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 the finder had acted differently, it would still be Apples. Because Apple wasn't about to let that go unfound if they could help it. As soon as it was reported to them that it was lost, they got on the case. What else would anyone expect?
Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.
Not a chance.
AppleCare isn't going to be interested in someone saying they found a lost phone. Why in the world would the tech support personnel get involved with that.
Heck, if it wasn't in their script, they wouldn't be able to answer if the customers asks "how are you today?"
AppleCare isn't going to be interested in someone saying they found a lost phone. Why in the world would the tech support personnel get involved with that.
Heck, if it wasn't in their script, they wouldn't be able to answer if the customers asks "how are you today?"
They don't have to get involved. It's pretty simple to suggest he bring it to an Apple store as he's not far from one. The serial number would tell Apple who the phone belongs to.
The problem is that, according to what he said, he told them that he had a prototype, and they didn't believe him as they must get crank calls. But the call would still be in the servers.
I've dealt with Apple service, and they're not stupid as you seem to want to believe they are.
I got my Consumer's Reports in today, and Apple's service was rated FAR above anyone elses'.
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.
It is different. But even if Giz wasn't behind the planning or didn't direct the person as to where they could find the Apple engineer (and what he looked like, when he would be there, etc) the finder would still have to take a number of steps to steal the phone from the engineer that don't really seem plausible. They would need to:
-Find the right group of Apple employees to watch
-Find the right employee in the group to focus on, being the one that has the top secret, disguised prototype
-Get close enough to this person to see that the UI of the phone he was using was subtly different than a stock OS3 or a jailbroken iPhone. A person carrying a top secret device that is not allowed to be seen by anyone might just be a little wary of stranger staring at their top secret device up close.
-Find an opportunity to bump up to the engineer and lift the phone from his pocket without the engineer or anyone from his group noticing.
This doesn't seem reasonable by any stretch, unless the thief was very, very good and very experienced. And if he was, does it make sense that he would shop it around to multiple parties and risk exposure (as this person did) or that he, as an experienced thief, would go directly to the most likely party to pay immediately? This all just pushes the bounds of reality. It doesn't make sense. Some one actually invoked Occam's Razor to show this was the most reasonable series of events for the phone leaving the bar (except they also assumed Giz directed it all).
I suppose if the master pickpocket and thief wasn't fully aware of exactly how to identify a disguised iPhone prototype and exactly which Apple employee had a phone out that night (if at all) we might expect he would have been picking a lot of pockets trying to score the right one. We haven't heard any reports of mass thefts that night/week in the area. That also would have been a quick way to get caught. Faster even than calling a bunch of strangers to ask them if they want to buy it.
If it was stolen from the bar, the only explanation that makes any sense is that it was a simple crime of opportunity. They didn't know what to do with the strange device afterwards, realized it might be a prototype and shopped it around. Perhaps they had heard that some tech site was offering a bounty for early iPad access but weren't sure which, so they call the ones the could think of...Wired, Engadget and Gizmodo. Sure as hell makes more sense than the convoluted fantasies others have proposed.
If the finder had acted differently, it would still be Apples. Because Apple wasn't about to let that go unfound if they could help it. As soon as it was reported to them that it was lost, they got on the case. What else would anyone expect?
I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.
Police departments probably don't do a whole lot of investigation regarding lost property that is turned in. If the finder had turned in the phone shortly after finding it, it might have gone in a bin as just another lost phone, the police would have made their public notice that no one reads. Who knows if Apple would ever reported it lost or inquired at the PD...it seems they didn't after 3 weeks of it being missing. This is what a truly honest finder would have done. I believe that finder in this case was unscrupulous. He likely realized that even if it all worked out well for him by turning it in and becoming its owner after 90 days, that would have essentially been in the time frame that it has generally been assumed the new iPhone would be announced or released. He could ebay it at that point, legally, but the value would have dropped substantially. Depending on how far away from the launch it was, he could have legally sold it to Giz for a substantial amount.
I didn't being up the whole 90 limit to give anyone a pass or to argue how they might covered themselves legally. It was simply someone asked how long a person has to turn in lost property after finding it (a day, a week, a month)? There is no specified time. I brought up the 90 day limit, as it is the only time limit specified in the civil lost property statutes. It hasn't even been 90 days since it was lost, so it isn't like this could be used to defend anyone. Simple a part of the discussion on the statutes involved.
