For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.
You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?
Come on up to Waterloo Ontario some time. I'll give you the names of a few of the bars that some of the thousands of RIM employees hang out at. See if you can pick out the ones with the prototypes. Money down that you can't. (oh hell, make it easier, see if you can even pick out the RIM jobs)
It could have been a semi-targeted theft. iPhones are very popular here, sometimes almost freakishly so in some bars and restaurants. Someone may have seen the engineer using the phone and seen the screen (the new OS was on it), perhaps talked with him or overheard him say he was an engineer with Apple and then that person saw an opportunity to swipe the phone (from his jacket, pocket, etc...). Searching online for where to sell it wouldn't be that hard if the thief didn't already know about Engadget, Gizmodo, etc... It's been said that it was first offered to Engadget, but they turned it down...maybe it was also offered to other media orgs as well.
I may also have been just a random theft of an iPhone at first. The thief took the case off to see what model it was before posting to Craigslist and realized he had something different.
It could've been a random theft and then bought by someone on the street who then sold it to Gizmodo.
There are many things that may have happened which may or may not come out at trial. In my not so humble opinion though, what Gizmodo claims itself is enough to suggest they are guilty of receiving stolen goods and the "finder" is guilty of theft.
Yes I agree it's not relevant. Also, if they want to know the identity of the person who sold the iPhone, the police can just contact Engadget instead. The person also contacted Engadget about the device remember?
And i'm sure Engadget will be more than willing to cooperate with the police
Looking at Gizmodo, Gawker and Chen's contributions to the site he would fall under journalist more than blogger.
Yeah, remember when Gizmodo went around the show floor at CES with a remote that turned off all the monitors?
That was some Pulizter Prize winning journalism right there!!!
Seriously though, yes bloggers are journalists when that's what they're engaged in actually doing. So if Gizmodo had legally obtained information, the police shouldn't have been able to search and seize in order to discover the source. However, in this case, the police were searching for evidence in the case of Chen actually breaking the law himself.
The shield was never intended to allow journalists to be above the law, and this is even more critical when you consider bloggers as journalist, since if you also consider micro-bloggers, there are currently about half a billion people who already fit that description.
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
- Someone just happens to walk into a random bar that happens to have Apple Engineers, including one with a rare iPhone 4G.
- Said engineer just happens to leave the phone on his bar stool and leaves the bar (keeping in mind that it is not unusual for something to be dropped on the floor or left on the bar, but I've NEVER seen something left on a bar stool)
- 'Finder' doesn't call the person whose phone it was - even though he knows their name and Facebook page
- 'Finder' doesn't answer the phone when it rings repeatedly that evening
- 'Finder' doesn't make any reasonable attempts to return it (mail it to Apple, drop it off with Apple, give it to the police, let the bark know he found it, etc). Instead, he calls an Apple tech support line - where people work from scripts and have no independent action authority
- 'Finder' just happens to call Gizmodo - a name known to only a tiny number of people relative to such far better known organizations like Fox News, CBS, CNET, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc, etc
Then, after Gizmodo finds out about it, the 'coincidences' just happen to continue:
- Gizmodo, who claims to have extensive contacts within Apple, can't find anyone better to call than the tech support hotline
- Gizmodo also never takes any of the above reasonable actions to return it
- Gizmodo claims that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - yet they paid $5 K for it (do they pay $5 K for EVERY unknown phone that someone calls them about?)
Now, let's compare all those coincidences with my explanation:
- Gizmodo claims to have extensive contacts within Apple. It is therefore quite plausible that Gizmodo knows where to find Apple engineers and probably even knows who carries an iPhone 4G. So, hardly any stretch of the imagination required at all - compared to the story that you're accepting hook, line, and sinker which requires a long stream of bizarre coincidences.
Actually, I didn't forget the rest, I limited my post to your implication that it was lifted from the engineers pocket, nothing after that. This was in response to your own post about how it must have been lifted from the engineers pocket.
So let's look at your points up to that event.
