You get a pre-release anything, take pictures and sell the information anonymously for cash and then dispose of the thing.
Don´t tell your friends, don´t tell anyone and don´t return it. Don´t carry it on you or home or car.
The law is so complicated and screwy, they might decide to make a new law on your case or use one that´s 100 years old.
You still pay, even if your innocent.
The stress alone is terrible. The fear of court, jail and/or fines is well known and manipulated t it´s fullest effect.
Innocent are made to look guilty, people lie, cops lie, justice isn´t about what´s right, it´s about what they can prove.
The young are especially vulnerable.
A little revision, if you don't mind:
1st:
The moment you obtain the phone, go to the bathroom and take measures to disable assisted GPS...
That means...
Set phone airplane mode!
Turn off Wi-Fi.
If battery is removable, remove it.
....
Chances are, enabling airplane mode right away could have prevented remote bricking, although i can't guarantee it.
On an iPhone, the battery can't be pulled easily, but if you have a small screwdriver in your car, and a GPS unit with a suction cup, it could be done....since the prototype wouldn't have it soldered on....
Then, as you said...take video (no sound). Use a faraday cage to prevent phone from being remote-bricked when powered on, or calling home....
Use latex gloves...
After getting all pictures, wipe the phone with alcohol, and dispose of it with the battery removed....
or better yet, do it all in the next day, and that evening, come back and leave the phone with the bar...pass the hot potato ...in case someone does recognize you as the finder/keeper
This is one of the things that is wrong with media today.
Gizmodo committed a crime. Why are the other media outlets sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Let the police do their jobs. If Gizmodo prevails in court, they can sue at that point.
A bit presumptuous of you to declare someone has committed a crime, when there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Aha. Just as I speculated. This is going to get worse for Apple before it gets better. The media will close ranks around Gizmodo (and they are probably right to do that).
Whether it is DeGeneris, or SJ's health, or the options backdating or now this, Apple really needs to get its PR act together in a serious way. They appear to be tone deaf on that front. (When Jon Stewart, an Apple-lover calls you an 'apphole' and suggests that Microsoft is less evil than you are, there's a really serious problem with how the public perceives you; see this hilarious video at http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-2010/appholes).
It is not just a question of 'right' and 'wrong' at this level. Apple is acting remarkably childishly and foolishly for a $230+B company.
A very insightful post which displays more sense than the usual rabid nonsense being expressed on this topic.
The affidavit has not been released in it's customary ten days which already is bound to make anyone curious who is in the know of the way these situations usually play out and it's back to "giz f'd up"?
If apple utilized undue influence to have the law bypassed in their favor in an attempt to witch hunt out leaks, they would have been complicit in an illegal search and seizure, which is against "the law".
The way this will more than likely play out is the task force will return all chen's machines, no one will know if they actually searched them or not and will have to take their word for it, and all charges will be dropped with "Giz" being found protected by the shield law.
Either way they take a hit, but one hurts less than the other.
Customary doesn't mean always. It more often is released in 10 days, but that isn't always the case. As was proven by Wired, finding the person who actually had the phone, isn't that difficult. Apple could have found out the identity of the person who sold the phone to Gizmodo with little effort. The reason that Gawker/Chen are being investigated has nothing to do with the actual theft of the phone. And don't be mistaken, under California law, the second the guy didn't take reasonable steps to return the phone to either the bar, the police, or even Apple, it was considered stolen property. Gizmodo paying to take "ownership" puts them in the position of receiving stolen goods. This again, is under California law. Shield laws only come into play to protect the source. Gizmodo isn't the source. They are being investigated for potentially committing a crime. Gizmodo isn't protected under shield laws in this situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
They went after the wrong guy. They should have used mobile me and GPS located it and arrested the first guy that refused to give it back. Instead they waited till a journalist got a hold of it and then initiated skull drudgery to enact a raid to get more information than what was released about their phone.
Again, as was proven by Wired, finding out who sold the phone to Gizmodo wasn't that difficult. The authorities were able to talk to him before they even seized Chen's computers. This was all without Gizmodo giving up the source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
The law isn't that cut and dry my friend and always up to interpretation, which is why we have attorneys, judges, and a supreme court.
Certain aspects of certain laws are open to interpretation, but in this case, the law is pretty clear. Gizmodo payed a sizable amount for what they could only assume was stolen property under California law. Their internal legal counsel was unfamiliar with California law and that could be what brings them down in the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
It won't make it to court.
We'll see. From the few criminal attorneys I've spoken with, Gizmodo is extremely screwed. All their actions, from the actual payment to receiving the stolen phone to editing their posts as they realized they messed up, puts them in an extremely bad position. There's a reason they stopped posting new articles regarding this. If they for one instance thought that they were in the right, they would be as smug as they were at the beginning.
A bit presumptuous of you to declare someone has committed a crime, when there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction.
