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.
I've been trying to push the inverted exclamation point sarcasm mark used in Ethiopic languages but I seem to be gaining no ground. It's Option-1 in Mac OS X to invoke. Since it's only used at the end of a sentence it doesn't interfere with the Spanish usage.
In fact, it's a lot simpler than that. He was supposed to have contacted Apple about it. Apple would have his identity. They didn't need the police or Chen to get it.
The key word is *supposed.* But the story goes that Apple didn't respond. If they didn't respond, they may not have gotten his name. The call may not have been recorded or memorialized in any way.
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.
The key word is *supposed.* But the story goes that Apple didn't respond. If they didn't respond, they may not have gotten his name. The call may have recorded or memorialized in any way.
He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.
Where a lot of people make a mistake is thinking that deleting files from your computer actually deletes them. I would think that Chen is smart enough to know this. You must either encrypt the data or overwrite the sectors or else the authorities can retrieve it.
Your point? You say that you think Chen is smart enough to realize that a simple delete isn't sufficient - but you don't think Chen has heard of Secure Erase tools?
He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.
That's assuming that:
a. He really did call Apple
and
b. He left his true contact information
and
c. His message was clear enough to understand and there were no transcription errors.
It's really a non-issue. We know that he contacted Wired and Engadget as well as Gizmodo, so the police could have gotten his info from them.
And once you have met those requirements and the 90 days have elapsed, then you the finder become the rightful owner and title will be transfered to you. Guess what? Then yuo can sell it or keep it.
(hint: that is why I intentionally answered yes to each of my own questions, except the one about selling it before meeting you finders obligations.
Now you are sounding like a Gawker lawyer.
You are purposely treading on conversational norms by intentionally trying to construct micro-logical-technical loopholes to wriggle through. That doesn't work in any reasonable debate. Not to mention your attempts to wriggle out are unfounded by the facts you actually presented. You conveniently add new criteria to the mix which you cite to automagically absolve yourself of perceived negative associations.
Your last attempt to construct a 90-day get-out-of-jail-free card is totally unfounded. Nobody can hold lost property themselves in CA for 90 days and automatically become the rightful owner. That is outright fiction! There are no other "requirements" to be met. You have to turn the property over to the Police. Period. And you have to ensure it is properly protected until the Police take custody.
What little fake criteria are you going to dream up this time to justify illegal behavior as reasonable without letting it seem as though that is what you are doing?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It was sarcasm. of course Giz didn't pay someone to steal the phone. That is in no way plausible. Just some James Bond fantasy about Chen that keeps getting spouted.
next time I will add the <sarcasm> tag.
I'm not buying this a bit. Gawker has openly advertised a bounty on Apple trade secret information, and publicly rescinded the offer in a trite manner after being warned by Apple legal. I fully expect the offer never really was rescinded, just publicly stated it was rescinded.
Then when an appropriate chunk of information in the form of a phone "accidentally turns up" Gawker pays more than 15x what it would be worth if it was an iPhone 4th generation and 100x what a non-iPhone subsidized phone would run from a mobile provider. And you think that one to two order of magnitude price differential doesn't very strongly suggest the bounty was still in force?
To me it says the bounty was in force, just not in Apple's face. It says Gawker was waiting checkbook in hand for "enterprising individuals" to generate a hardware leak. The leak happened to be a theft and while Gawker didn't say steal me an iPhone, they are still culpable for creating the situation where someone believed Gawker or another website would reward them for such an action. Especially when Gawker did exactly that.
Your point? You say that you think Chen is smart enough to realize that a simple delete isn't sufficient - but you don't think Chen has heard of Secure Erase tools?
I said "I would think" but maybe he's not that smart. Obviously Engadget was smart enough not to buy the phone but people at GIZ aren't so bright...
You are purposely treading on conversational norms by intentionally trying to construct micro-logical-technical loopholes to wriggle through. That doesn't work in any reasonable debate. Not to mention your attempts to wriggle out are unfounded by the facts you actually presented. You conveniently add new criteria to the mix which you cite to automagically absolve yourself of perceived negative associations.