I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.
OTOH, Apple may have been hoping that it simply WAS lost and would never surface again. If so, there would have been no harm done (other than having to build a replacement phone - which is insignificant compared to the loss of intellectual property). If it had gone the full 90 days, they would have been past the projected WWDC launch date, so if it came to light the second week of June, again, no major issue.
If Apple had filed a police report at the time, it would have been all over the news, so they may have wished to avoid that if it wasn't necessary.
But when it was plastered all over the news, they could no longer hope that it would disappear so there was no more value to waiting until June to file the police report. You keep trying to deflect the discussion from the real facts of the case. The 'finder' is a thief under CA law and Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets. Do you always go around trying to blame the victim?
I'm just curious - do you also go around saying that rape victims deserve what they got? Do you say that someone who has a Ferrari stolen deserves it for having such a nice car? Someone living in a nice neighborhood deserves to have their house broken into? The fact is that Gizmodo is guilty by their own admission - and Apple is the victim - whether you like it or not.
OTOH, Apple may have been hoping that it simply WAS lost and would never surface again. If so, there would have been no harm done (other than having to build a replacement phone - which is insignificant compared to the loss of intellectual property). If it had gone the full 90 days, they would have been past the projected WWDC launch date, so if it came to light the second week of June, again, no major issue.
Hey, thanks for stating exactly what I just did. That was helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If Apple had filed a police report at the time, it would have been all over the news, so they may have wished to avoid that if it wasn't necessary.
That is likely exactly why they didn't report it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But when it was plastered all over the news, they could no longer hope that it would disappear so there was no more value to waiting until June to file the police report. You keep trying to deflect the discussion from the real facts of the case. The 'finder' is a thief under CA law and Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets. Do you always go around trying to blame the victim?
Umm, where exactly did I blame Apple? It is a simple fact that if Apple never reported it and if the finder followed the law (by turning it in and waiting 90 days) then there would be no crime. I never said the finder met these requirements. In fact I said they did not.
Do you never get tired of making shit up to argue against? You repeatedly assert that I have made arguments that I never did, and then irrationally argue against those fantasy assertions. Windmill son, windmills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm just curious - do you also go around saying that rape victims deserve what they got?
No, but then I am not a lawyer either. If that argument would actually work in court, I am sure some lawyers would use it. Would you? (BTW, what is it with some people here that need to keep bringing up rape and/or vaginas into this topic of conversation? A very strange preoccupation indeed)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Do you say that someone who has a Ferrari stolen deserves it for having such a nice car?
Nope. What a dumb question. Is that what your strawman arguments have come down to? Sad really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Someone living in a nice neighborhood deserves to have their house broken into?
Please never be my lawyer. If these are your best attempts at misdirection and obfuscation of fact, I could surely find a better one.
Quote:
The fact is that Gizmodo is guilty by their own admission - and Apple is the victim - whether you like it or not.
If they are guilt, yes they are guilty whether I like it or not. But, I don't have a need to like it or not. You definitely seem to have a need to see Giz be guilty, even if you have to make up convoluted fantasies. That is the difference between you and me. I don't, in anyway, see myself involved in this case. It is an interesting issue for discussion, but I am just an objective observer. I am a huge Apple fan and enjoy Gizmodo, but that doesn't matter. You actually seem to be taking it personally. I wonder if you think Steve is actually going to call you to thank you for your unquestioning, unthinking advocacy and loyalty to the cause? Will you be disappointed when he doesn't call you?
Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.
Who me?
I don't BLAME Apple for much. I hold them to a higher standard that other companies, but that is because I have been a fan for so many years. But, that isn't related here at all. I don't see this issue in any light that requires shifting blame on or off of Apple. That haven't done anything here that requires blame. They are blameless in this whole fiasco.
Apple is a great company. But what is really sad is when someone fanatically devotes themselves to Apple or any other company, without having any actual relationship to the company other than as a consumer or trivial shareholder. These people take any criticism of Apple, mostly imagined but sometimes real, as personal insult against them. They stand out like a sore thumb. They aren't doing the Apple community any favour with their delusions. They share a lot of traits with other celebrity obsessives. With those that feel they are somehow linked to some actor or actress. They really are embarrassing to other Apple fans. They are the Justin Beiber groupies of the Mac/Apple world. Sometimes they seem to border on being more like John Hinckley, Jr.