The fact that Gizmodo openly admitted to paying for a prototype of an unreleased product that is deemed stolen under California law, leads to a pretty easy assumption. At a minimum, Gizmodo received stolen property. At a maximum, they knew the device was stolen and they encouraged the illegal sale of it, therefor making them far more complicit in the act of the theft. This isn't even taking into consideration that Gizmodo released quite a bit of what could be considered trade secrets in a civil suit.
Quote:
A very insightful post which displays more sense than the usual rabid nonsense being expressed on this topic.
Not really. You and cnocbui are at the extremes just as some Apple fans are. Regardless of what some media outlets, which are ultimately biased, say, the law is super straight forward. The guy could have returned the phone to the bar, the police or Apple HQ, but instead he had a friend shop it around to various tech sites, and Gizmodo took the bait on some pretty bad legal advice. In the end, this situation will not have an impact on Apple's sales in the grand scheme of things. Tech junkies are not the general public, regardless of how much we think we are. Apple's PR machine is doing just fine.
This is one of the things that is wrong with media today.
Gizmodo committed a crime. Why are the other media outlets sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Let the police do their jobs. If Gizmodo prevails in court, they can sue at that point.
So, the media looking into a story that a) is of interested to many people and b) has implications for how far the media shield laws go should stop looking into the story because you say they are guilty? They may well be, but thankfully the free press doesn't have to check with you for approval on a story.
In fact, since you are so against the media discussing this, why the hell are you discussing it? Why are you sticking you " nose where it doesn't belong"?
It is pretty hilarious that you have now managed to get even the most diehard fans here to respond to the ridiculousness of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
What are you talking about? Do you think the Apple engineer just gave it to them? If you drop something you don't lose ownership of it... If it is worth at least $5000, then it is a felony crime. Since Gizmodo paid $5000 for it, they crossed the threshold. How would you feel if you dropped your phone and someone took it instead of returning it to lost and found?
Sorry, no requirement in the law that says to turn it over to the last and found. Turning it over to one stranger in order to restore it to the owner is the same as turning it over to another. Walking out of the bar with it is also not a crime. At all. So long as your intention is to restore it to the owner. That is unknown and unproven at this point. Where it might have become a crime is when he sold it to Giz. Up to that point, it was still found property. When he sold it, selling found property is considered selling stolen property. That was then the crime. By buying found property, Giz could be guilty of buying stolen property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrr
Lost property is lost property - there is no indication that the person who picked up the phone in the bar stole it from the person who left it behind.
No stolen property - no crime committed.
The only crime here was illegal search and seizure by the police. Jason Chen/Gizmodo has had their fundamental Constitutionally guaranteed rights violated.
But this should come as no surprise - very little of what the government does today is Constitutionally legal, and California is even worse than the Feds in that regard. The founding father's must be turning over in their grave.
There could be a crime.
It was indeed lost property and covered by the lost property statutes in Cali. The seller was guilty of nothing when he took it home, if his intent was to return it to the owner, But, upon selling it, its status could change to stolen. If proven, then that would definitely be a crime. Finder would be guilty of selling stolen property and Giz would be guilty of buying stolen property.
That is why Giz is pushing the idea that they did not actually buy the item but paid only for access to it. If they did not buy the item, then the item was never sold. If the found item was never sold, then there was no crime of buying or selling stolen property and really no case. Whether the argument of buying access to an item is substantively different than buying the item itself stands up in court, remains to be seen. The problem with this argument, that I see, is that the lost property statutes still require the finder to make reasonable efforts to return the item. If he is selling only access to it and this is accepted by the court, then he is then using it for his own benefit(use), which violates the statue. He would then be guilty of theft, but Giz would not be guilty of buying stolen property.
And if Giz is not guilty of a crime, then the search and seizure becomes a serious issue.
This is the California Code - Section 485 word by word:
"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
It can't get clearer than that.
The only thing in question is whether the finders efforts were reasonable and just, which he admitted he could have done more.
I don't think the finder has much of a chance of getting off on a theft charge. Whether the court finds he sold the item or just sold access to it will determine if further charges of buying/selling stolen property will apply. But that determination will also determine if Giz is guilty of buying stolen property. Can't be guilty of buying stolen property if you never bought the property.
If you live in Mumbai, how can this issue possibly apply to you and why are you concerned?
That is a stupid and pointless comment. You should retract it.
Half the mods of AI live in Canada. Why the heck should they be concerned? Wait, why the heck do a bunch of foreigners run this site in the first place!?
This is one of the things that is wrong with media today.
Gizmodo committed a crime. Why are the other media outlets sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Let the police do their jobs. If Gizmodo prevails in court, they can sue at that point.
Ah, so you're now judge, jury, and executioner are you? You miss the point of the media's request (as usual). If there's a clause that makes the warrent public in 10 days after being executed, the media outlets have every right to ask why it hasn't been made public by now.
But you seem to stand in the "screw the rights of the citizens as long as Apple is coming out ahead" line...
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Issue here is your biased view of the situation by starting you comments with "Gizmodo committed a Grime" I not sure and maybe I missed a couple of days, but has that been proven already?