Your last attempt to construct a 90-day get-out-of-jail-free card is totally unfounded. Nobody can hold lost property themselves in CA for 90 days and automatically become the rightful owner. That is outright fiction! There are no other "requirements" to be met. You have to turn the property over to the Police. Period. And you have to ensure it is properly protected until the Police take custody.
What little fake criteria are you going to dream up this time to justify illegal behavior as reasonable without letting it seem as though that is what you are doing?
Maybe reading isn't you strong suit, I don't know. I clearly said that after meeting requirements, one of which is turning it over to the police, then after 90 days owner ship transfers to the finder. I never implied or stated that the finder of the iPhone nor Giz met the requirements (or waited the 90 days). I didn't say they could hold it for 90 days, Perhaps rereading that post would help. I said if you turn it into the police, then 90 after they post a public notice, it becomes yours (after you pay for the posting)...duh
It isn't so much constructing a get out of jail card, it is simply stating the law. I am sorry you didn't understand the words I used to state it, but that isn't my concern, is it? The statute really is quite clear...ownership transfers to the finder. Use a dictionary if you need to, but it is clearly stated.
BTW, justto remind you, my comments were in response to your silly assertion that "And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item".". Silly because, obviously since the law clearly allows for it to transfer ownership, under conditions, to the finder after 90 days, you are allowed to sell what you own....well worth another 'duh'
I'm not buying this a bit. Gawker has openly advertised a bounty on Apple trade secret information, and publicly rescinded the offer in a trite manner after being warned by Apple legal. I fully expect the offer never really was rescinded, just publicly stated it was rescinded.
Then when an appropriate chunk of information in the form of a phone "accidentally turns up" Gawker pays more than 15x what it would be worth if it was an iPhone 4th generation and 100x what a non-iPhone subsidized phone would run from a mobile provider. And you think that one to two order of magnitude price differential doesn't very strongly suggest the bounty was still in force?
To me it says the bounty was in force, just not in Apple's face. It says Gawker was waiting checkbook in hand for "enterprising individuals" to generate a hardware leak. The leak happened to be a theft and while Gawker didn't say steal me an iPhone, they are still culpable for creating the situation where someone believed Gawker or another website would reward them for such an action. Especially when Gawker did exactly that.
So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?
That you buy? But not that it was left in a bar? Seriously?!
Maybe reading isn't you strong suit, I don't know. I clearly said that after meeting requirements, one of which is turning it over to the police, then after 90 days owner ship transfers to the finder. I never implied or stated that the finder of the iPhone nor Giz met the requirements (or waited the 90 days). I didn't say they could hold it for 90 days, Perhaps rereading that post would help. I said if you turn it into the police, then 90 after they post a public notice, it becomes yours (after you pay for the posting)...duh
It isn't so much constructing a get out of jail card, it is simply stating the law. I am sorry you didn't understand the words I used to state it, but that isn't my concern, is it? The statute really is quite clear...ownership transfers to the finder. Use a dictionary if you need to, but it is clearly stated.
So your point is that Gizmodo could have owned the phone if they had done EVERYTHING differently than they did.
Not sure why you would even bother something so obvious.
He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.
If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:
1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.
2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.
So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?
There is plenty of middle ground between public retraction and everyone but Apple knowing. Everyone didn't know it was still on offer. But it wouldn't take more than a phone call to find out. Our finder may or may not have known of the retraction, either way why not go fishing? In Silicon Valley the value of such a find is known by many people, especially those who frequent the same watering holes as Apple folk. All we need is sufficient greed to get things going. I doubt this was a planned event on anyone's part. Just a lucky break for the finder and Gizmodo.
So your point is that Gizmodo could have owned the phone if they had done EVERYTHING differently than they did.
Not sure why you would even bother something so obvious.
Not really. I guess if the finder had acted different then it would be his. It might be obvious, but some people were comparing lost property to stolen cars. Maybe they are familiar with the laws. I know I wasn't before all this happened. Hopefully the lawyers involved know the law better than any of us here.
Why bother? Why not. Better to state facts about the lost property statutes in cali, than to instead make up some fantasies and fairy tales to make the story fit a predetermined opinion. I am not advocating for or against Giz, for or against Apple. Just for common sense.