Quote:
- Gizmodo offers a large bribe for a new iPhone
- Someone just happens to walk into a random bar that happens to have Apple Engineers, including one with a rare iPhone 4G.
- Said engineer just happens to leave the phone on his bar stool and leaves the bar (keeping in mind that it is not unusual for something to be dropped on the floor or left on the bar, but I've NEVER seen something left on a bar stool)
And then yes, I would believe it is much more likely that a drunk dropped his phone, his phone slipped from his holster or he stood up to leave with his phone in his hand and place it on the stool while he put on his jacket. Maybe you haven't been to many german beer gardens (we are surrounded by them here) but if you are going to put your phone, keys wallets or anything else down for a moment, you are much better to place it on your stool/bench/seat instead on the table or bar...unless you want to set it in a large puddle of beer.
The whole story does sound very contrived. But the portion of the story about how the phone wound up in someone else's hands is one of the few reasonable parts. To instead want to make up a story involving Gizmodo moles in Apple alerting them to the idendities and places of association of the very few Apple employees entrusted with external carry priledges, determine when these employees would be out drinking for the night, find one with the prototype with them on a particular night who is also tanked enough not to notice and then not take steps to prevent strangers examining their phones (you'd have to get very close to the guy to see the OS was markedly different...no other way to id it was unique), and then lift the phone off of him without him or his group knowing, is to simply be grasping at very weak threads. Apple might have NSA level security, but that doesn't mean Giz had to use CIA trade craft to get the phone.
Fortunately, it's not relevant. It doesn't matter if your a journalist or a blogger - theft is still illegal.
Yes I agree it's not relevant. Also, if they want to know the identity of the person who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo, the police can just contact Engadget instead. The person also tried to sell the phone to Engadget remember?
And i'm sure Engadget will be more than willing to cooperate with the police
It could have been a semi-targeted theft. iPhones are very popular here, sometimes almost freakishly so in some bars and restaurants. Someone may have seen the engineer using the phone and seen the screen (the new OS was on it), perhaps talked with him or overheard him say he was an engineer with Apple and then that person saw an opportunity to swipe the phone (from his jacket, pocket, etc...). Searching online for where to sell it wouldn't be that hard if the thief didn't already know about Engadget, Gizmodo, etc... It's been said that it was first offered to Engadget, but they turned it down...maybe it was also offered to other media orgs as well.
I may also have been just a random theft of an iPhone at first. The thief took the case off to see what model it was before posting to Craigslist and realized he had something different.
It could've been a random theft and then bought by someone on the street who then sold it to Gizmodo.
There are many things that may have happened which may or may not come out at trial. In my not so humble opinion though, what Gizmodo claims itself is enough to suggest they are guilty of receiving stolen goods and the "finder" is guilty of theft.
yes, absolutely, it could have been a theft of opportunity. Even 'semi-targeted' as far as someone might have decided that night to steal it after hearing it discussed. That would still assume the thief was close enough to the screen to be able to tell OS3 from OS4 and was familiar enough with the OS to tell. Also that he was an experienced enough thief to pick a pocket without anyone seeing. A bit of a stretch, but in the realm of possibility.
To think that it was initiated at the request of Gizmode and everything else that a fully planned and targeted theft would entail is really taking it into some irrationally romanticized story, seemingly crafted to paint Giz in an even worse light and remove any suggestion that an Apple employee might be human, might get drunk and might leave a phone behind. Jason Chen is no James Bond (or would it be Dr. Evil in this case?)
yes, absolutely, it could have been a theft of opportunity. Even 'semi-targeted' as far as someone might have decided that night to steal it after hearing it discussed. That would still assume the thief was close enough to the screen to be able to tell OS3 from OS4 and was familiar enough with the OS to tell. Also that he was an experienced enough thief to pick a pocket without anyone seeing. A bit of a stretch, but in the realm of possibility.
