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.
Fair enough. Maybe she was just scared. It may not have been like drugs but she had an instinct that something wasn't right. Could she have persuaded the guys to stop and think about what they're doing? Maybe...
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.
Absolutely. Even the mighty Gawker Media wouldn't toss away $5K on a brick that could very well be fake. Hogan and Warner provided enough proof of the prototype's authenticity (Engadget's posts helped too) well before the money exchanged hands.
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.
I would be stunned if he did not ask around $20K from Engadget, Wired, etc. before being turned down and forced to the lowest of blogs with cash: Giz.
His female roommate was smart to call in and let them know she had nothing to do with it, smart enough to know this could turn into a big issue and didn't want to risk any arrest, major fine, or possible jail time. Very smart of her.
Yup it's all fun and games until you have a criminal record and are even deeper in debt. Sometimes the danger is exhilirating but sometimes you just gotta say, F this SH*t I'm not getting involved. Maybe she was aware about Apples reputation in pursuing these matters from the news and blogs.
BTW, has AI or Macrumors said officially whether or not they were approached by Hogan/Warner? If I were a thief, I would try to sell to...um...Apple rumors websites. DUH!
I would be stunned if he did not ask around $20K from Engadget, Wired, etc. before being turned down and forced to the lowest of blogs with cash: Giz.
Maybe he wasn't aware of what they really had in their hands, how signficant it is in the context of global tech companies battling it out in a billion dollar global market. Maybe he could have been smart enough to hold out for 20 grand or bust. But if he was smarter he would also know of a thing called karma. That 20 grand could very well come back to bite you hard.
But anyway like you said, maybe he asked for more and the other blogs were happy enough to get some pictures and didn't need to sink to actually purchasing the device and getting legally entangled.
BTW, has AI or Macrumors said officially whether or not they were approached by Hogan/Warner? If I were a thief, I would try to sell to...um...Apple rumors websites. DUH!
Interesting. But the big tech blogs are where the action is at. No offense to anyone, but AI and Macrumors are fairly specific news and primarily forum sites.
When it comes to iPhone and iPad and anything tech and geek you should see the frenzy on places like Gizmodo and Engadget.
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.
Yep, you're correct. I found the California Code.
§ 2080. Duties of finder
Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire.
What's going on with Apple these days? They don't update OS, they don't bring a phone with the very very late video conference, but they waste huge amounts of time, blaming and pursuing people about an hypothetical iPhone prototype. WHO CARES? As if Apple would do this on purpose! They get huge publicity and stupid thousands of comments of people blaming unknown people with unknown facts.
There's more comments in this Apple Hitler pursuit than in the fact that Apple rejected a very useful app that would iPhone owners sync iPhone by Wifi.
Who cares about what Apple Phone will have if it is never out!!!
Who cares about how fast Snow Leopard supposed to be as the 10.6.3 just hang it damn slow, with too long startup and shutdown!
Are you listen Apple, or now, these days you just pay your consumer contact employees to give fire on online rumors?
I want my OS X to be faster please! Why does Ubuntu 10.04 in My Mac startup in less than half the time!???? This is your own machine Apple, just do your WORK!!!
What's going on with Apple these days? They don't update OS, they don't bring a phone with the very very late video conference, but they waste huge amounts of time, blaming and pursuing people about an hypothetical iPhone prototype. WHO CARES? As if Apple would do this on purpose! They get huge publicity and stupid thousands of comments of people blaming unknown people with unknown facts.
There's more comments in this Apple Hitler pursuit than in the fact that Apple rejected a very useful app that would iPhone owners sync iPhone by Wifi.
Who cares about what Apple Phone will have if it is never out!!!
Who cares about how fast Snow Leopard supposed to be as the 10.6.3 just hang it damn slow, with too long startup and shutdown!
Are you listen Apple, or now, these days you just pay your consumer contact employees to give fire on online rumors?
I want my OS X to be faster please! Why does Ubuntu 10.04 in My Mac startup in less than half the time!???? This is your own machine Apple, just do your WORK!!!
Nice thread-crapping. Why don't you complain about the iPod, Apple keyboards, and global warming in an iPhone Prototype Thread?