I like Apple, but I enjoy more that laws are used in proper fashion and if abused, everyone should know, so we know our rights in future.
Agree with your response to jragosta's post. If there was actually something in there that abused the legal system and it was continued to be hidden, that only soils the matter further for everyone involved in the raid and hurts Apple's image by proxy.
The fact that Gizmodo openly admitted to paying for a prototype of an unreleased product that is deemed stolen under California law, leads to a pretty easy assumption. At a minimum, Gizmodo received stolen property. At a maximum, they knew the device was stolen and they encouraged the illegal sale of it, therefor making them far more complicit in the act of the theft. This isn't even taking into consideration that Gizmodo released quite a bit of what could be considered trade secrets in a civil suit.
I think you are wrong on a number of points.
Under section 480 of the California Penal code, it mentions an obligation on the part of a finder of lost property, to 'make a reasonable attempt' to contact the owner.
Hypothetically, I imagine Gizmody could argue that upon receipt of a 'purported' iPhone prototype, they first had to determine that it was in fact a device made by Apple and that they were in fact the owners. So if they claim it took them a week to ascertain what the device actually was, and therefore who the owner was likely to be, the point in time from which they are obliged to try and contact Apple would be the end of that week.
In the Gizmodo article reporting on the prototype, they said:
Quote:
Why we think it's definitely real
We're as skeptical?if not more?than all of you. We get false tips all the time. But after playing with it for about a week?the overall quality feels exactly like a finished final Apple phone?and disassembling this unit, there is so much evidence stacked in its favor, that there's very little possibility that it's a fake.
Notice they said "think"
They could very well argue that even then, they were not 100% sure and that it was not until they received a letter from Apple asking for it's return, that there was absolute certainty as to who the owner was. So they could argue that the clock started ticking when they received the letter from Apple.
Given Gizmodo's article was dated the 19th of April and that Apple's letter demanding it back was dated the same day, It could be argued they didn't even have to try and contact the owner as they had contacted them before any 'reasonable' period of time had passed.
Gizmodo's letter of reply to Apple pretty much confirms all this:
Quote:
Bruce, thanks.
Here's Jason Chen, who has the iPhone. And here's his address. You two should coordinate a time.
[Blah Blah Blah Address]
Happy to have you pick this thing up. Was burning a hole in our pockets. Just so you know, we didn't know this was stolen [as they might have claimed. meaning, real and truly from Apple. It was found, and to be of unproven origin] when we bought it. Now that we definitely know it's not some knockoff, and it really is Apple's, I'm happy to see it returned to its rightful owner.
I don't think a case could be made that Gizmodo was involved in theft. The phone was returned to it's rightful owner, very shortly after determination of who the owner was.
1. Lack of a properly signed warrant. no worries there they have one
2. violate conditions of the warrant as allowed by law, such as the time, lack of presence at the location, items that could be taken. highly doubt that anyone would be that stupid
3. violate shield laws. as this is about finding the details of the partner to a crime as well as exactly what Chen and Gizmodo's involvement was, shield laws don't apply. Said laws don't protect you when you commit, and confess, to a criminal act
Actually, #3 wouldn't make it illegal. As long as there's a signed search warrant and the police followed the rules, the search is legal. If the court rules that Journalist Shield law applies, the evidence will not be admissible, but that doesn't make the search illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn
Lesson to be learned.
You get a pre-release anything, take pictures and sell the information anonymously for cash and then dispose of the thing.
Don´t tell your friends, don´t tell anyone and don´t return it. Don´t carry it on you or home or car.
The law is so complicated and screwy, they might decide to make a new law on your case or use one that´s 100 years old.
Sorry, there's nothing complicated or screwy about the CA theft laws. And the reason they're so old is that they've been used by every state in the country (and most foreign countries) for over 100 years and they work well. No need to change a law that everyone understands - except a bunch of whiners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones
As an Apple supporter and shareholder, I'm bothered by this. If it's true that these documents are typically made public in ten days, and for some reason it's not happening in this case, I think the public has a right to know why. I don't like it at all if Apple pressured the court not to release the affidavit. We don't know that Apple did that, but given their tendency towards secrecy it looks like they might have. :
There is absolutely no evidence that Apple did anything but report a stolen phone. There is certainly no evidence of a cover-up. If you're going to assume things for which there is no evidence, you might as well give up on rational discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Issue here is your biased view of the situation by starting you comments with "Gizmodo committed a Grime" I not sure and maybe I missed a couple of days, but has that been proven already?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
A bit presumptuous of you to declare someone has committed a crime, when there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction..
Actually, Gizmodo has confessed. Their story of what happened makes it clear that a phone was stolen under CA laws and that Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property. And that's even if you believe their story. If the 'finder' was actually asked to take the phone form someone's pocket, even more crimes have been committed.
Now, there will be a trial to see if their attorney can get them off on a technicality, but it is already clear that Gizmodo committed a crime.
[QUOTE=kirkrr;1627178]Lost property is lost property - there is no indication that the person who picked up the phone in the bar stole it from the person who left it behind.