To think that it was initiated at the request of Gizmode and everything else that a fully planned and targeted theft would entail is really taking it into some irrationally romanticized story, seemingly crafted to paint Giz in an even worse light and remove any suggestion that an Apple employee might be human, might get drunk and might leave a phone behind. Jason Chen is no James Bond (or would it be Dr. Evil in this case?)
I'm thinking more along the lines of Maxwell Smart or Inspector Clouseau.
The point is that no one thinks it's impossible for an Apple employee to have lost the phone. That's certainly possible. But that's not all that transpired here. To believe Gizmodo's story, you have to suspend disbelief on a wide range of topics - and believe that a long string of unlikely coincidences occurred.
Yeah, the law being what it is nowadays, it's unlikely these guys will ever get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Little rich kids like them don't go to jail over anything like this.
I'm really interested in finding out what exactly happened though regardless of whether they get off or not. As Gruber first pointed out, Chen and Lam have been editing the story of what happened on their website over the last few weeks. What they *say* happened has been changing back and forth a bit, it will be interesting to find out what *actually* happened once and for all.
I'm guessing that until the identity of the original thief is known and until they are arrested and questioned, that we won't really have a good idea of what the real story is.
Wouldn't it be something to find out they were profiling the engineer & waiting for the right moment for him to get careless.
I don't think that's what happened but given the way they handled all this I wouldn't put it past them. Gizmodo has lost any respect I once had for them as a news organization.
Wouldn't it be something to find out they were profiling the engineer & waiting for the right moment for him to get careless.
I don't think that's what happened but given the way they handled all this I wouldn't put it past them. Gizmodo has lost any respect I once had for them as a news organization.
I'm sure everyone is hoping that Gizmodo is more deeply involved than they say they are and that they may have even been at "the scene of the crime" sort of speak, but sadly, it is unlikely.
Most crimes, especially theft, are crimes of opportunity. Only professional criminals really plan their crimes and even then there is usually an element of opportunity involved as well.
While a lot of the details of the "finder"'s story are suspect and while Gizmodo's account is similarly so, it really *is* more likely that the engineer left the iphone unattended in some way for some brief period of time. The thief likely saw the phone and took the opportunity to purloin it.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone saw him use it and sneaked it out of his jacket pocket, but it's just as likely that it slipped out of his pants pocket while sitting down and that he didn't notice that fact when he went to the bathroom or something similar. The combination of slash pockets, and sitting down on the bus or in a theatre have done the same to me many times.
So while it would be nice to finally know the details, the general outline of the event is unlikely to change IMO.
When Gizmodo are publicly bragging about a potential crime that is being discussed on the news and several major chat shows, surely the police feel they must be seen to be acting.
Comments
Bloggers ARE NOT Journalists According to California Judge.
A judge didn't think so, thus his ruling that three blogs must reveal their sources.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7877_tc024.htm
For that to be plausible, you would have to assume the person knew what bars Apple Engineers hung out at, which of the patrons were Apple engineers, which of these Apple engineers would be authorized to have a prototype, and then get close enough to one of those authorized engineers to examine their phone that is disguised as s 3GS and determine that it is 'interesting' enough to steal and not just their regular phone, and get this close to the engineers without creeping anyone out...and then steal it without him or his group noticing. You aren't implying some random pick pocket. You are implying a planned and targeted theft.
You honestly find that more plausible than a drunk leaving it on a stool, table, floor, bar, urinal or toilet?
Come on up to Waterloo Ontario some time. I'll give you the names of a few of the bars that some of the thousands of RIM employees hang out at. See if you can pick out the ones with the prototypes. Money down that you can't. (oh hell, make it easier, see if you can even pick out the RIM jobs)
It could have been a semi-targeted theft. iPhones are very popular here, sometimes almost freakishly so in some bars and restaurants. Someone may have seen the engineer using the phone and seen the screen (the new OS was on it), perhaps talked with him or overheard him say he was an engineer with Apple and then that person saw an opportunity to swipe the phone (from his jacket, pocket, etc...). Searching online for where to sell it wouldn't be that hard if the thief didn't already know about Engadget, Gizmodo, etc... It's been said that it was first offered to Engadget, but they turned it down...maybe it was also offered to other media orgs as well.