"Hypothetical iPhone prototype"? The only thing "hypothetical" is your knowledge of the issue at hand.
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.
If Domino's tells it's drivers that they have to have the pizza delivered in 30 minutes no matter what and the driver ends up runs red lights... who gets the ticket? If he hits a pedestrian, who's going to suffer the criminal charges?
Does the driver get to argue, "I was just doing my job. Let Domino's figure out the legalities."?
Of course not.
If my boss tells me, "Be thorough, do your job," then I will... but I'm not going to break any laws to do that.
Chen committed, nothing, as all of you have pointed out via the facts available.
Only if you ignore the FACT that Chen initiated (or was at least integral) to brokering a deal that resulted in the purchase of stolen goods.
And as the law says, knowledge that something is stolen is not required, it is assumed if the circumstances surrounding the current ownership of the device can be considered questionable, unexpected etc.
Fair enough. Maybe she was just scared. It may not have been like drugs but she had an instinct that something wasn't right. Could she have persuaded the guys to stop and think about what they're doing? Maybe...
Why is it her responsibility to persuade the criminals not to do something illegal? And why are you blaming the victim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by juggernaut30
And here I thought Gizmodo LOVED iPhone stories. I searched their page and didn't see any mention of this story today. I thought they would be all over anything iPhone 4g. What a bunch of D-Bags. So much for journalistic integrity.
Please do give Gizmodo any more page hits. Why help pay their legal bills?
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook
Chen is a journalist = untouchable. Al Capone never had nothing on Chen, baby!
Sorry, but journalists are not untouchable. If they commit a felony, they can be charged-AND convicted if the evidence supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin
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.
As soon as he got a call from Steve Jobs, he had the evidence he needed. He could have asked to deliver it in person or for someone from Apple to come pick it up with appropriate ID (I'm sure the guy who lost it would have been happy to drive over), but insisting on letters from attorneys is not necessary.
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.
Wrong move.
Wow. Thats a lot of inanity in one post. First, who says they can't prosecute both Chen and Lam?
Second, no one accused Chen of stealing the item. They are being accused of purchasing stolen property - and there's absolutely no question that they did. The admitted it publicly.
Third, the "I was just doing my job" argument has been shot down since the 40's. That's why people can be convicted as war criminals - even if they're only security guards. Or why "my boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense in ANY criminal action that I know of.
Fourth, who is persecuting Chen? He's being investigated for a crime that he publicly admits having committed. Since when is that persecution.
Finally, you said before that Chen didn't do anything. I guess you're making some progress since you seem to at least be admitting that he's an accomplice. Maybe some day you'll acknowledge the rest of the facts.
I really have to wonder why you're so eager to defend Chen and his criminal activities that you consistently ignore all the facts in the case - over and over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by podlife
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?
Read the CA criminal code. It's been presented here dozens of times. By not making a reasonable effort to return it, he becomes a thief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel
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.
Wrong. Money is not illegal, but a suitcase full of money known to come from a Mafia Don IS illegal - because of where it came from.
Similarly, a cell phone is not illegal, but since he knows that it's a stolen cell phone, it IS illegal. No difference.
Drugs are illegal by law, so that's a different story, but it doesn't change the fact. The phone was stolen under CA law and both the finder and purchaser therefore committed a crime.
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.
Even if your roommate involved you in the crime and you believed it was traceable to you? The main reason Hogan's roommate called Apple was because he used Zetter's laptop to try to restore the iPhone and she was convinced that her IP address was now traceable and she would be accused of being directly involved.
So firstly, there was no mention that they were friends, only roommates. Secondly, if Zetter was a friend, Hogan was getting his friend involved in his dirty activities which she may have wanted no part in. Thirdly, if YOUR friend was doing something shady which would likely get them in more trouble that it was worth, wouldn't your duty be to try your best to dissuade them? If you know about a crime being committed and do nothing you ARE involved.
Why is it her responsibility to persuade the criminals not to do something illegal? And why are you blaming the victim?
Chill dude. I was responding to an earlier post where the poster was saying the roommate could have tried to discuss/ warn Hogan etc. instead of very quickly calling the police. In other words, that poster was trying to say, the roommate should have just you know, "tried to be cool about it".