I am sure that Steve personally appreciates your efforts on Apple's behalf. You should expect a call or maybe even a personal note expressing his gratitude.
I'll add that I have been a long time advocate of Apple and their products. But that doesn't have to mean thoughtlessly putting them on a pedestal. I am also an advocate against stupidity. Some people have a pathological need to deify Apple. That is stupid.
Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.
Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.
Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.
Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.
Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.
I suppose it is better to have to be right than to continually be wrong. Thanks for your input. Much valued.
I like people like you that love to argue (looked over a few of your posts-funny stuff) but then comment about other people arguing. But I guess some people argue to 'lose' (again, I've looked at your posts, so perhaps this is the case).
It's awfully hard to make sense of your rambling. Can you state in plain English what the question is?
You are making far, far, far more out of this than it needs to be and seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote.
I believe the cops have done good/correct and Gizmodo has done wrong. I'm not voting for Gizmodo here.
Quote from the story and my original post...
Quote:
"I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,? he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers."
I read this as the cops saying, "We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
At this point the cops are checking the status of the "protection". Gizmodo may seek an injunction after it is decided if it is not protected. Assuming it is not considered protected, what are the cops going to do after that ruling? Sit around and not do anything and wait to see if/until an injuction is filed?
Quote:
For the record, here is the process:
1. Police receive probable cause information that a crime has been committed and that evidence might be available.
2. Police go to judge to get a search warrant.
3. If the judge agrees that there's probable cause, judge orders a search warrant.
4. At that point, the police can legally search the premises as long as they follow the limits on the search warrant.
The police have done nothing wrong and there's nothing illegal about what they've done at this point.
Now, if the person who was searched has an objection, they can:
5. Go to court to ask for an injunction to stop future searches or to have the evidence thrown out and returned to the owner.
Okay. At this point the cops have seized the stuff and Gizmodo complained (not yet filed an injunction).
If it comes back and it is ruled as not protected, what are the police going to do? Wait and see if Gizmodo files an injunction?
Quote:
so the police have done NOTHING wrong.
I agree 100%
Lighten up Francis
Don't try to make someone's statment more than it is.
Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.
This is a bit of a red herring, because I don't think it was a reasonable effort to return the phone by calling AppleCare, a tech support line.
However, Gizmodo claims the "finder" received a case number from AppleCare. So to me the one thing that doesn't imply is that AppleCare said, "yes, we're authorized by Apple to grant you ownership of the phone. Do with it as you wish".
If they gave a case number, more than likely it was a "We're just tech support, we're not authorized to tell you to do anything and don't have any information about future products. Here's a case number and we'll notify our managers of the situation".
For what it's worth, I have insight into this from two places...One, I used to run one of the largest Apple authorized service centers and know a bit about how they operate. Secondly, I had a very weird legal situation recently where I needed to contact Apple and calling AppleCare was the only way to deal with the situation. I was given a case number and it took weeks before the right person in Apple's legal department could get back to me. Along the way, there was a lot of "we aren't authorized, and we can't" but they never once tried to terminate the communication or my request for help in the situation.
Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.
It's the only logical explanation for his posts. Either that or he lives in one of those Alternate Universes from Fringe.
If you're ever right about something, it will be a first, so be sure to tell us how you feel if it ever happens.
If I have ever responded to you with incorrect or inaccurate information, please also feel free to share...I am a big boy, I can take it. I'll even admit it when I am wrong. While you have been repeatedly shown to be factually wrong or just wrongheaded in many cases, you tend to fall back to ad hom in those cases.
Comments
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 the finder had acted differently, it would still be Apples. Because Apple wasn't about to let that go unfound if they could help it. As soon as it was reported to them that it was lost, they got on the case. What else would anyone expect?
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>
Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.
Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.
Not a chance.
AppleCare isn't going to be interested in someone saying they found a lost phone. Why in the world would the tech support personnel get involved with that.
Heck, if it wasn't in their script, they wouldn't be able to answer if the customers asks "how are you today?"
Not a chance.
AppleCare isn't going to be interested in someone saying they found a lost phone. Why in the world would the tech support personnel get involved with that.
Heck, if it wasn't in their script, they wouldn't be able to answer if the customers asks "how are you today?"
They don't have to get involved. It's pretty simple to suggest he bring it to an Apple store as he's not far from one. The serial number would tell Apple who the phone belongs to.