No stolen property - no crime committed. {/QUOTE]
I wonder how many times someone needs to point out the CA law on stolen property before these Apple-haters get it? Maybe 10 million times? Even that probably won't be enough.
The law in CA and virtually every other state is clear. The phone is stolen property under the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
They went after the wrong guy. They should have used mobile me and GPS located it and arrested the first guy that refused to give it back. Instead they waited till a journalist got a hold of it and then initiated skull drudgery to enact a raid to get more information than what was released about their phone.
I think people overestimate the accuracy of finding it via MobileMe. They can narrow it down a bit, but in a populated area, that's probably not enough to find one person.
But it doesn't matter. According to the news reports, Apple DID know who had the phone fairly early on (I don't think I've heard the source of their information). They knocked on the door and asked for the phone to be returned - and it wasn't. Furthermore, they called the phone repeatedly and it wasn't answered. Plus, the thief knew where it was found and could have returned it to the bar, but did not do so. If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?
Puh-leeaaze! The media are supporting Gawker because they have a dog in this fight: their standing as journalists. What? You'd expect them to be objective? They'll trash Apple and they'll make Apple look like the bad guy because they're threatened by this apparently, or is that alleged, felony committed by Gizmodo. (etc.)
If the 'finder' was actually asked to take the phone form someone's pocket, even more crimes have been committed.
And if he killed the engineer first, it would be murder and so yet more crimes would have been committed. I mean, since we are playing "let's make shit up" today. Repeating this fantasy over and over again doesn't make it more credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
But it doesn't matter. According to the news reports, Apple DID know who had the phone fairly early on (I don't think I've heard the source of their information). They knocked on the door and asked for the phone to be returned - and it wasn't. Furthermore, they called the phone repeatedly and it wasn't answered. Plus, the thief knew where it was found and could have returned it to the bar, but did not do so. If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?
We know they knocked on the door. From most accounts, it was after the giz story was published. So, not only do you not know that they asked for the phone back at the door, given the timing, it likely doesn't make sense (it could). The engineer or Apple may have called the phone, but if it was deactivated by early the next morning, it is unlikely a sleeping drunk would have answered it before Apple deactivated it.
You funniest line is "If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?"
Since the police report appears to have been filed after they had it back in their possession or at least after Giz published their story and informed them they could have it back, your question itself doesn't make much sense. Even rhetorically it has no value.
Actually, #3 wouldn't make it illegal. As long as there's a signed search warrant and the police followed the rules, the search is legal. If the court rules that Journalist Shield law applies, the evidence will not be admissible, but that doesn't make the search illegal.
[blah blah blah, yak yak yak]
Seriously, stop playing Forum Lawyer Man. The best that you're doing right now is speculating on how the law applies and the outcome of a trial that hasn't even happened yet. Like you said earlier, let the professionals do their jobs.
And the reason the people you label "Apple-haters" (read, for everyone else: people with opinions different than yours) say what they say is because no trial has occured so it's open season for speculation. Just because they take a different read on the what's written doesn't mean that they are wrong and you're right. That's up to the judge to decide (hence his title, see?).
Unless you're actually a judge, then no, it's not completely clear under CA law whether or not a crime has occured. If it was, then this case would have been shut a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
And if he killed the engineer first, it would be murder and so yet more crimes would have been committed. I mean, since we are playing "let's make shit up" today. Repeating this fantasy over and over again doesn't make it more credible.
We know they knocked on the door. From most accounts, it was after the giz story was published. So, not only do you not know that they asked for the phone back at the door, given the timing, it likely doesn't make sense (it could). The engineer or Apple may have called the phone, but if it was deactivated by early the next morning, it is unlikely a sleeping drunk would have answered it before Apple deactivated it.
You funniest line is "If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?"
Since the police report appears to have been filed after they had it back in their possession or at least after Giz published their story and informed them they could have it back, your question itself doesn't make much sense. Even rhetorically it has no value.
Logical thinking, FTW. Especially the last paragraph.
This is the California Code - Section 485 word by word:
"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
It can't get clearer than that.
The only thing in question is whether the finders efforts were reasonable and just, which he admitted he could have done more.
Which means they should be investigating the FINDER and not Gizmodo.
Comments
Lesson to be learned.
You get a pre-release anything, take pictures and sell the information anonymously for cash and then dispose of the thing.
Don´t tell your friends, don´t tell anyone and don´t return it. Don´t carry it on you or home or car.
The law is so complicated and screwy, they might decide to make a new law on your case or use one that´s 100 years old.
You still pay, even if your innocent.
The stress alone is terrible. The fear of court, jail and/or fines is well known and manipulated t it´s fullest effect.
Innocent are made to look guilty, people lie, cops lie, justice isn´t about what´s right, it´s about what they can prove.
The young are especially vulnerable.
A little revision, if you don't mind:
1st:
The moment you obtain the phone, go to the bathroom and take measures to disable assisted GPS...
That means...
Set phone airplane mode!
Turn off Wi-Fi.