Was the roommate just a nasty snitch? In light of what I now think, probably not. Hogan and Warner seem like dodgy guys and she just didn't want to be involved in what was happening, particularly seeing that they wanted to use her computer.
"The documents allege that when [the female roommate] Martinson tried to talk Hogan out of selling the iPhone because it would “ruin the carer of Robert ‘Gray’ Powell”, Hogan responded “Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.”
Even if your roommate involved you in the crime and you believed it was traceable to you? The main reason Hogan's roommate called Apple was because he used Zetter's laptop to try to restore the iPhone and she was convinced that her IP address was now traceable and she would be accused of being directly involved.
So firstly, there was no mention that they were friends, only roommates. Secondly, if Zetter was a friend, Hogan was getting his friend involved in his dirty activities which she may have wanted no part in. Thirdly, if YOUR friend was doing something shady which would likely get them in more trouble that it was worth, wouldn't your duty be to try your best to dissuade them? If you know about a crime being committed and do nothing you ARE involved.
You mean Martinson. She is the female roommate. Zetter is the Wired reporter. In any case I agree with you, upon further reflection.
In 2003/2004 I had to pay about $2000 in rent on behalf of a roommate who had not been keeping up with rent. The lease was in my name. Yes, big mistake. Yes, eventually we "evicted" him but I moved out as well because the other roommates were... well it was all in shambles.
BTW according to records Martinson did try to dissuade Hogan (see my post above).
Chill dude. I was responding to an earlier post where the poster was saying the roommate could have tried to discuss/ warn Hogan etc. instead of very quickly calling the police. In other words, that poster was trying to say, the roommate should have just you know, "tried to be cool about it".
Was the roommate just a nasty snitch? In light of what I now think, probably not. Hogan and Warner seem like dodgy guys and she just didn't want to be involved in what was happening, particularly seeing that they wanted to use her computer.
"The documents allege that when [the female roommate] Martinson tried to talk Hogan out of selling the iPhone because it would ?ruin the carer of Robert ?Gray? Powell?, Hogan responded ?Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn?t have lost his phone.?
You're contradicting yourself. In your first paragraph, you claim that she didn't try to talk him out of it - and instead ran straight to the police.
In the last paragraph, it is clear that she DID try to discuss it with him - to no avail.
Your own evidence supports the fact that she tried and when he wouldn't listen, she went to the police. So, once again, why are you trying to blame her?
Guys, this is the transcript of the actual email Brian Lam sent to Steve Jobs when contacted about the phone... If you haven't seen it yet. Original is on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/documents/3137...do-iPhoneOrder
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.
Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.
I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me.
Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.
Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.
I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.
And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.
You're contradicting yourself. In your first paragraph, you claim that she didn't try to talk him out of it - and instead ran straight to the police.
In the last paragraph, it is clear that she DID try to discuss it with him - to no avail.
Your own evidence supports the fact that she tried and when he wouldn't listen, she went to the police. So, once again, why are you trying to blame her?
Umm... you're getting me confused with the other posters. On the topic of whether the roommate (Martinson) was a nasty snitch, the conversation goes like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2236
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.
To which MacApfel responded:
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.
MacApfel above postulates that the roommates "did not deliberately betray her, but sloppily put her in a dangerous position... she could (not must, just could!) have done, is to yell at them... then call the cops..."
I responded with generally saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
...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.
MacApfel said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel
I think we agree. But please don't forget that a prototype iPhone is not an illegal item...That's why I meant she could have told them to call the cops, so they have the chance to think about it again.
To which I replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Fair enough. Maybe she was just scared. It may not have been like drugs but she had an instinct that something wasn't right. Could she have persuaded the guys to stop and think about what they're doing? Maybe...
Then, after this, I read (and still am reading) the affidavit original text, which I now discover states that she did try to convince them. So I'm not blaming her... I never have.
Before I knew it she tried to speak to the roommates, I said, maybe she went straight to the cops because she was scared.
But the records show she tried to convince them. So, if she did try to convince them, well, then she covered her bases.
Thus I concluded above,
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
...Was the roommate just a nasty snitch? In light of what I now think, probably not. Hogan and Warner seem like dodgy guys and she just didn't want to be involved in what was happening, particularly seeing that they wanted to use her computer.