I may also have been just a random theft of an iPhone at first. The thief took the case off to see what model it was before posting to Craigslist and realized he had something different.
It could've been a random theft and then bought by someone on the street who then sold it to Gizmodo.
There are many things that may have happened which may or may not come out at trial. In my not so humble opinion though, what Gizmodo claims itself is enough to suggest they are guilty of receiving stolen goods and the "finder" is guilty of theft.
very similar case involving Apple in 2005.
Bloggers ARE NOT Journalists According to California Judge.
A judge didn't think so, thus his ruling that three blogs must reveal their sources.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7877_tc024.htm
Looking at Gizmodo, Gawker and Chen's contributions to the site he would fall under journalist more than blogger.
very similar case involving Apple in 2005.
Bloggers ARE NOT Journalists According to California Judge.
A judge didn't think so, thus his ruling that three blogs must reveal their sources.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7877_tc024.htm
Wow... very nice find. Thanks for digging that up! Things just keep looking worse and worse for Giz.
very similar case involving Apple in 2005.
Bloggers ARE NOT Journalists According to California Judge.
A judge didn't think so, thus his ruling that three blogs must reveal their sources.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7877_tc024.htm
Actually, I believe that ruling was overturned.
Fortunately, it's not relevant. It doesn't matter if your a journalist or a blogger - theft is still illegal.
very similar case involving Apple in 2005.
Bloggers ARE NOT Journalists According to California Judge.
A judge didn't think so, thus his ruling that three blogs must reveal their sources.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7877_tc024.htm
Actually, I believe that ruling was overturned.
Fortunately, it's not relevant. It doesn't matter if your a journalist or a blogger - theft is still illegal.
Looking at Gizmodo, Gawker and Chen's contributions to the site he would fall under journalist more than blogger.
Not according to the California Judge. I assure you this case (or similar cases) will be cited in court.
this too.
Nick Denton in 2009: Journalism Not Gawker's 'Institutional Intention'
A quote from Gawker Media CEO Nick Denton in the Washington Post on June 22, 2009:
"We don't seek to do good. We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention."
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...nstitution.php
Yes I agree it's not relevant. Also, if they want to know the identity of the person who sold the iPhone, the police can just contact Engadget instead. The person also contacted Engadget about the device remember?
And i'm sure Engadget will be more than willing to cooperate with the police
Looking at Gizmodo, Gawker and Chen's contributions to the site he would fall under journalist more than blogger.
Yeah, remember when Gizmodo went around the show floor at CES with a remote that turned off all the monitors?
That was some Pulizter Prize winning journalism right there!!!
Seriously though, yes bloggers are journalists when that's what they're engaged in actually doing. So if Gizmodo had legally obtained information, the police shouldn't have been able to search and seize in order to discover the source. However, in this case, the police were searching for evidence in the case of Chen actually breaking the law himself.
The shield was never intended to allow journalists to be above the law, and this is even more critical when you consider bloggers as journalist, since if you also consider micro-bloggers, there are currently about half a billion people who already fit that description.
Journalist shield law may not halt iPhone probe
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. There are no exceptions for journalists. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html
You're ignoring a few points:
- Gizmodo offers a large bribe for a new iPhone
- Someone just happens to walk into a random bar that happens to have Apple Engineers, including one with a rare iPhone 4G.
