search without warrant.

"We have reason to believe there is a missing/stolen product from Apple on these premises.
May we conduct a search?"

"Yes, of course, Officer."
post #21 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

"We have reason to believe there is a missing/stolen product from Apple on these premises.
May we conduct a search?"

"Yes, of course, Officer."

which would mean the officers had leave to search the premises, not Apple staff
post #22 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

Exactly. If you have any doubt you ask to see badges (yes every badge) and warrants. We all know what happens when you ASSume things.

If this story was anymore than that, we would have already seen more legal action taken. To include some sort of a get-rich-quick civil suit.

So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?

Yes, he should've known better. But that doesn't justify the actions of the others involved.
post #23 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?

Yes, he should've known better. But that doesn't justify the actions of the others involved.

You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?

There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?

I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.
post #24 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?

There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?

I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.

why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?

also Calderon was at the bar...not up for debate...the GPS was tracked to his home...also not up for debate...however, we don't know if A) he was alone and B) he didn't have anyone else at his house when they tracked the phone who then left.

but all of that is beside the point...

even if he had taken the phone, assuming he isn't lying (and the external evidence seems to back him up) he gave consent to the SFPD, not Apple...
post #25 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?

(and the external evidence seems to back him up)

Nothing in my post indicated that I was "so trusting" of Apple. I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions. However if I was forced to chose a side to believe I would 100% go with police/Apple. Apple has a lot to lose if it can be proven that they broke the law, so why would they do it? If Apple's security people are ex-law enforcement they would know the consequences of their actions. Calderon on the other hand has everything to gain by fabricating details about the encounter, especially if he really did steal the iPhone. People lie every day in the hopes of a big payday from a lawsuit.

What is this external evidence you speak of?
post #26 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That's a huge IF.

for all we know, the police were told it was a private matter of a lost phone. Not a lost prototype. For all we know, they made it 100% clear that the other folks were not cops. For all we know, those other folks don't really work for Apple or where not there in an official capacity, .

yes, it is an if and we don't know enough to draw definitive conclusions. We do know those other people worked at Apple, or at least we know the police believe that. I would expect they would have asked for some proof/ID. You aren't still believing that this was hoax by the bar owner, are you?

So far, the only party that has made statements that have held up is Calderon. Apple hasn't spoken and the Police have been less than reliable in the info they have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

According to my sources, Apple ID badges don't have any info about where you work. This Tony guy could be a janitor who trumped up that LinkedIn profile (might explain why he put up a gomba looking photo on a professional network) with some friends that work at said bar to pull a 15 minutes of fame. He dresses up a little nice and goes to the police and says that he's a security guy from Apple and they need the police to help them keep the peace and so on. Which is in keeping with their duties. But with no warrant perhaps they can't come inside. Only the private folks can ask etc. But little do the cops know, this Sergio is Tony's buddy so of course he's going to say "I didn't take anything, why don't you come in and look for yourself" . and then go rat out the twisted version of the story to CNET etc. and then they pull the trumped up profile after everyone has had a change to go search the name and find it. All to make things look fishy.

Oh shit, you are still implying it could be a hoax.

I don't know how much stock I would put into your sources, since up until yesterday you were still asserting that it could be a hoax for publicity for the bar. As for the badges, often security officers will have distinct badges. No idea what Apple serurity uses.

As for the legality of consented search, the police and private security would be allowed to search if they were given consent. That consent has to be freely and voluntarily given. Consent gain through fraud/deception or undue duress may be illegal. They don't have to inform you of your constitutional right to deny the warrant-less search but there are things they are not allowed to do to gain your consent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It's just as plausible as the reported story given how little we know and how much we only have 'as told by' data regarding

It's just as plausible that a a couple Apple employees mislead SFPD, misrepresented themselves as security (licensed in Cali) and fraudulently claimed ownership of property? No, I would disagree. I don't think that is as plausible.