Comments
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.
Fair enough. Maybe she was just scared. It may not have been like drugs but she had an instinct that something wasn't right. Could she have persuaded the guys to stop and think about what they're doing? Maybe...
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.
Absolutely. Even the mighty Gawker Media wouldn't toss away $5K on a brick that could very well be fake. Hogan and Warner provided enough proof of the prototype's authenticity (Engadget's posts helped too) well before the money exchanged hands.
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.
I would be stunned if he did not ask around $20K from Engadget, Wired, etc. before being turned down and forced to the lowest of blogs with cash: Giz.
His female roommate was smart to call in and let them know she had nothing to do with it, smart enough to know this could turn into a big issue and didn't want to risk any arrest, major fine, or possible jail time. Very smart of her.
Yup it's all fun and games until you have a criminal record and are even deeper in debt. Sometimes the danger is exhilirating but sometimes you just gotta say, F this SH*t I'm not getting involved. Maybe she was aware about Apples reputation in pursuing these matters from the news and blogs.
I would be stunned if he did not ask around $20K from Engadget, Wired, etc. before being turned down and forced to the lowest of blogs with cash: Giz.
Maybe he wasn't aware of what they really had in their hands, how signficant it is in the context of global tech companies battling it out in a billion dollar global market. Maybe he could have been smart enough to hold out for 20 grand or bust. But if he was smarter he would also know of a thing called karma. That 20 grand could very well come back to bite you hard.
But anyway like you said, maybe he asked for more and the other blogs were happy enough to get some pictures and didn't need to sink to actually purchasing the device and getting legally entangled.
BTW, has AI or Macrumors said officially whether or not they were approached by Hogan/Warner? If I were a thief, I would try to sell to...um...Apple rumors websites. DUH!
Interesting. But the big tech blogs are where the action is at. No offense to anyone, but AI and Macrumors are fairly specific news and primarily forum sites.
When it comes to iPhone and iPad and anything tech and geek you should see the frenzy on places like Gizmodo and Engadget.
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.
Yep, you're correct. I found the California Code.
§ 2080. Duties of finder
Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire.
There's more comments in this Apple Hitler pursuit than in the fact that Apple rejected a very useful app that would iPhone owners sync iPhone by Wifi.
Who cares about what Apple Phone will have if it is never out!!!
Who cares about how fast Snow Leopard supposed to be as the 10.6.3 just hang it damn slow, with too long startup and shutdown!
Are you listen Apple, or now, these days you just pay your consumer contact employees to give fire on online rumors?
I want my OS X to be faster please! Why does Ubuntu 10.04 in My Mac startup in less than half the time!???? This is your own machine Apple, just do your WORK!!!
What's going on with Apple these days? They don't update OS, they don't bring a phone with the very very late video conference, but they waste huge amounts of time, blaming and pursuing people about an hypothetical iPhone prototype. WHO CARES? As if Apple would do this on purpose! They get huge publicity and stupid thousands of comments of people blaming unknown people with unknown facts.
There's more comments in this Apple Hitler pursuit than in the fact that Apple rejected a very useful app that would iPhone owners sync iPhone by Wifi.
Who cares about what Apple Phone will have if it is never out!!!
Who cares about how fast Snow Leopard supposed to be as the 10.6.3 just hang it damn slow, with too long startup and shutdown!
Are you listen Apple, or now, these days you just pay your consumer contact employees to give fire on online rumors?
I want my OS X to be faster please! Why does Ubuntu 10.04 in My Mac startup in less than half the time!???? This is your own machine Apple, just do your WORK!!!
Nice thread-crapping. Why don't you complain about the iPod, Apple keyboards, and global warming in an iPhone Prototype Thread?
"Hypothetical iPhone prototype"? The only thing "hypothetical" is your knowledge of the issue at hand.
<---- Exit this way.
Why would you want to connect it to someone else's computer? Obviously to try and stop the trail leading back to you?
Good for her, telling the Police.
If he had tried that with my computer, I would have delivered what was left of him to the Police myself.
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.
If Domino's tells it's drivers that they have to have the pizza delivered in 30 minutes no matter what and the driver ends up runs red lights... who gets the ticket? If he hits a pedestrian, who's going to suffer the criminal charges?
