Yes, Gizmodo is in trouble and did all kinds of things wrong, but: why would Gizmodo "return" a phone to Apple if it was not Apple's in the first place?! Of course Lam needed to have it confirmed that it was Apple's property.
For all they knew, it was an elaborate hoax; the only indication they had that it was actually Apple's and not, say, a knock-off with some clever screen printing on the back, was Gray Powell's Facebook page ? which in and of itself could have been a hoax, because no one at Gizmodo ever saw the device while it was still functioning, and they did not dismantle it until AFTER Apple confirmed it. Which was fucking stupid, frankly.
If it was an elaborate hoax, Gizmodo would not be foolish enough to pay 5000 dollars unseen. I will hazard a bet that a member of Gizmodo saw the device, held the device before the sale was made.
Who published the story and admitted to taking the phone apart? Chen
Who asked Apple for a letter from legal before returning the phone? Chen
Who eventually returned the phone to Apple? Chen
Now, explain to me how Chen did not take possession of stolen property.
Admittedly, his boss may also be in trouble, but that doesn't absolve Chen.
It's like a drug case: Bust the little fish to get the big fish. In this case the big fish is Chen's BOSS. Cut and dry, Chen isn't the bad guy here, which I have said all along, therefore you are wrong. He did what he was told and he was told to to be thorough.
Can't blame the man for doing his job. He was left to swing in the wind by his superiors and the affidavit proves this.
In the end, the main mess falls on Apple and Hogan and Brian Lamb.
I am a shareholder. I have apple stock in my 401K . I chose the selection specifically for apple stock. I also have individual shares outside that, but I will be the first to admit they are guilty of vanity in this case just as much as Gizmodo's EDITORS are.
The way it will play out is Chen will be let go. I am willing to bet on it. Hogan and Warner will be hit with he brunt of the charges. Lamb MAY also be hit, but in the end they didn't "steal' the item, Hogan and Warner did. They just took the opportunity and reported on it.
What the police did in apple's favor is similar to the Latvia hacker case, wherein they raided the reporter's house to get info on the hacker. In the end they let the hacker go because he was no threat to the common good and actually revealed information everyone should know.
It's similar but not the same, but Chen did what he was told, did his job.
If your boss tell you: Be thorough, do your job. You'r gonna do it. Period. It's on him to figure out the legalities.
No one looked at that and instead persecuted Chen.
If it was an elaborate hoax, Gizmodo would not be foolish enough to pay 5000 dollars unseen. I will hazard a bet that a member of Gizmodo saw the device, held the device before the sale was made.
Also, the OP is incorrect in the fact the item was disassembled BEFORE Apple contacted them, not after.
I am also willing to hazard the item was not damaged, but apple will say it was anyway, to attempt to make their case.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
I think everyone rightly critises this comment and view as rubbish. For some reason Dan fears to be betrayed by a friend. It is rightly pointed out that she was betrayed, although I would argue that her roomates did not deliberately betray her, but sloppily put her in a dangerous position. What I think she could (not must, just could!) have done is, to yell at them what kind of idiots they are and that she will call the cops. Then call the cops. In this she would gave her roomates a head start which is all a friend can ask for in this situation, and she is out of trouble. She is not helping them as long as she is not delaying the call, all she does is telling them what she is doing this very moment.
Hmm... 5 grand in the SF Bay Area in the year 2010 ain't that much money.
Intellectually I say he should have held out for about 20 grand, or don't sell it to anyone, take pictures, return it properly, then post pictures anonymously.
Morally, this whole thing is a clusterf**k.
Personally, well, I'd say, this whole iPhone and iPad stuff is a bit beyond me. I don't know why but looking at my bank account having some growing savings seems more pleasurable at times than playing with an iPad. I must be getting old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwheadon
I don't care about the courts, the lawyers, heck... even the law.
I don't care if the kid lifted the phone off our apple guy or really "found" it.
The kid did a sleezy thing in contacting gizmodo and selling them the phone.and knew it when he did it. Gizmodo was also clearly in the wrong to purchase the phone from a person they knew had no right selling the phone.
Now that it's all unfolding before us and everyone (including me) begins brandish opinion and speculation I can disengage with my own summary.