But mainly it was because of a question of timing in regards to lost property. No one has been able to answer how long a finder has to notify the owner, other than what the statute states, which is 'reasonable'. I mentioned the 90 day provision, as it is the only item regarding the status of a lost item that relies on time.
If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:
1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.
2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.
The original story said that he had a call ticket from Apple. Even if they 'lost' any of the details of this call, the ticket itself should be enough to confirm a call was made. They could have talked about the weather or sports for all we know.
The original story said that he had a call ticket from Apple. Even if they 'lost' any of the details of this call, the ticket itself should be enough to confirm a call was made. They could have talked about the weather or sports for all we know.
Or, more likely:
<rings>
"Hello, AppleCare? I found a lost iPhone. Can I return it to you?"
So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?
That you buy? But not that it was left in a bar? Seriously?!
BTW, melgross, this is what I was talking about.
Yeah, but that's still a lot different than paying someone to steal it where the deal is agreed to in advance which is what some are saying.
I won't argue about the "bounty" because I think that's what's happened. but as far as I know, there was never a specific amount of money mentioned. It was more of a; "Bring us a piece of secret Apple gear, and we'll make worth your while". Sort of a nebulous offer.
If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:
1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.
2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.
I only see the first part of 1 as being possible. The calls aren't erased for some time. It's not done on an individual basic by the person contacted. It's an automatic system as it is with all companies. The calls are on a server, and they remain there for quite a while. there's no way one call is going to be selectively erased. It's done for legal purposes.
Comments
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.
next time I will add the <sarcasm> tag.
I've been trying to push the inverted exclamation point sarcasm mark used in Ethiopic languages but I seem to be gaining no ground. It's Option-1 in Mac OS X to invoke. Since it's only used at the end of a sentence it doesn't interfere with the Spanish usage.
In fact, it's a lot simpler than that. He was supposed to have contacted Apple about it. Apple would have his identity. They didn't need the police or Chen to get it.
The key word is *supposed.* But the story goes that Apple didn't respond. If they didn't respond, they may not have gotten his name. The call may not have been recorded or memorialized in any way.
Where a lot of people make a mistake is thinking that deleting files from your computer actually deletes them. I would think that Chen is smart enough to know this. You must either encrypt the data or overwrite the sectors or else the authorities can retrieve it.
That goes without saying.
The key word is *supposed.* But the story goes that Apple didn't respond. If they didn't respond, they may not have gotten his name. The call may have recorded or memorialized in any way.
He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.
Where a lot of people make a mistake is thinking that deleting files from your computer actually deletes them. I would think that Chen is smart enough to know this. You must either encrypt the data or overwrite the sectors or else the authorities can retrieve it.
Your point? You say that you think Chen is smart enough to realize that a simple delete isn't sufficient - but you don't think Chen has heard of Secure Erase tools?
He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.
That's assuming that:
a. He really did call Apple
and
b. He left his true contact information
and
c. His message was clear enough to understand and there were no transcription errors.
It's really a non-issue. We know that he contacted Wired and Engadget as well as Gizmodo, so the police could have gotten his info from them.
And once you have met those requirements and the 90 days have elapsed, then you the finder become the rightful owner and title will be transfered to you. Guess what? Then yuo can sell it or keep it.
(hint: that is why I intentionally answered yes to each of my own questions, except the one about selling it before meeting you finders obligations.
Now you are sounding like a Gawker lawyer.
You are purposely treading on conversational norms by intentionally trying to construct micro-logical-technical loopholes to wriggle through. That doesn't work in any reasonable debate. Not to mention your attempts to wriggle out are unfounded by the facts you actually presented. You conveniently add new criteria to the mix which you cite to automagically absolve yourself of perceived negative associations.
Your last attempt to construct a 90-day get-out-of-jail-free card is totally unfounded. Nobody can hold lost property themselves in CA for 90 days and automatically become the rightful owner. That is outright fiction! There are no other "requirements" to be met. You have to turn the property over to the Police. Period. And you have to ensure it is properly protected until the Police take custody.