"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 #27 of 63
why is all this focused on possible misrepresentation on the part of the police force?

was the missing device found? was the guy charged with possession of stolen property?

Oh wait - I know - it is all part of the Apple propaganda machine - very clever to claim that an iPhone 5 prototype went missing in almost exactly the same manner as the iPhone 4 - that was you get a magnification of the media coverage leading up to the iPhone 5 launch, which by itself would otherwise have little if any drama because it looks and works just like the iPhone 4 just with faster CPUs - longer battery life - more storage - and tweaked antenna.
post #28 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

You dont let them in. Rule of thumb, if you have any doubts, you ask for a warrant or you demand ID from all parties. Thats your right. The police cannot just flash their badges and enter your house without your explicit consent. If you grant them that, that is your fault (outside of deception).

Very good advice. But, even with consent, it has to be obtained legally. As you say, outside of deception. Private citizens may not have those same restrictions on gaining consent. But, private security, working with or as police might.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

We dont know if any deception has happened and I doubt that we will ever know. Caledron has not filed any charges and even if he does, it comes down to a he-said-she-said scenario. A bunch of hearsay that is not enough to hang a case on.

We have he said, they said and they changed what they said. Calderon hasn't filed suit yet, but it's only been a week since he said he found out it might not have been police that searched his home and his is already in talks with lawyers. I am guessing there will be a lawsuit.

Imagine the police show up at your door asking for permission to search because there is a missing girl in the neighbourhood and they are search everywhere. You quickly give consent (whether because you are naive, stupid or just want to help(not calling you stupid, just using an example of reasons)). A month later you find out the people that searched your home were not police but private security, but the real police were there. Would you feel violated? Would you wonder who it was that was crawling through your wife's panty drawer? Would you get a lawyer?

"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 #29 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

why is all this focused on possible misrepresentation on the part of the police force?

was the missing device found? was the guy charged with possession of stolen property?

The police said Apple didn't even file a lost property report, let alone a stolen property report. The last statement I read from the only referred to it as lost property. Hard to file charges if there is no evidence of wrong doing and no one is claiming anything was stolen. Yet.

"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 #30 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?

he is potentially a terrorist too, but that would only be speculation. Ruling out his claimed based only on speculation doesn't seem fair. His statements are the only ones that have, in only small ways, been validated. Not one of his claims has been denied nor shown to be false. Apple has made no statements and the SFPD have released conflicting information. So, why should we doubt him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?

No, there is only evidence that it was in proximity to his home. Calderon has openly admitted he was at the bar. He admitted it to the police the night they searched his home. He very well could have hid the phone, but if it was still turned on and reporting it's location as being in his house, I very much doubt Apple would have just walked away or offered only $300.

There is no mention of how thoroughly the house was searched. We do know they didn't find any evidence of it on this PC. Connecting it to iTunes to wipe it would probably be the first thing many thieves would do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.

A very good idea not to jump to conclusions. Another good idea would be to not assign more believability to one party over another without reason.

So far, there hasn't been anything that puts Calderon's credibility into question. Nothing from his story has been proven to be false. Only one part was ever challenged, when the SFPD denied being there, but that was later corrected. The SFPD's credibility, in the case has been shown to be questionable. There statements are conflicting, they acknowledge protocols were not followed and are now investigating their own actions from that night. We shouldn't draw conclusions, but were shouldn't automatically discredit everything from Calderon either.

"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 #31 of 63
I seriously can't believe what I'm reading here.

Appologists
post #32 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The police said Apple didn't even file a lost property report, let alone a stolen property report. The last statement I read from the only referred to it as lost property. Hard to file charges if there is no evidence of wrong doing and no one is claiming anything was stolen. Yet.

but why not just add fuel to the fire if all we are doing here is wildly speculating about things for which we do not have enough information to be accurate - WAAAY more fun that sticking to the "facts"
post #33 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode View Post

I seriously can't believe what I'm reading here.