The problem is that, according to what he said, he told them that he had a prototype, and they didn't believe him as they must get crank calls. But the call would still be in the servers.
I've dealt with Apple service, and they're not stupid as you seem to want to believe they are.
I got my Consumer's Reports in today, and Apple's service was rated FAR above anyone elses'.
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.
It is different. But even if Giz wasn't behind the planning or didn't direct the person as to where they could find the Apple engineer (and what he looked like, when he would be there, etc) the finder would still have to take a number of steps to steal the phone from the engineer that don't really seem plausible. They would need to:
-Find the right group of Apple employees to watch
-Find the right employee in the group to focus on, being the one that has the top secret, disguised prototype
-Get close enough to this person to see that the UI of the phone he was using was subtly different than a stock OS3 or a jailbroken iPhone. A person carrying a top secret device that is not allowed to be seen by anyone might just be a little wary of stranger staring at their top secret device up close.
-Find an opportunity to bump up to the engineer and lift the phone from his pocket without the engineer or anyone from his group noticing.
This doesn't seem reasonable by any stretch, unless the thief was very, very good and very experienced. And if he was, does it make sense that he would shop it around to multiple parties and risk exposure (as this person did) or that he, as an experienced thief, would go directly to the most likely party to pay immediately? This all just pushes the bounds of reality. It doesn't make sense. Some one actually invoked Occam's Razor to show this was the most reasonable series of events for the phone leaving the bar (except they also assumed Giz directed it all).
I suppose if the master pickpocket and thief wasn't fully aware of exactly how to identify a disguised iPhone prototype and exactly which Apple employee had a phone out that night (if at all) we might expect he would have been picking a lot of pockets trying to score the right one. We haven't heard any reports of mass thefts that night/week in the area. That also would have been a quick way to get caught. Faster even than calling a bunch of strangers to ask them if they want to buy it.
If it was stolen from the bar, the only explanation that makes any sense is that it was a simple crime of opportunity. They didn't know what to do with the strange device afterwards, realized it might be a prototype and shopped it around. Perhaps they had heard that some tech site was offering a bounty for early iPad access but weren't sure which, so they call the ones the could think of...Wired, Engadget and Gizmodo. Sure as hell makes more sense than the convoluted fantasies others have proposed.
Or a drunk dude left it behind at a bar.
Occam's Razor, indeed.
If the finder had acted differently, it would still be Apples. Because Apple wasn't about to let that go unfound if they could help it. As soon as it was reported to them that it was lost, they got on the case. What else would anyone expect?
I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.
Police departments probably don't do a whole lot of investigation regarding lost property that is turned in. If the finder had turned in the phone shortly after finding it, it might have gone in a bin as just another lost phone, the police would have made their public notice that no one reads. Who knows if Apple would ever reported it lost or inquired at the PD...it seems they didn't after 3 weeks of it being missing. This is what a truly honest finder would have done. I believe that finder in this case was unscrupulous. He likely realized that even if it all worked out well for him by turning it in and becoming its owner after 90 days, that would have essentially been in the time frame that it has generally been assumed the new iPhone would be announced or released. He could ebay it at that point, legally, but the value would have dropped substantially. Depending on how far away from the launch it was, he could have legally sold it to Giz for a substantial amount.
I didn't being up the whole 90 limit to give anyone a pass or to argue how they might covered themselves legally. It was simply someone asked how long a person has to turn in lost property after finding it (a day, a week, a month)? There is no specified time. I brought up the 90 day limit, as it is the only time limit specified in the civil lost property statutes. It hasn't even been 90 days since it was lost, so it isn't like this could be used to defend anyone. Simple a part of the discussion on the statutes involved.
I haven't even a whisper that Apple reported it as lost (or stolen), even after it was missing for weeks or even that they had been in touch with the PD. If this whole story hadn't broken, would they have since contacted the police? Had it been dropped in the Lost and Found bin at the local PD the day after it was lost, it might have been sitting in the bin for the last 6 weeks. 42 days. Half way to the 90 day requirement.
OTOH, Apple may have been hoping that it simply WAS lost and would never surface again. If so, there would have been no harm done (other than having to build a replacement phone - which is insignificant compared to the loss of intellectual property). If it had gone the full 90 days, they would have been past the projected WWDC launch date, so if it came to light the second week of June, again, no major issue.