If battery is removable, remove it.
....
Chances are, enabling airplane mode right away could have prevented remote bricking, although i can't guarantee it.
On an iPhone, the battery can't be pulled easily, but if you have a small screwdriver in your car, and a GPS unit with a suction cup, it could be done....since the prototype wouldn't have it soldered on....
Then, as you said...take video (no sound). Use a faraday cage to prevent phone from being remote-bricked when powered on, or calling home....
Use latex gloves...
After getting all pictures, wipe the phone with alcohol, and dispose of it with the battery removed....
or better yet, do it all in the next day, and that evening, come back and leave the phone with the bar...pass the hot potato
Dan
This is one of the things that is wrong with media today.
Gizmodo committed a crime. Why are the other media outlets sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Let the police do their jobs. If Gizmodo prevails in court, they can sue at that point.
A bit presumptuous of you to declare someone has committed a crime, when there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction.
Aha. Just as I speculated. This is going to get worse for Apple before it gets better. The media will close ranks around Gizmodo (and they are probably right to do that).
Whether it is DeGeneris, or SJ's health, or the options backdating or now this, Apple really needs to get its PR act together in a serious way. They appear to be tone deaf on that front. (When Jon Stewart, an Apple-lover calls you an 'apphole' and suggests that Microsoft is less evil than you are, there's a really serious problem with how the public perceives you; see this hilarious video at http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-2010/appholes).
It is not just a question of 'right' and 'wrong' at this level. Apple is acting remarkably childishly and foolishly for a $230+B company.
A very insightful post which displays more sense than the usual rabid nonsense being expressed on this topic.
This dead horse again?
Really?
The affidavit has not been released in it's customary ten days which already is bound to make anyone curious who is in the know of the way these situations usually play out and it's back to "giz f'd up"?
If apple utilized undue influence to have the law bypassed in their favor in an attempt to witch hunt out leaks, they would have been complicit in an illegal search and seizure, which is against "the law".
The way this will more than likely play out is the task force will return all chen's machines, no one will know if they actually searched them or not and will have to take their word for it, and all charges will be dropped with "Giz" being found protected by the shield law.
Either way they take a hit, but one hurts less than the other.
Customary doesn't mean always. It more often is released in 10 days, but that isn't always the case. As was proven by Wired, finding the person who actually had the phone, isn't that difficult. Apple could have found out the identity of the person who sold the phone to Gizmodo with little effort. The reason that Gawker/Chen are being investigated has nothing to do with the actual theft of the phone. And don't be mistaken, under California law, the second the guy didn't take reasonable steps to return the phone to either the bar, the police, or even Apple, it was considered stolen property. Gizmodo paying to take "ownership" puts them in the position of receiving stolen goods. This again, is under California law. Shield laws only come into play to protect the source. Gizmodo isn't the source. They are being investigated for potentially committing a crime. Gizmodo isn't protected under shield laws in this situation.
They went after the wrong guy. They should have used mobile me and GPS located it and arrested the first guy that refused to give it back. Instead they waited till a journalist got a hold of it and then initiated skull drudgery to enact a raid to get more information than what was released about their phone.
Again, as was proven by Wired, finding out who sold the phone to Gizmodo wasn't that difficult. The authorities were able to talk to him before they even seized Chen's computers. This was all without Gizmodo giving up the source.
The law isn't that cut and dry my friend and always up to interpretation, which is why we have attorneys, judges, and a supreme court.
Certain aspects of certain laws are open to interpretation, but in this case, the law is pretty clear. Gizmodo payed a sizable amount for what they could only assume was stolen property under California law. Their internal legal counsel was unfamiliar with California law and that could be what brings them down in the end.
It won't make it to court.
We'll see. From the few criminal attorneys I've spoken with, Gizmodo is extremely screwed. All their actions, from the actual payment to receiving the stolen phone to editing their posts as they realized they messed up, puts them in an extremely bad position. There's a reason they stopped posting new articles regarding this. If they for one instance thought that they were in the right, they would be as smug as they were at the beginning.
A bit presumptuous of you to declare someone has committed a crime, when there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction.
The fact that Gizmodo openly admitted to paying for a prototype of an unreleased product that is deemed stolen under California law, leads to a pretty easy assumption. At a minimum, Gizmodo received stolen property. At a maximum, they knew the device was stolen and they encouraged the illegal sale of it, therefor making them far more complicit in the act of the theft. This isn't even taking into consideration that Gizmodo released quite a bit of what could be considered trade secrets in a civil suit.
A very insightful post which displays more sense than the usual rabid nonsense being expressed on this topic.
Not really. You and cnocbui are at the extremes just as some Apple fans are. Regardless of what some media outlets, which are ultimately biased, say, the law is super straight forward. The guy could have returned the phone to the bar, the police or Apple HQ, but instead he had a friend shop it around to various tech sites, and Gizmodo took the bait on some pretty bad legal advice. In the end, this situation will not have an impact on Apple's sales in the grand scheme of things. Tech junkies are not the general public, regardless of how much we think we are. Apple's PR machine is doing just fine.