The kid got a hold of the new iPhone prototype and instead of giving it back to Apple he sold it to Gizmodo. Everyone in this story is old enough to know how to be accountable for their actions and regardless of moral disposition knows that they did not behave in an honorable manner.
IMHO props in the story like Apple, iPhone, Gizmodo, Police and Lawyers (and those that attempt to be) are just peripheral to the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Hey, Hogan. "Sucks for you" now, doesn't it? Karma's a bitch. Hope you got some enjoyment out of that $5000 or whatever you got. You've probably figured out by now that the amount of trouble you're in isn't worth ten times that. But, hey, maybe you'll get Jason Chen as a cell mate.
There is a Katherine Martinson listed on LinkedIn in San Mateo County. Now how many Katherine Martinsons could there be in San Mateo county, that are in about the age range of someone that would be sharing a house with a non-romantic (presumably) housemate.
I don't get it. If I lose something, no matter how valuable it might be, it is my mistake.
Why did Apple ever let such a valuable proto out of their labs... and why was this pretty little gem left on a bar stool?
Yep, Gizmodo acted unprofessional in leaking the story- potentially damaging existing sales of iPhones.
But again, how could Apple let this valuable iPhone proto get out of sight (in public) for even one minute?
If I find something I try to find the rightful owner... but if I just decide to keep said article, when does that become a criminal act?
Umm.... By most people's moral compass ("the law" notwithstanding)... it starts to get dodgy once you knowingly try and sell a company's trade secrets for monetary gain.
If he was just posting pictures then win for him, sucks for Apple. Then maybe it goes on eBay after the official launch of the iPhone 4G then maybe... that's alright.
It is strongly possible Chen is going to be the fall guy. What we would need to ascertain is whether he raised any concerns about any of the things he might have been told to do? My impression is that he happily went along to be the famous one to reveal the iPhone 4G. Which blogger wouldn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
It's like a drug case: Bust the little fish to get the big fish. In this case the big fish is Chen's BOSS. Cut and dry, Chen isn't the bad guy here, which I have said all along, therefore you are wrong. He did what he was told and he was told to to be thorough.
Can't blame the man for doing his job. He was left to swing in the wind by his superiors and the affidavit proves this.
In the end, the main mess falls on Apple and Hogan and Brian Lamb.
I am a shareholder. I have apple stock in my 401K . I chose the selection specifically for apple stock. I also have individual shares outside that, but I will be the first to admit they are guilty of vanity in this case just as much as Gizmodo's EDITORS are.
The way it will play out is Chen will be let go. I am willing to bet on it. Hogan and Warner will be hit with he brunt of the charges. Lamb MAY also be hit, but in the end they didn't "steal' the item, Hogan and Warner did. They just took the opportunity and reported on it.
What the police did in apple's favor is similar to the Latvia hacker case, wherein they raided the reporter's house to get info on the hacker. In the end they let the hacker go because he was no threat to the common good and actually revealed information everyone should know.
It's similar but not the same, but Chen did what he was told, did his job.
If your boss tell you: Be thorough, do your job. You'r gonna do it. Period. It's on him to figure out the legalities.
No one looked at that and instead persecuted Chen.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
It because of people like you that the world is in the mess it is. NO MORALS!
I don't get it. If I lose something, no matter how valuable it might be, it is my mistake.
Why did Apple ever let such a valuable proto out of their labs... and why was this pretty little gem left on a bar stool?
Yep, Gizmodo acted unprofessional in leaking the story- potentially damaging existing sales of iPhones.
But again, how could Apple let this valuable iPhone proto get out of sight (in public) for even one minute?
If I find something I try to find the rightful owner... but if I just decide to keep said article, when does that become a criminal act?
It becomes a criminal act because you know who the owner is (he could see the persons Facebook page on the phone), and you make no attempt to return it. Under California law that is theft.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel
I think everyone rightly critises this comment and view as rubbish. For some reason Dan fears to be betrayed by a friend. It is rightly pointed out that she was betrayed, although I would argue that her roomates did not deliberately betray her, but sloppily put her in a dangerous position. What I think she could (not must, just could!) have done is, to yell at them what kind of idiots they are and that she will call the cops. Then call the cops. In this she would gave her roomates a head start which is all a friend can ask for in this situation, and she is out of trouble. She is not helping them as long as she is not delaying the call, all she does is telling them what she is doing this very moment.