If Apple had filed a police report at the time, it would have been all over the news, so they may have wished to avoid that if it wasn't necessary.
But when it was plastered all over the news, they could no longer hope that it would disappear so there was no more value to waiting until June to file the police report. You keep trying to deflect the discussion from the real facts of the case. The 'finder' is a thief under CA law and Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets. Do you always go around trying to blame the victim?
I'm just curious - do you also go around saying that rape victims deserve what they got? Do you say that someone who has a Ferrari stolen deserves it for having such a nice car? Someone living in a nice neighborhood deserves to have their house broken into? The fact is that Gizmodo is guilty by their own admission - and Apple is the victim - whether you like it or not.
OTOH, Apple may have been hoping that it simply WAS lost and would never surface again. If so, there would have been no harm done (other than having to build a replacement phone - which is insignificant compared to the loss of intellectual property). If it had gone the full 90 days, they would have been past the projected WWDC launch date, so if it came to light the second week of June, again, no major issue.
Hey, thanks for stating exactly what I just did. That was helpful.
If Apple had filed a police report at the time, it would have been all over the news, so they may have wished to avoid that if it wasn't necessary.
That is likely exactly why they didn't report it.
But when it was plastered all over the news, they could no longer hope that it would disappear so there was no more value to waiting until June to file the police report. You keep trying to deflect the discussion from the real facts of the case. The 'finder' is a thief under CA law and Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property and misappropriated trade secrets. Do you always go around trying to blame the victim?
Umm, where exactly did I blame Apple? It is a simple fact that if Apple never reported it and if the finder followed the law (by turning it in and waiting 90 days) then there would be no crime. I never said the finder met these requirements. In fact I said they did not.
Do you never get tired of making shit up to argue against? You repeatedly assert that I have made arguments that I never did, and then irrationally argue against those fantasy assertions. Windmill son, windmills.
I'm just curious - do you also go around saying that rape victims deserve what they got?
No, but then I am not a lawyer either. If that argument would actually work in court, I am sure some lawyers would use it. Would you? (BTW, what is it with some people here that need to keep bringing up rape and/or vaginas into this topic of conversation? A very strange preoccupation indeed)
Do you say that someone who has a Ferrari stolen deserves it for having such a nice car?
Nope. What a dumb question. Is that what your strawman arguments have come down to? Sad really.
Someone living in a nice neighborhood deserves to have their house broken into?
Please never be my lawyer. If these are your best attempts at misdirection and obfuscation of fact, I could surely find a better one.
The fact is that Gizmodo is guilty by their own admission - and Apple is the victim - whether you like it or not.
If they are guilt, yes they are guilty whether I like it or not. But, I don't have a need to like it or not. You definitely seem to have a need to see Giz be guilty, even if you have to make up convoluted fantasies. That is the difference between you and me. I don't, in anyway, see myself involved in this case. It is an interesting issue for discussion, but I am just an objective observer. I am a huge Apple fan and enjoy Gizmodo, but that doesn't matter. You actually seem to be taking it personally. I wonder if you think Steve is actually going to call you to thank you for your unquestioning, unthinking advocacy and loyalty to the cause? Will you be disappointed when he doesn't call you?
HUmm, where exactly did I blame Apple?
Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.
Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.
Who me?
I don't BLAME Apple for much. I hold them to a higher standard that other companies, but that is because I have been a fan for so many years. But, that isn't related here at all. I don't see this issue in any light that requires shifting blame on or off of Apple. That haven't done anything here that requires blame. They are blameless in this whole fiasco.
Apple is a great company. But what is really sad is when someone fanatically devotes themselves to Apple or any other company, without having any actual relationship to the company other than as a consumer or trivial shareholder. These people take any criticism of Apple, mostly imagined but sometimes real, as personal insult against them. They stand out like a sore thumb. They aren't doing the Apple community any favour with their delusions. They share a lot of traits with other celebrity obsessives. With those that feel they are somehow linked to some actor or actress. They really are embarrassing to other Apple fans. They are the Justin Beiber groupies of the Mac/Apple world. Sometimes they seem to border on being more like John Hinckley, Jr.
I am sure that Steve personally appreciates your efforts on Apple's behalf. You should expect a call or maybe even a personal note expressing his gratitude.