This is one of the things that is wrong with media today.
Gizmodo committed a crime. Why are the other media outlets sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Let the police do their jobs. If Gizmodo prevails in court, they can sue at that point.
So, the media looking into a story that a) is of interested to many people and b) has implications for how far the media shield laws go should stop looking into the story because you say they are guilty? They may well be, but thankfully the free press doesn't have to check with you for approval on a story.
In fact, since you are so against the media discussing this, why the hell are you discussing it? Why are you sticking you " nose where it doesn't belong"?
It is pretty hilarious that you have now managed to get even the most diehard fans here to respond to the ridiculousness of your posts.
What are you talking about? Do you think the Apple engineer just gave it to them? If you drop something you don't lose ownership of it... If it is worth at least $5000, then it is a felony crime. Since Gizmodo paid $5000 for it, they crossed the threshold. How would you feel if you dropped your phone and someone took it instead of returning it to lost and found?
Sorry, no requirement in the law that says to turn it over to the last and found. Turning it over to one stranger in order to restore it to the owner is the same as turning it over to another. Walking out of the bar with it is also not a crime. At all. So long as your intention is to restore it to the owner. That is unknown and unproven at this point. Where it might have become a crime is when he sold it to Giz. Up to that point, it was still found property. When he sold it, selling found property is considered selling stolen property. That was then the crime. By buying found property, Giz could be guilty of buying stolen property.
Lost property is lost property - there is no indication that the person who picked up the phone in the bar stole it from the person who left it behind.
No stolen property - no crime committed.
The only crime here was illegal search and seizure by the police. Jason Chen/Gizmodo has had their fundamental Constitutionally guaranteed rights violated.
But this should come as no surprise - very little of what the government does today is Constitutionally legal, and California is even worse than the Feds in that regard. The founding father's must be turning over in their grave.
There could be a crime.
It was indeed lost property and covered by the lost property statutes in Cali. The seller was guilty of nothing when he took it home, if his intent was to return it to the owner, But, upon selling it, its status could change to stolen. If proven, then that would definitely be a crime. Finder would be guilty of selling stolen property and Giz would be guilty of buying stolen property.
That is why Giz is pushing the idea that they did not actually buy the item but paid only for access to it. If they did not buy the item, then the item was never sold. If the found item was never sold, then there was no crime of buying or selling stolen property and really no case. Whether the argument of buying access to an item is substantively different than buying the item itself stands up in court, remains to be seen. The problem with this argument, that I see, is that the lost property statutes still require the finder to make reasonable efforts to return the item. If he is selling only access to it and this is accepted by the court, then he is then using it for his own benefit(use), which violates the statue. He would then be guilty of theft, but Giz would not be guilty of buying stolen property.
And if Giz is not guilty of a crime, then the search and seizure becomes a serious issue.
This is the California Code - Section 485 word by word:
"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
It can't get clearer than that.
The only thing in question is whether the finders efforts were reasonable and just, which he admitted he could have done more.
I don't think the finder has much of a chance of getting off on a theft charge. Whether the court finds he sold the item or just sold access to it will determine if further charges of buying/selling stolen property will apply. But that determination will also determine if Giz is guilty of buying stolen property. Can't be guilty of buying stolen property if you never bought the property.
A bit presumptuous of you to declare someone has committed a crime, when there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction.
In time, you will become very familiar with our friend jragosta.
If you live in Mumbai, how can this issue possibly apply to you and why are you concerned?
That is a stupid and pointless comment. You should retract it.
Half the mods of AI live in Canada. Why the heck should they be concerned? Wait, why the heck do a bunch of foreigners run this site in the first place!?
The law isn't that cut and dry my friend and always up to interpretation, which is why we have attorneys, judges, and a supreme court.
There is an old Italian saying: "The law is for enemies; interpretation of the law is for friends."
This is one of the things that is wrong with media today.
Gizmodo committed a crime. Why are the other media outlets sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Let the police do their jobs. If Gizmodo prevails in court, they can sue at that point.
Ah, so you're now judge, jury, and executioner are you? You miss the point of the media's request (as usual). If there's a clause that makes the warrent public in 10 days after being executed, the media outlets have every right to ask why it hasn't been made public by now.
But you seem to stand in the "screw the rights of the citizens as long as Apple is coming out ahead" line...
Issue here is your biased view of the situation by starting you comments with "Gizmodo committed a Grime" I not sure and maybe I missed a couple of days, but has that been proven already?
I like Apple, but I enjoy more that laws are used in proper fashion and if abused, everyone should know, so we know our rights in future.
Agree with your response to jragosta's post. If there was actually something in there that abused the legal system and it was continued to be hidden, that only soils the matter further for everyone involved in the raid and hurts Apple's image by proxy.
Wait, why the heck do a bunch of foreigners run this site in the first place!?
All part of the master plan.