Look, I'm sure some of us have been in the position as I have in my twenties when recreational drugs were used and in a small way traded at a house I shared with others. I was an ocassional user and was concerned about drugs in the house to some degree. And in reflection I don't think I was consorting with criminals but one of the things that happens in youth. I never personally sold drugs to anyone else as far as I remember.
But my friends weren't major dealers and they didn't try to stash drugs in my room or try and use my computer to communicate with the bigger dealers or other friends.
Bottom line, you gotta draw the line somewhere. In this case, the roommate was smart. The writing was on the wall. She knew she could get into some major shit.
I don't get it. If I lose something, no matter how valuable it might be, it is my mistake.
Why did Apple ever let such a valuable proto out of their labs... and why was this pretty little gem left on a bar stool?
Yep, Gizmodo acted unprofessional in leaking the story- potentially damaging existing sales of iPhones.
But again, how could Apple let this valuable iPhone proto get out of sight (in public) for even one minute?
If I find something I try to find the rightful owner... but if I just decide to keep said article, when does that become a criminal act?
If you've been following this case at all, you'd have read that the law in California is that if you find a piece of lost property, you are lawfully bound to make an effort to return it to the owner, if possible. In this case, no effort was made to return the iPhone despite the finder having the owners name and workplace. In other words, he broke the law. To make matters worse, he then sold property which did not rightly belong to him.
Irregardless of the law, the moral thing he should have done was to return the phone. Plain and simple.
And as has been written, the iPhone owner might have been out testing it in the field, as has been the case with previous iPhones.
Look, I'm sure some of us have been in the position as I have in my twenties when recreational drugs were used and in a small way traded at a house I shared with others. I was an ocassional user and was concerned about drugs in the house to some degree. And in reflection I don't think I was consorting with criminals but one of the things that happens in youth. I never personally sold drugs to anyone else as far as I remember.
But my friends weren't major dealers and they didn't try to stash drugs in my room or try and use my computer to communicate with the bigger dealers or other friends.
Bottom line, you gotta draw the line somewhere. In this case, the roommate was smart. The writing was on the wall. She knew she could get into some major shit.
I think we agree. But please don't forget that a prototype iPhone is not an illegal item. Drugs or money in a Mafia suitcase (as compared to by someone else) are illegal items. So the guys were not playing with an illegal item (like e.g. drugs). Also they were probably quite excited what they are playing with. I am also not sure that at this moment they realised the scale of what they were doing. For example, if at that point they had turned to Apple to return the phone - all would have been happy. Something that would not have been possible with e.g. drugs. That's why I meant she could have told them to call the cops, so they have the chance to think about it again.
As acknowledged by others, the roommate was THE only one who had honor & character in this whole thing. She probably didn't FEEL like reporting this, but when her loser friend, takes advantage of her by using her computer where Apple, or any similar company, can trace the IP address of where the phone was syncing up at, the loser friend screwed himself. People who, in their young life, have already decided that they would 'never call the cops,' have probably surrounded themselves with Hogans their whole (brief) life, & have the resulting tweaked view of life. For the rest of us, who surround ourselves with good people, those kind of thoughts aren't part of our existence. Shame on Hogan for not having personal integrity, & for even bringing stolen stuff into where someone else lives. We should all hope that no one brings home a suitcase of mafia money or a stolen duffle bag of dope from some cartel, 'cause the owners won't be far behind!
Comments
Yes, Gizmodo is in trouble and did all kinds of things wrong, but: why would Gizmodo "return" a phone to Apple if it was not Apple's in the first place?! Of course Lam needed to have it confirmed that it was Apple's property.
For all they knew, it was an elaborate hoax; the only indication they had that it was actually Apple's and not, say, a knock-off with some clever screen printing on the back, was Gray Powell's Facebook page ? which in and of itself could have been a hoax, because no one at Gizmodo ever saw the device while it was still functioning, and they did not dismantle it until AFTER Apple confirmed it. Which was fucking stupid, frankly.
If it was an elaborate hoax, Gizmodo would not be foolish enough to pay 5000 dollars unseen. I will hazard a bet that a member of Gizmodo saw the device, held the device before the sale was made.
Let's see:
Whose home was the search warrant for? Chen's
Who published the story and admitted to taking the phone apart? Chen
Who asked Apple for a letter from legal before returning the phone? Chen
Who eventually returned the phone to Apple? Chen
Now, explain to me how Chen did not take possession of stolen property.