Appologists

They funny part is that there is nothing to apologize for, at least from Apple. Yet reasons are being preemptively tossed to discredit Calderon, perhaps because if he is being honest it makes the whole ordeal stick.

Circling the wagons to defend Apple is all well and good, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with being anti-everyone-not-Apple just yet.

"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 #34 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

but why not just add fuel to the fire if all we are doing here is wildly speculating about things for which we do not have enough information to be accurate - WAAAY more fun that sticking to the "facts"

Speculating is great fun, but speculating new 'facts' in order to fir some pre-conceived world order is disappointing.

"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 #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

he is potentially a terrorist too, but that would only be speculation. Ruling out his claimed based only on speculation doesn't seem fair.

There is no evidence to suggest he is a terrorist and no one is suggesting he is. There was however enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that property not belonging to him and last seen in a place where he was, had been in or near his home for the police to go with the Apple personnel to his house. So while it seems reasonable to say "potential thief" your argument against it is nonsense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

He very well could have hid the phone, but if it was still turned on and reporting it's location as being in his house, I very much doubt Apple would have just walked away or offered only $300.

There is no mention of how thoroughly the house was searched. We do know they didn't find any evidence of it on this PC. Connecting it to iTunes to wipe it would probably be the first thing many thieves would do.

I wouldn't dispute your claim, it seems reasonable enough. However, there are any number of possibilities to explain why it might not have been sending signal. He could have run the battery dead. He could have restored to factory settings directly from the handset but never plugged it into a computer. He could have used a different computer that was either not found or not on site when they came.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

A very good idea not to jump to conclusions. Another good idea would be to not assign more believability to one party over another without reason.

In my second post above I explained my reasons for assigning more believability to one party over the other. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on them.
post #36 of 63
The updated CNET story on which this AI blog was based is here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...iphone-search/

It seems his car was also searched in addition to the home. Did the police witness that search since it was outside? No one has said and Apple has refused comment so far.

"Criminal defense attorneys in San Francisco say that some of the allegations are worrisome if true. . .

Police aren't supposed to try to obtain permission to search a home by putting someone under duress. . .

. . . police must be transparent about the facts of a search and not identifying who was performing the search wouldn't be lawful if proven true. However, both Runfola and Walia said that because the phone was not found and nothing was taken, there might be little recourse for Calderon outside of filing a complaint with the police."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menno View Post

So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?

Do you know that Apple misled him? I will be interested in seeing the video record of the events since you seem to know what happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Very good advice. But, even with consent, it has to be obtained legally. As you say, outside of deception. Private citizens may not have those same restrictions on gaining consent. But, private security, working with or as police might.

The first part is true (that consent has to be obtained legally). The latter part is false (that the police can not use deception). It is well established that the police do not have to be truthful in obtaining permission to search a home.

Furthermore, I'm still waiting for evidence that there was deception.

We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?
"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 #38 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?

How could they be lying when so far those plainclothes officers, Apple security and Apple themselves have not made any public comments?

They're neither lying nor telling the truth. They're not saying anything.That's what keeps the story looking shady. If there's nothing to hide and nothing was done wrong, then just come out with an official statement. Heck, it's not as tho the incident happened just a few days ago, it's been weeks.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How could they be lying when so far those plainclothes officers, Apple security and Apple themselves have not made any public comments?

They're neither lying nor telling the truth. They're not saying anything.That's what keeps the story looking shady. If there's nothing to hide and nothing was done wrong, then just come out with an official statement. Heck, it's not as tho the incident happened just a few days ago, it's been weeks.

It *could* be that individuals were acting on their own initiative - without knowledge or consent from the parent organization (Apple or SFPD) and that now that the parent organizations have been made aware of the activities of their employees - they need to investigate before they can make any sort of statement - and if there is evidence of wrong doing on their part - then they need to spend a little more time working out how to mitigate the consequences.
post #40 of 63
deleted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • SFPD launches internal investigation over role in search for iPhone prototype
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › SFPD launches internal investigation over role in search for iPhone prototype