What little fake criteria are you going to dream up this time to justify illegal behavior as reasonable without letting it seem as though that is what you are doing?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It was sarcasm. of course Giz didn't pay someone to steal the phone. That is in no way plausible. Just some James Bond fantasy about Chen that keeps getting spouted.
next time I will add the <sarcasm> tag.
I'm not buying this a bit. Gawker has openly advertised a bounty on Apple trade secret information, and publicly rescinded the offer in a trite manner after being warned by Apple legal. I fully expect the offer never really was rescinded, just publicly stated it was rescinded.
Then when an appropriate chunk of information in the form of a phone "accidentally turns up" Gawker pays more than 15x what it would be worth if it was an iPhone 4th generation and 100x what a non-iPhone subsidized phone would run from a mobile provider. And you think that one to two order of magnitude price differential doesn't very strongly suggest the bounty was still in force?
To me it says the bounty was in force, just not in Apple's face. It says Gawker was waiting checkbook in hand for "enterprising individuals" to generate a hardware leak. The leak happened to be a theft and while Gawker didn't say steal me an iPhone, they are still culpable for creating the situation where someone believed Gawker or another website would reward them for such an action. Especially when Gawker did exactly that.
Your point? You say that you think Chen is smart enough to realize that a simple delete isn't sufficient - but you don't think Chen has heard of Secure Erase tools?
I said "I would think" but maybe he's not that smart. Obviously Engadget was smart enough not to buy the phone but people at GIZ aren't so bright...
Now you are sounding like a Gawker lawyer.
You are purposely treading on conversational norms by intentionally trying to construct micro-logical-technical loopholes to wriggle through. That doesn't work in any reasonable debate. Not to mention your attempts to wriggle out are unfounded by the facts you actually presented. You conveniently add new criteria to the mix which you cite to automagically absolve yourself of perceived negative associations.
Your last attempt to construct a 90-day get-out-of-jail-free card is totally unfounded. Nobody can hold lost property themselves in CA for 90 days and automatically become the rightful owner. That is outright fiction! There are no other "requirements" to be met. You have to turn the property over to the Police. Period. And you have to ensure it is properly protected until the Police take custody.
What little fake criteria are you going to dream up this time to justify illegal behavior as reasonable without letting it seem as though that is what you are doing?
Maybe reading isn't you strong suit, I don't know. I clearly said that after meeting requirements, one of which is turning it over to the police, then after 90 days owner ship transfers to the finder. I never implied or stated that the finder of the iPhone nor Giz met the requirements (or waited the 90 days). I didn't say they could hold it for 90 days, Perhaps rereading that post would help. I said if you turn it into the police, then 90 after they post a public notice, it becomes yours (after you pay for the posting)...duh
It isn't so much constructing a get out of jail card, it is simply stating the law. I am sorry you didn't understand the words I used to state it, but that isn't my concern, is it? The statute really is quite clear...ownership transfers to the finder. Use a dictionary if you need to, but it is clearly stated.
BTW, justto remind you, my comments were in response to your silly assertion that "And nowhere in either can you find, "sell said found item".". Silly because, obviously since the law clearly allows for it to transfer ownership, under conditions, to the finder after 90 days, you are allowed to sell what you own....well worth another 'duh'
I'm not buying this a bit. Gawker has openly advertised a bounty on Apple trade secret information, and publicly rescinded the offer in a trite manner after being warned by Apple legal. I fully expect the offer never really was rescinded, just publicly stated it was rescinded.
Then when an appropriate chunk of information in the form of a phone "accidentally turns up" Gawker pays more than 15x what it would be worth if it was an iPhone 4th generation and 100x what a non-iPhone subsidized phone would run from a mobile provider. And you think that one to two order of magnitude price differential doesn't very strongly suggest the bounty was still in force?
To me it says the bounty was in force, just not in Apple's face. It says Gawker was waiting checkbook in hand for "enterprising individuals" to generate a hardware leak. The leak happened to be a theft and while Gawker didn't say steal me an iPhone, they are still culpable for creating the situation where someone believed Gawker or another website would reward them for such an action. Especially when Gawker did exactly that.
So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?
That you buy? But not that it was left in a bar? Seriously?!