Does the driver get to argue, "I was just doing my job. Let Domino's figure out the legalities."?
Of course not.
If my boss tells me, "Be thorough, do your job," then I will... but I'm not going to break any laws to do that.
Chen committed, nothing, as all of you have pointed out via the facts available.
Only if you ignore the FACT that Chen initiated (or was at least integral) to brokering a deal that resulted in the purchase of stolen goods.
And as the law says, knowledge that something is stolen is not required, it is assumed if the circumstances surrounding the current ownership of the device can be considered questionable, unexpected etc.
Fair enough. Maybe she was just scared. It may not have been like drugs but she had an instinct that something wasn't right. Could she have persuaded the guys to stop and think about what they're doing? Maybe...
Why is it her responsibility to persuade the criminals not to do something illegal? And why are you blaming the victim?
And here I thought Gizmodo LOVED iPhone stories. I searched their page and didn't see any mention of this story today. I thought they would be all over anything iPhone 4g. What a bunch of D-Bags. So much for journalistic integrity.
Please do give Gizmodo any more page hits. Why help pay their legal bills?
Chen is a journalist = untouchable. Al Capone never had nothing on Chen, baby!
Sorry, but journalists are not untouchable. If they commit a felony, they can be charged-AND convicted if the evidence supports it.
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.
As soon as he got a call from Steve Jobs, he had the evidence he needed. He could have asked to deliver it in person or for someone from Apple to come pick it up with appropriate ID (I'm sure the guy who lost it would have been happy to drive over), but insisting on letters from attorneys is not necessary.
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.
Wow. Thats a lot of inanity in one post. First, who says they can't prosecute both Chen and Lam?
Second, no one accused Chen of stealing the item. They are being accused of purchasing stolen property - and there's absolutely no question that they did. The admitted it publicly.
Third, the "I was just doing my job" argument has been shot down since the 40's. That's why people can be convicted as war criminals - even if they're only security guards. Or why "my boss told me to do it" is not a legitimate defense in ANY criminal action that I know of.
Fourth, who is persecuting Chen? He's being investigated for a crime that he publicly admits having committed. Since when is that persecution.
Finally, you said before that Chen didn't do anything. I guess you're making some progress since you seem to at least be admitting that he's an accomplice. Maybe some day you'll acknowledge the rest of the facts.
I really have to wonder why you're so eager to defend Chen and his criminal activities that you consistently ignore all the facts in the case - over and over.
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?
Read the CA criminal code. It's been presented here dozens of times. By not making a reasonable effort to return it, he becomes a thief.
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.
Wrong. Money is not illegal, but a suitcase full of money known to come from a Mafia Don IS illegal - because of where it came from.
Similarly, a cell phone is not illegal, but since he knows that it's a stolen cell phone, it IS illegal. No difference.
Drugs are illegal by law, so that's a different story, but it doesn't change the fact. The phone was stolen under CA law and both the finder and purchaser therefore committed a crime.
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.
Even if your roommate involved you in the crime and you believed it was traceable to you? The main reason Hogan's roommate called Apple was because he used Zetter's laptop to try to restore the iPhone and she was convinced that her IP address was now traceable and she would be accused of being directly involved.
So firstly, there was no mention that they were friends, only roommates. Secondly, if Zetter was a friend, Hogan was getting his friend involved in his dirty activities which she may have wanted no part in. Thirdly, if YOUR friend was doing something shady which would likely get them in more trouble that it was worth, wouldn't your duty be to try your best to dissuade them? If you know about a crime being committed and do nothing you ARE involved.
Why is it her responsibility to persuade the criminals not to do something illegal? And why are you blaming the victim?
Chill dude. I was responding to an earlier post where the poster was saying the roommate could have tried to discuss/ warn Hogan etc. instead of very quickly calling the police. In other words, that poster was trying to say, the roommate should have just you know, "tried to be cool about it".
Was the roommate just a nasty snitch? In light of what I now think, probably not. Hogan and Warner seem like dodgy guys and she just didn't want to be involved in what was happening, particularly seeing that they wanted to use her computer.