Admittedly, his boss may also be in trouble, but that doesn't absolve Chen.
It's like a drug case: Bust the little fish to get the big fish. In this case the big fish is Chen's BOSS. Cut and dry, Chen isn't the bad guy here, which I have said all along, therefore you are wrong. He did what he was told and he was told to to be thorough.
Can't blame the man for doing his job. He was left to swing in the wind by his superiors and the affidavit proves this.
In the end, the main mess falls on Apple and Hogan and Brian Lamb.
I am a shareholder. I have apple stock in my 401K . I chose the selection specifically for apple stock. I also have individual shares outside that, but I will be the first to admit they are guilty of vanity in this case just as much as Gizmodo's EDITORS are.
The way it will play out is Chen will be let go. I am willing to bet on it. Hogan and Warner will be hit with he brunt of the charges. Lamb MAY also be hit, but in the end they didn't "steal' the item, Hogan and Warner did. They just took the opportunity and reported on it.
What the police did in apple's favor is similar to the Latvia hacker case, wherein they raided the reporter's house to get info on the hacker. In the end they let the hacker go because he was no threat to the common good and actually revealed information everyone should know.
It's similar but not the same, but Chen did what he was told, did his job.
If your boss tell you: Be thorough, do your job. You'r gonna do it. Period. It's on him to figure out the legalities.
No one looked at that and instead persecuted Chen.
Wrong move.
If it was an elaborate hoax, Gizmodo would not be foolish enough to pay 5000 dollars unseen. I will hazard a bet that a member of Gizmodo saw the device, held the device before the sale was made.
Also, the OP is incorrect in the fact the item was disassembled BEFORE Apple contacted them, not after.
I am also willing to hazard the item was not damaged, but apple will say it was anyway, to attempt to make their case.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
I think everyone rightly critises this comment and view as rubbish. For some reason Dan fears to be betrayed by a friend. It is rightly pointed out that she was betrayed, although I would argue that her roomates did not deliberately betray her, but sloppily put her in a dangerous position. What I think she could (not must, just could!) have done is, to yell at them what kind of idiots they are and that she will call the cops. Then call the cops. In this she would gave her roomates a head start which is all a friend can ask for in this situation, and she is out of trouble. She is not helping them as long as she is not delaying the call, all she does is telling them what she is doing this very moment.
The detective has a future in Hollywood.
Let me say a word for that roommate. She showed good judgement in a difficult situation.
Agreed ... it looks as if she was the only one who actually did the right thing.
So... Scarlett Johansson as the roommate in the movie? "Pirates of iPhone Valley"?
Being a typical male bast*rd I also have to ask, is the roommate hot?
So... Scarlett Johansson as the roommate in the movie? "Pirates of iPhone Valley"?
Being a typical male bast*rd I also have to ask, is the roommate hot?
Probably not, but I agree she did the right thing.
Intellectually I say he should have held out for about 20 grand, or don't sell it to anyone, take pictures, return it properly, then post pictures anonymously.
Morally, this whole thing is a clusterf**k.
Personally, well, I'd say, this whole iPhone and iPad stuff is a bit beyond me. I don't know why but looking at my bank account having some growing savings seems more pleasurable at times than playing with an iPad. I must be getting old.
I don't care about the courts, the lawyers, heck... even the law.
I don't care if the kid lifted the phone off our apple guy or really "found" it.
The kid did a sleezy thing in contacting gizmodo and selling them the phone.and knew it when he did it. Gizmodo was also clearly in the wrong to purchase the phone from a person they knew had no right selling the phone.
Now that it's all unfolding before us and everyone (including me) begins brandish opinion and speculation I can disengage with my own summary.
The kid got a hold of the new iPhone prototype and instead of giving it back to Apple he sold it to Gizmodo. Everyone in this story is old enough to know how to be accountable for their actions and regardless of moral disposition knows that they did not behave in an honorable manner.
IMHO props in the story like Apple, iPhone, Gizmodo, Police and Lawyers (and those that attempt to be) are just peripheral to the matter.
Hey, Hogan. "Sucks for you" now, doesn't it? Karma's a bitch. Hope you got some enjoyment out of that $5000 or whatever you got. You've probably figured out by now that the amount of trouble you're in isn't worth ten times that. But, hey, maybe you'll get Jason Chen as a cell mate.