BTW, melgross, this is what I was talking about.
Maybe reading isn't you strong suit, I don't know. I clearly said that after meeting requirements, one of which is turning it over to the police, then after 90 days owner ship transfers to the finder. I never implied or stated that the finder of the iPhone nor Giz met the requirements (or waited the 90 days). I didn't say they could hold it for 90 days, Perhaps rereading that post would help. I said if you turn it into the police, then 90 after they post a public notice, it becomes yours (after you pay for the posting)...duh
It isn't so much constructing a get out of jail card, it is simply stating the law. I am sorry you didn't understand the words I used to state it, but that isn't my concern, is it? The statute really is quite clear...ownership transfers to the finder. Use a dictionary if you need to, but it is clearly stated.
So your point is that Gizmodo could have owned the phone if they had done EVERYTHING differently than they did.
Not sure why you would even bother something so obvious.
He said he did. He said he left his information, but wasn't contacted. They likely didn't believe him. Once Apple knew it was lost, and learned he left his info., they could have easily found where his info was. That stuff doesn't get deleted from the help database for a long time. Remember that these calls are recorded.
If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:
1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.
2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.
So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?
There is plenty of middle ground between public retraction and everyone but Apple knowing. Everyone didn't know it was still on offer. But it wouldn't take more than a phone call to find out. Our finder may or may not have known of the retraction, either way why not go fishing? In Silicon Valley the value of such a find is known by many people, especially those who frequent the same watering holes as Apple folk. All we need is sufficient greed to get things going. I doubt this was a planned event on anyone's part. Just a lucky break for the finder and Gizmodo.
So your point is that Gizmodo could have owned the phone if they had done EVERYTHING differently than they did.
Not sure why you would even bother something so obvious.
Not really. I guess if the finder had acted different then it would be his. It might be obvious, but some people were comparing lost property to stolen cars. Maybe they are familiar with the laws. I know I wasn't before all this happened. Hopefully the lawyers involved know the law better than any of us here.
Why bother? Why not. Better to state facts about the lost property statutes in cali, than to instead make up some fantasies and fairy tales to make the story fit a predetermined opinion. I am not advocating for or against Giz, for or against Apple. Just for common sense.
But mainly it was because of a question of timing in regards to lost property. No one has been able to answer how long a finder has to notify the owner, other than what the statute states, which is 'reasonable'. I mentioned the 90 day provision, as it is the only item regarding the status of a lost item that relies on time.
If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:
1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.
2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.
The original story said that he had a call ticket from Apple. Even if they 'lost' any of the details of this call, the ticket itself should be enough to confirm a call was made. They could have talked about the weather or sports for all we know.
The original story said that he had a call ticket from Apple. Even if they 'lost' any of the details of this call, the ticket itself should be enough to confirm a call was made. They could have talked about the weather or sports for all we know.
Or, more likely:
<rings>
"Hello, AppleCare? I found a lost iPhone. Can I return it to you?"
"No, we don't want it"
"OK. Thanks" <click>
So, they publicly retract it, but privately everyone but Apple is aware it is still on offer? Then some enterprising person takes it upon themselves to plan and commit the theft. And then the decide to get in contact with at least two other parties that never offered a bounty, just so more people could be made aware of their crime?
That you buy? But not that it was left in a bar? Seriously?!
BTW, melgross, this is what I was talking about.
Yeah, but that's still a lot different than paying someone to steal it where the deal is agreed to in advance which is what some are saying.
I won't argue about the "bounty" because I think that's what's happened. but as far as I know, there was never a specific amount of money mentioned. It was more of a; "Bring us a piece of secret Apple gear, and we'll make worth your while". Sort of a nebulous offer.
If what you say is true, then the truth will out if this goes to court. But it is also possible that:
1) he never made the call, or if he did he got someone who wasn't being recorded.
2) that his contact information was lost or deleted.
I only see the first part of 1 as being possible. The calls aren't erased for some time. It's not done on an individual basic by the person contacted. It's an automatic system as it is with all companies. The calls are on a server, and they remain there for quite a while. there's no way one call is going to be selectively erased. It's done for legal purposes.