The fact that Gizmodo openly admitted to paying for a prototype of an unreleased product that is deemed stolen under California law, leads to a pretty easy assumption. At a minimum, Gizmodo received stolen property. At a maximum, they knew the device was stolen and they encouraged the illegal sale of it, therefor making them far more complicit in the act of the theft. This isn't even taking into consideration that Gizmodo released quite a bit of what could be considered trade secrets in a civil suit.
I think you are wrong on a number of points.
Under section 480 of the California Penal code, it mentions an obligation on the part of a finder of lost property, to 'make a reasonable attempt' to contact the owner.
Hypothetically, I imagine Gizmody could argue that upon receipt of a 'purported' iPhone prototype, they first had to determine that it was in fact a device made by Apple and that they were in fact the owners. So if they claim it took them a week to ascertain what the device actually was, and therefore who the owner was likely to be, the point in time from which they are obliged to try and contact Apple would be the end of that week.
In the Gizmodo article reporting on the prototype, they said:
Why we think it's definitely real
We're as skeptical?if not more?than all of you. We get false tips all the time. But after playing with it for about a week?the overall quality feels exactly like a finished final Apple phone?and disassembling this unit, there is so much evidence stacked in its favor, that there's very little possibility that it's a fake.
Notice they said "think"
They could very well argue that even then, they were not 100% sure and that it was not until they received a letter from Apple asking for it's return, that there was absolute certainty as to who the owner was. So they could argue that the clock started ticking when they received the letter from Apple.
Given Gizmodo's article was dated the 19th of April and that Apple's letter demanding it back was dated the same day, It could be argued they didn't even have to try and contact the owner as they had contacted them before any 'reasonable' period of time had passed.
Gizmodo's letter of reply to Apple pretty much confirms all this:
Bruce, thanks.
Here's Jason Chen, who has the iPhone. And here's his address. You two should coordinate a time.
[Blah Blah Blah Address]
Happy to have you pick this thing up. Was burning a hole in our pockets. Just so you know, we didn't know this was stolen [as they might have claimed. meaning, real and truly from Apple. It was found, and to be of unproven origin] when we bought it. Now that we definitely know it's not some knockoff, and it really is Apple's, I'm happy to see it returned to its rightful owner.
I don't think a case could be made that Gizmodo was involved in theft. The phone was returned to it's rightful owner, very shortly after determination of who the owner was.
I very much doubt any charges will be brought.
Lesson to be learned.
You get a pre-release anything, take pictures and sell the information anonymously for cash and then dispose of the thing.
Don´t tell your friends, don´t tell anyone and don´t return it. Don´t carry it on you or home or car.
The law is so complicated and screwy, they might decide to make a new law on your case or use one that´s 100 years old.
You still pay, even if your innocent.
The stress alone is terrible. The fear of court, jail and/or fines is well known and manipulated t it´s fullest effect.
Innocent are made to look guilty, people lie, cops lie, justice isn´t about what´s right, it´s about what they can prove.
The young are especially vulnerable.
lesson to be learned -
You find anything of value return it to the owner, the place of business it was found in or the local police department.
If you keep it or attempt to profit by selling it you are committing a crime and may be prosecuted.
The greedy are especially vulnerable.
Also for the raid to be illegal it would have to
1. Lack of a properly signed warrant. no worries there they have one
2. violate conditions of the warrant as allowed by law, such as the time, lack of presence at the location, items that could be taken. highly doubt that anyone would be that stupid
3. violate shield laws. as this is about finding the details of the partner to a crime as well as exactly what Chen and Gizmodo's involvement was, shield laws don't apply. Said laws don't protect you when you commit, and confess, to a criminal act
Actually, #3 wouldn't make it illegal. As long as there's a signed search warrant and the police followed the rules, the search is legal. If the court rules that Journalist Shield law applies, the evidence will not be admissible, but that doesn't make the search illegal.
Lesson to be learned.
You get a pre-release anything, take pictures and sell the information anonymously for cash and then dispose of the thing.
Don´t tell your friends, don´t tell anyone and don´t return it. Don´t carry it on you or home or car.
The law is so complicated and screwy, they might decide to make a new law on your case or use one that´s 100 years old.
Sorry, there's nothing complicated or screwy about the CA theft laws. And the reason they're so old is that they've been used by every state in the country (and most foreign countries) for over 100 years and they work well. No need to change a law that everyone understands - except a bunch of whiners.
As an Apple supporter and shareholder, I'm bothered by this. If it's true that these documents are typically made public in ten days, and for some reason it's not happening in this case, I think the public has a right to know why. I don't like it at all if Apple pressured the court not to release the affidavit. We don't know that Apple did that, but given their tendency towards secrecy it looks like they might have. :
There is absolutely no evidence that Apple did anything but report a stolen phone. There is certainly no evidence of a cover-up. If you're going to assume things for which there is no evidence, you might as well give up on rational discussion.
Issue here is your biased view of the situation by starting you comments with "Gizmodo committed a Grime" I not sure and maybe I missed a couple of days, but has that been proven already?
A bit presumptuous of you to declare someone has committed a crime, when there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction..