- Said engineer just happens to leave the phone on his bar stool and leaves the bar (keeping in mind that it is not unusual for something to be dropped on the floor or left on the bar, but I've NEVER seen something left on a bar stool)
- 'Finder' doesn't call the person whose phone it was - even though he knows their name and Facebook page
- 'Finder' doesn't answer the phone when it rings repeatedly that evening
- 'Finder' doesn't make any reasonable attempts to return it (mail it to Apple, drop it off with Apple, give it to the police, let the bark know he found it, etc). Instead, he calls an Apple tech support line - where people work from scripts and have no independent action authority
- 'Finder' just happens to call Gizmodo - a name known to only a tiny number of people relative to such far better known organizations like Fox News, CBS, CNET, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc, etc
Then, after Gizmodo finds out about it, the 'coincidences' just happen to continue:
- Gizmodo, who claims to have extensive contacts within Apple, can't find anyone better to call than the tech support hotline
- Gizmodo also never takes any of the above reasonable actions to return it
- Gizmodo claims that they didn't know it was an Apple phone - yet they paid $5 K for it (do they pay $5 K for EVERY unknown phone that someone calls them about?)
Now, let's compare all those coincidences with my explanation:
- Gizmodo claims to have extensive contacts within Apple. It is therefore quite plausible that Gizmodo knows where to find Apple engineers and probably even knows who carries an iPhone 4G. So, hardly any stretch of the imagination required at all - compared to the story that you're accepting hook, line, and sinker which requires a long stream of bizarre coincidences.
Actually, I didn't forget the rest, I limited my post to your implication that it was lifted from the engineers pocket, nothing after that. This was in response to your own post about how it must have been lifted from the engineers pocket.
So let's look at your points up to that event.
- Gizmodo offers a large bribe for a new iPhone
- Someone just happens to walk into a random bar that happens to have Apple Engineers, including one with a rare iPhone 4G.
- Said engineer just happens to leave the phone on his bar stool and leaves the bar (keeping in mind that it is not unusual for something to be dropped on the floor or left on the bar, but I've NEVER seen something left on a bar stool)
And then yes, I would believe it is much more likely that a drunk dropped his phone, his phone slipped from his holster or he stood up to leave with his phone in his hand and place it on the stool while he put on his jacket. Maybe you haven't been to many german beer gardens (we are surrounded by them here) but if you are going to put your phone, keys wallets or anything else down for a moment, you are much better to place it on your stool/bench/seat instead on the table or bar...unless you want to set it in a large puddle of beer.
The whole story does sound very contrived. But the portion of the story about how the phone wound up in someone else's hands is one of the few reasonable parts. To instead want to make up a story involving Gizmodo moles in Apple alerting them to the idendities and places of association of the very few Apple employees entrusted with external carry priledges, determine when these employees would be out drinking for the night, find one with the prototype with them on a particular night who is also tanked enough not to notice and then not take steps to prevent strangers examining their phones (you'd have to get very close to the guy to see the OS was markedly different...no other way to id it was unique), and then lift the phone off of him without him or his group knowing, is to simply be grasping at very weak threads. Apple might have NSA level security, but that doesn't mean Giz had to use CIA trade craft to get the phone.
Actually, I believe that ruling was overturned.
Fortunately, it's not relevant. It doesn't matter if your a journalist or a blogger - theft is still illegal.
Yes I agree it's not relevant. Also, if they want to know the identity of the person who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo, the police can just contact Engadget instead. The person also tried to sell the phone to Engadget remember?
And i'm sure Engadget will be more than willing to cooperate with the police
I may have found the next generation Palm Pre in a bar last night. Now what?
nobody cares ROFL
I may have found the next generation Palm Pre in a bar last night. Now what?
You could probably get $0.10 for it on the street. If you're lucky.
It could have been a semi-targeted theft. iPhones are very popular here, sometimes almost freakishly so in some bars and restaurants. Someone may have seen the engineer using the phone and seen the screen (the new OS was on it), perhaps talked with him or overheard him say he was an engineer with Apple and then that person saw an opportunity to swipe the phone (from his jacket, pocket, etc...). Searching online for where to sell it wouldn't be that hard if the thief didn't already know about Engadget, Gizmodo, etc... It's been said that it was first offered to Engadget, but they turned it down...maybe it was also offered to other media orgs as well.
I may also have been just a random theft of an iPhone at first. The thief took the case off to see what model it was before posting to Craigslist and realized he had something different.
It could've been a random theft and then bought by someone on the street who then sold it to Gizmodo.