Probably not, but I agree she did the right thing.
We need pictures of the roommate. Is she named in the affidavit? Going back to read it carefully... Time for some Ogling... Er I mean Googling*.
*Yes, stole this joke from Iron Man 2.
Interesting details in the actual text of affidavit:
http://www.brunotrani.info/blog/2010...hide-evidence/
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/katherin...son/20/733/281
Maybe I am a media whore too. But, this lady should be interviewed and commended! Future employers should take note too!
Scarlett Johansson should hang out with her in preparing for her role in playing her in: "Raiders of the Lost iPhone".
That Asian guy from Lost (the Chinese one, not the Korean guy) should play Brian Lam... or Jason Chen... Not sure which.
Jack Nicholson could play (controversially) Steve Jobs:
Apple CEO Office Scene, Jack as Steve, iPad in hand, in the phone conversation~
"Gizmodo, you want that iPhone? You can't HANDLE that iPhone...!"
Why did Apple ever let such a valuable proto out of their labs... and why was this pretty little gem left on a bar stool?
Yep, Gizmodo acted unprofessional in leaking the story- potentially damaging existing sales of iPhones.
But again, how could Apple let this valuable iPhone proto get out of sight (in public) for even one minute?
If I find something I try to find the rightful owner... but if I just decide to keep said article, when does that become a criminal act?
I don't get it. If I lose something, no matter how valuable it might be, it is my mistake.
Why did Apple ever let such a valuable proto out of their labs... and why was this pretty little gem left on a bar stool?
Yep, Gizmodo acted unprofessional in leaking the story- potentially damaging existing sales of iPhones.
But again, how could Apple let this valuable iPhone proto get out of sight (in public) for even one minute?
If I find something I try to find the rightful owner... but if I just decide to keep said article, when does that become a criminal act?
Umm.... By most people's moral compass ("the law" notwithstanding)... it starts to get dodgy once you knowingly try and sell a company's trade secrets for monetary gain.
If he was just posting pictures then win for him, sucks for Apple. Then maybe it goes on eBay after the official launch of the iPhone 4G then maybe... that's alright.
It's like a drug case: Bust the little fish to get the big fish. In this case the big fish is Chen's BOSS. Cut and dry, Chen isn't the bad guy here, which I have said all along, therefore you are wrong. He did what he was told and he was told to to be thorough.
Can't blame the man for doing his job. He was left to swing in the wind by his superiors and the affidavit proves this.
In the end, the main mess falls on Apple and Hogan and Brian Lamb.
I am a shareholder. I have apple stock in my 401K . I chose the selection specifically for apple stock. I also have individual shares outside that, but I will be the first to admit they are guilty of vanity in this case just as much as Gizmodo's EDITORS are.
The way it will play out is Chen will be let go. I am willing to bet on it. Hogan and Warner will be hit with he brunt of the charges. Lamb MAY also be hit, but in the end they didn't "steal' the item, Hogan and Warner did. They just took the opportunity and reported on it.
What the police did in apple's favor is similar to the Latvia hacker case, wherein they raided the reporter's house to get info on the hacker. In the end they let the hacker go because he was no threat to the common good and actually revealed information everyone should know.
It's similar but not the same, but Chen did what he was told, did his job.
If your boss tell you: Be thorough, do your job. You'r gonna do it. Period. It's on him to figure out the legalities.
No one looked at that and instead persecuted Chen.
Wrong move.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
It because of people like you that the world is in the mess it is. NO MORALS!
I don't get it. If I lose something, no matter how valuable it might be, it is my mistake.
Why did Apple ever let such a valuable proto out of their labs... and why was this pretty little gem left on a bar stool?
Yep, Gizmodo acted unprofessional in leaking the story- potentially damaging existing sales of iPhones.
But again, how could Apple let this valuable iPhone proto get out of sight (in public) for even one minute?
If I find something I try to find the rightful owner... but if I just decide to keep said article, when does that become a criminal act?
It becomes a criminal act because you know who the owner is (he could see the persons Facebook page on the phone), and you make no attempt to return it. Under California law that is theft.
Are you all too much of Apple fanboys to realize what a damn snitch that roommate is? Seriously, I would NEVER call the cops on my roommate unless he killed someone. Capital crimes are NO crimes to betray your friends for.