Actually, Gizmodo has confessed. Their story of what happened makes it clear that a phone was stolen under CA laws and that Gizmodo knowingly purchased stolen property. And that's even if you believe their story. If the 'finder' was actually asked to take the phone form someone's pocket, even more crimes have been committed.
Now, there will be a trial to see if their attorney can get them off on a technicality, but it is already clear that Gizmodo committed a crime.
[QUOTE=kirkrr;1627178]Lost property is lost property - there is no indication that the person who picked up the phone in the bar stole it from the person who left it behind.
No stolen property - no crime committed. {/QUOTE]
I wonder how many times someone needs to point out the CA law on stolen property before these Apple-haters get it? Maybe 10 million times? Even that probably won't be enough.
The law in CA and virtually every other state is clear. The phone is stolen property under the law.
They went after the wrong guy. They should have used mobile me and GPS located it and arrested the first guy that refused to give it back. Instead they waited till a journalist got a hold of it and then initiated skull drudgery to enact a raid to get more information than what was released about their phone.
I think people overestimate the accuracy of finding it via MobileMe. They can narrow it down a bit, but in a populated area, that's probably not enough to find one person.
But it doesn't matter. According to the news reports, Apple DID know who had the phone fairly early on (I don't think I've heard the source of their information). They knocked on the door and asked for the phone to be returned - and it wasn't. Furthermore, they called the phone repeatedly and it wasn't answered. Plus, the thief knew where it was found and could have returned it to the bar, but did not do so. If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?
Puh-leeaaze! The media are supporting Gawker because they have a dog in this fight: their standing as journalists. What? You'd expect them to be objective? They'll trash Apple and they'll make Apple look like the bad guy because they're threatened by this apparently, or is that alleged, felony committed by Gizmodo. (etc.)
Agreed.
If the 'finder' was actually asked to take the phone form someone's pocket, even more crimes have been committed.
And if he killed the engineer first, it would be murder and so yet more crimes would have been committed. I mean, since we are playing "let's make shit up" today. Repeating this fantasy over and over again doesn't make it more credible.
But it doesn't matter. According to the news reports, Apple DID know who had the phone fairly early on (I don't think I've heard the source of their information). They knocked on the door and asked for the phone to be returned - and it wasn't. Furthermore, they called the phone repeatedly and it wasn't answered. Plus, the thief knew where it was found and could have returned it to the bar, but did not do so. If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?
We know they knocked on the door. From most accounts, it was after the giz story was published. So, not only do you not know that they asked for the phone back at the door, given the timing, it likely doesn't make sense (it could). The engineer or Apple may have called the phone, but if it was deactivated by early the next morning, it is unlikely a sleeping drunk would have answered it before Apple deactivated it.
You funniest line is "If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?"
Since the police report appears to have been filed after they had it back in their possession or at least after Giz published their story and informed them they could have it back, your question itself doesn't make much sense. Even rhetorically it has no value.
Actually, #3 wouldn't make it illegal. As long as there's a signed search warrant and the police followed the rules, the search is legal. If the court rules that Journalist Shield law applies, the evidence will not be admissible, but that doesn't make the search illegal.
[blah blah blah, yak yak yak]
Seriously, stop playing Forum Lawyer Man. The best that you're doing right now is speculating on how the law applies and the outcome of a trial that hasn't even happened yet. Like you said earlier, let the professionals do their jobs.
And the reason the people you label "Apple-haters" (read, for everyone else: people with opinions different than yours) say what they say is because no trial has occured so it's open season for speculation. Just because they take a different read on the what's written doesn't mean that they are wrong and you're right. That's up to the judge to decide (hence his title, see?).
Unless you're actually a judge, then no, it's not completely clear under CA law whether or not a crime has occured. If it was, then this case would have been shut a long time ago.
And if he killed the engineer first, it would be murder and so yet more crimes would have been committed. I mean, since we are playing "let's make shit up" today. Repeating this fantasy over and over again doesn't make it more credible.
We know they knocked on the door. From most accounts, it was after the giz story was published. So, not only do you not know that they asked for the phone back at the door, given the timing, it likely doesn't make sense (it could). The engineer or Apple may have called the phone, but if it was deactivated by early the next morning, it is unlikely a sleeping drunk would have answered it before Apple deactivated it.
You funniest line is "If the thief is unwilling to voluntarily return the phone, how else is Apple supposed to get it back other than filing a stolen property report?"
Since the police report appears to have been filed after they had it back in their possession or at least after Giz published their story and informed them they could have it back, your question itself doesn't make much sense. Even rhetorically it has no value.
Logical thinking, FTW. Especially the last paragraph.
This is the California Code - Section 485 word by word:
"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
It can't get clearer than that.
The only thing in question is whether the finders efforts were reasonable and just, which he admitted he could have done more.
Which means they should be investigating the FINDER and not Gizmodo.
There is an old Italian saying: "The law is for enemies; interpretation of the law is for friends."
I like that saying...I mus remember it.