There are many things that may have happened which may or may not come out at trial. In my not so humble opinion though, what Gizmodo claims itself is enough to suggest they are guilty of receiving stolen goods and the "finder" is guilty of theft.
yes, absolutely, it could have been a theft of opportunity. Even 'semi-targeted' as far as someone might have decided that night to steal it after hearing it discussed. That would still assume the thief was close enough to the screen to be able to tell OS3 from OS4 and was familiar enough with the OS to tell. Also that he was an experienced enough thief to pick a pocket without anyone seeing. A bit of a stretch, but in the realm of possibility.
To think that it was initiated at the request of Gizmode and everything else that a fully planned and targeted theft would entail is really taking it into some irrationally romanticized story, seemingly crafted to paint Giz in an even worse light and remove any suggestion that an Apple employee might be human, might get drunk and might leave a phone behind. Jason Chen is no James Bond (or would it be Dr. Evil in this case?)
yes, absolutely, it could have been a theft of opportunity. Even 'semi-targeted' as far as someone might have decided that night to steal it after hearing it discussed. That would still assume the thief was close enough to the screen to be able to tell OS3 from OS4 and was familiar enough with the OS to tell. Also that he was an experienced enough thief to pick a pocket without anyone seeing. A bit of a stretch, but in the realm of possibility.
To think that it was initiated at the request of Gizmode and everything else that a fully planned and targeted theft would entail is really taking it into some irrationally romanticized story, seemingly crafted to paint Giz in an even worse light and remove any suggestion that an Apple employee might be human, might get drunk and might leave a phone behind. Jason Chen is no James Bond (or would it be Dr. Evil in this case?)
I'm thinking more along the lines of Maxwell Smart or Inspector Clouseau.
The point is that no one thinks it's impossible for an Apple employee to have lost the phone. That's certainly possible. But that's not all that transpired here. To believe Gizmodo's story, you have to suspend disbelief on a wide range of topics - and believe that a long string of unlikely coincidences occurred.
I may have found the next generation Palm Pre in a bar last night. Now what?
That's some comedy gold right there.
Yeah, the law being what it is nowadays, it's unlikely these guys will ever get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Little rich kids like them don't go to jail over anything like this.
I'm really interested in finding out what exactly happened though regardless of whether they get off or not. As Gruber first pointed out, Chen and Lam have been editing the story of what happened on their website over the last few weeks. What they *say* happened has been changing back and forth a bit, it will be interesting to find out what *actually* happened once and for all.
I'm guessing that until the identity of the original thief is known and until they are arrested and questioned, that we won't really have a good idea of what the real story is.
Wouldn't it be something to find out they were profiling the engineer & waiting for the right moment for him to get careless.
I don't think that's what happened but given the way they handled all this I wouldn't put it past them. Gizmodo has lost any respect I once had for them as a news organization.
Wouldn't it be something to find out they were profiling the engineer & waiting for the right moment for him to get careless.
I don't think that's what happened but given the way they handled all this I wouldn't put it past them. Gizmodo has lost any respect I once had for them as a news organization.
I'm sure everyone is hoping that Gizmodo is more deeply involved than they say they are and that they may have even been at "the scene of the crime" sort of speak, but sadly, it is unlikely.
Most crimes, especially theft, are crimes of opportunity. Only professional criminals really plan their crimes and even then there is usually an element of opportunity involved as well.
While a lot of the details of the "finder"'s story are suspect and while Gizmodo's account is similarly so, it really *is* more likely that the engineer left the iphone unattended in some way for some brief period of time. The thief likely saw the phone and took the opportunity to purloin it.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone saw him use it and sneaked it out of his jacket pocket, but it's just as likely that it slipped out of his pants pocket while sitting down and that he didn't notice that fact when he went to the bathroom or something similar. The combination of slash pockets, and sitting down on the bus or in a theatre have done the same to me many times.
So while it would be nice to finally know the details, the general outline of the event is unlikely to change IMO.