I think everyone rightly critises this comment and view as rubbish. For some reason Dan fears to be betrayed by a friend. It is rightly pointed out that she was betrayed, although I would argue that her roomates did not deliberately betray her, but sloppily put her in a dangerous position. What I think she could (not must, just could!) have done is, to yell at them what kind of idiots they are and that she will call the cops. Then call the cops. In this she would gave her roomates a head start which is all a friend can ask for in this situation, and she is out of trouble. She is not helping them as long as she is not delaying the call, all she does is telling them what she is doing this very moment.
Look, I'm sure some of us have been in the position as I have in my twenties when recreational drugs were used and in a small way traded at a house I shared with others. I was an ocassional user and was concerned about drugs in the house to some degree. And in reflection I don't think I was consorting with criminals but one of the things that happens in youth. I never personally sold drugs to anyone else as far as I remember.
But my friends weren't major dealers and they didn't try to stash drugs in my room or try and use my computer to communicate with the bigger dealers or other friends.
Bottom line, you gotta draw the line somewhere. In this case, the roommate was smart. The writing was on the wall. She knew she could get into some major shit.
I don't get it. If I lose something, no matter how valuable it might be, it is my mistake.
Why did Apple ever let such a valuable proto out of their labs... and why was this pretty little gem left on a bar stool?
Yep, Gizmodo acted unprofessional in leaking the story- potentially damaging existing sales of iPhones.
But again, how could Apple let this valuable iPhone proto get out of sight (in public) for even one minute?
If I find something I try to find the rightful owner... but if I just decide to keep said article, when does that become a criminal act?
If you've been following this case at all, you'd have read that the law in California is that if you find a piece of lost property, you are lawfully bound to make an effort to return it to the owner, if possible. In this case, no effort was made to return the iPhone despite the finder having the owners name and workplace. In other words, he broke the law. To make matters worse, he then sold property which did not rightly belong to him.
Irregardless of the law, the moral thing he should have done was to return the phone. Plain and simple.
And as has been written, the iPhone owner might have been out testing it in the field, as has been the case with previous iPhones.
Also, the OP is incorrect in the fact the item was disassembled BEFORE Apple contacted them, not after.
I am also willing to hazard the item was not damaged, but apple will say it was anyway, to attempt to make their case.
I think that Apple damaged the iPhone on purpose before the kid "lost" it just to make Gizmodo look bad when the story broke.
Look, I'm sure some of us have been in the position as I have in my twenties when recreational drugs were used and in a small way traded at a house I shared with others. I was an ocassional user and was concerned about drugs in the house to some degree. And in reflection I don't think I was consorting with criminals but one of the things that happens in youth. I never personally sold drugs to anyone else as far as I remember.
But my friends weren't major dealers and they didn't try to stash drugs in my room or try and use my computer to communicate with the bigger dealers or other friends.
Bottom line, you gotta draw the line somewhere. In this case, the roommate was smart. The writing was on the wall. She knew she could get into some major shit.
I think we agree. But please don't forget that a prototype iPhone is not an illegal item. Drugs or money in a Mafia suitcase (as compared to by someone else) are illegal items. So the guys were not playing with an illegal item (like e.g. drugs). Also they were probably quite excited what they are playing with. I am also not sure that at this moment they realised the scale of what they were doing. For example, if at that point they had turned to Apple to return the phone - all would have been happy. Something that would not have been possible with e.g. drugs. That's why I meant she could have told them to call the cops, so they have the chance to think about it again.
As acknowledged by others, the roommate was THE only one who had honor & character in this whole thing. She probably didn't FEEL like reporting this, but when her loser friend, takes advantage of her by using her computer where Apple, or any similar company, can trace the IP address of where the phone was syncing up at, the loser friend screwed himself. People who, in their young life, have already decided that they would 'never call the cops,' have probably surrounded themselves with Hogans their whole (brief) life, & have the resulting tweaked view of life. For the rest of us, who surround ourselves with good people, those kind of thoughts aren't part of our existence. Shame on Hogan for not having personal integrity, & for even bringing stolen stuff into where someone else lives. We should all hope that no one brings home a suitcase of mafia money or a stolen duffle bag of dope from some cartel, 'cause the owners won't be far behind!