I'll add that I have been a long time advocate of Apple and their products. But that doesn't have to mean thoughtlessly putting them on a pedestal. I am also an advocate against stupidity. Some people have a pathological need to deify Apple. That is stupid.
Not very likely. They would have suggested ways of him returning it.
Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.
Your whole life revolves around blaming Apple for SOMETHING. Your 'Who, me?' act isn't convincing anyone.
Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.
Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.
I suppose it is better to have to be right than to continually be wrong. Thanks for your input. Much valued.
I like people like you that love to argue (looked over a few of your posts-funny stuff) but then comment about other people arguing. But I guess some people argue to 'lose' (again, I've looked at your posts, so perhaps this is the case).
It's awfully hard to make sense of your rambling. Can you state in plain English what the question is?
You are making far, far, far more out of this than it needs to be and seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote.
I believe the cops have done good/correct and Gizmodo has done wrong. I'm not voting for Gizmodo here.
Quote from the story and my original post...
"I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,? he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers."
I read this as the cops saying, "We are waiting to see if it's protected and if it's not we're gonna wait some more."
At this point the cops are checking the status of the "protection". Gizmodo may seek an injunction after it is decided if it is not protected. Assuming it is not considered protected, what are the cops going to do after that ruling? Sit around and not do anything and wait to see if/until an injuction is filed?
For the record, here is the process:
1. Police receive probable cause information that a crime has been committed and that evidence might be available.
2. Police go to judge to get a search warrant.
3. If the judge agrees that there's probable cause, judge orders a search warrant.
4. At that point, the police can legally search the premises as long as they follow the limits on the search warrant.
The police have done nothing wrong and there's nothing illegal about what they've done at this point.
Now, if the person who was searched has an objection, they can:
5. Go to court to ask for an injunction to stop future searches or to have the evidence thrown out and returned to the owner.
Okay. At this point the cops have seized the stuff and Gizmodo complained (not yet filed an injunction).
If it comes back and it is ruled as not protected, what are the police going to do? Wait and see if Gizmodo files an injunction?
so the police have done NOTHING wrong.
I agree 100%
Lighten up Francis
Don't try to make someone's statment more than it is.
I don't like the direction Apple is going in lately. It seems as though they're suing everyone lately.
So what does this have to do with the cops doing a stolen property investigation?
Why don't you test that. Call AppleCare and tell them you found an iPhone and see what happens? But I suppose that by now they may be more responsive in light of what has happened. Still, and interesting bit of research.
This is a bit of a red herring, because I don't think it was a reasonable effort to return the phone by calling AppleCare, a tech support line.
However, Gizmodo claims the "finder" received a case number from AppleCare. So to me the one thing that doesn't imply is that AppleCare said, "yes, we're authorized by Apple to grant you ownership of the phone. Do with it as you wish".
If they gave a case number, more than likely it was a "We're just tech support, we're not authorized to tell you to do anything and don't have any information about future products. Here's a case number and we'll notify our managers of the situation".
For what it's worth, I have insight into this from two places...One, I used to run one of the largest Apple authorized service centers and know a bit about how they operate. Secondly, I had a very weird legal situation recently where I needed to contact Apple and calling AppleCare was the only way to deal with the situation. I was given a case number and it took weeks before the right person in Apple's legal department could get back to me. Along the way, there was a lot of "we aren't authorized, and we can't" but they never once tried to terminate the communication or my request for help in the situation.
Jragosta, some people (like Tulkas) just gotta be right. They compulsively argue for the sake of arguing. It's all about winning. I'm not judging. Whatever turns him on. Just don't let his behavior get to you.
It's the only logical explanation for his posts. Either that or he lives in one of those Alternate Universes from Fringe.
It's the only logical explanation for his posts. Either that or he lives in one of those Alternate Universes from Fringe.
yes, those are the only two logical explanations. They must be teaching a new, special type of logic these days. It's cute.
I suppose it is better to have to be right than to continually be wrong.
If you're ever right about something, it will be a first, so be sure to tell us how you feel if it ever happens.
If you're ever right about something, it will be a first, so be sure to tell us how you feel if it ever happens.
If I have ever responded to you with incorrect or inaccurate information, please also feel free to share...I am a big boy, I can take it. I'll even admit it when I am wrong. While you have been repeatedly shown to be factually wrong or just wrongheaded in many cases, you tend to fall back to ad hom in those cases.
I'll wait.