"The documents allege that when [the female roommate] Martinson tried to talk Hogan out of selling the iPhone because it would “ruin the carer of Robert ‘Gray’ Powell”, Hogan responded “Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn’t have lost his phone.”
http://www.brunotrani.info/blog/2010...hide-evidence/
Even if your roommate involved you in the crime and you believed it was traceable to you? The main reason Hogan's roommate called Apple was because he used Zetter's laptop to try to restore the iPhone and she was convinced that her IP address was now traceable and she would be accused of being directly involved.
So firstly, there was no mention that they were friends, only roommates. Secondly, if Zetter was a friend, Hogan was getting his friend involved in his dirty activities which she may have wanted no part in. Thirdly, if YOUR friend was doing something shady which would likely get them in more trouble that it was worth, wouldn't your duty be to try your best to dissuade them? If you know about a crime being committed and do nothing you ARE involved.
You mean Martinson. She is the female roommate. Zetter is the Wired reporter. In any case I agree with you, upon further reflection.
In 2003/2004 I had to pay about $2000 in rent on behalf of a roommate who had not been keeping up with rent. The lease was in my name. Yes, big mistake. Yes, eventually we "evicted" him but I moved out as well because the other roommates were... well it was all in shambles.
BTW according to records Martinson did try to dissuade Hogan (see my post above).
Chill dude. I was responding to an earlier post where the poster was saying the roommate could have tried to discuss/ warn Hogan etc. instead of very quickly calling the police. In other words, that poster was trying to say, the roommate should have just you know, "tried to be cool about it".
Was the roommate just a nasty snitch? In light of what I now think, probably not. Hogan and Warner seem like dodgy guys and she just didn't want to be involved in what was happening, particularly seeing that they wanted to use her computer.
"The documents allege that when [the female roommate] Martinson tried to talk Hogan out of selling the iPhone because it would ?ruin the carer of Robert ?Gray? Powell?, Hogan responded ?Sucks for him. He lost his phone. Shouldn?t have lost his phone.?
http://www.brunotrani.info/blog/2010...hide-evidence/
You're contradicting yourself. In your first paragraph, you claim that she didn't try to talk him out of it - and instead ran straight to the police.
In the last paragraph, it is clear that she DID try to discuss it with him - to no avail.
Your own evidence supports the fact that she tried and when he wouldn't listen, she went to the police. So, once again, why are you trying to blame her?
-----------------------------
From: brian lam <[email protected]>
Date: April 19, 2010 4:08:07 PM PDT
To: Steve Jobs <[email protected]>
Subject: Let's see if this goes through
Hey Steve, this email chain is off the record on my side.
I understand the position you're in, and I want to help, but it conflicts with my own responsibilities to give the phone back without any confirmation that its real, from apple, officially.
Something like that -- from you or apple legal -- is a big story, that would make up for giving the phone back right away. If the phone disappears without a story to explain why it went away, and the proof it went to apple, it hurts our business. And our reputation. People will say this is a coordinated leak, etc.
I get that it would hurt sales to say this is the next iphone. I have no interest in hurting sales. That does nothing to help Gizmodo or me.
Maybe Apple can say it's a lost phone, but not one that you've confirmed for production - that it is merely a test unit of sorts. Otherwise it just falls to apple legal, which serves the same purpose of confirmation. I don't want that, either.
Gizmodo lives and dies like many small companies do. We don't have access, or when we do, we get it taken away. When we get a chance to break a story, we have to go with it, or we perish. I know you like walt and pogue, and like working with them, but I think Gizmodo has more in common with old Apple than those guys do. So I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Right now, we have nothing to lose. The thing is, Apple PR has been cold to us lately. It affected my ability to do my job right at iPad launch. So we had to go outside and find our stories like this one, very aggressively.
I want to get this phone back to you ASAP. And I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love. But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out, and how it was returned to apple, with some acknowledgement it is Apple's.
And I want to work closer with Apple, too. I'm not asking for more access-we can do our jobs with or without it-but again, this is the only way we can survive while being cut out of things. That's my position on things.
B
You're contradicting yourself. In your first paragraph, you claim that she didn't try to talk him out of it - and instead ran straight to the police.
In the last paragraph, it is clear that she DID try to discuss it with him - to no avail.
Your own evidence supports the fact that she tried and when he wouldn't listen, she went to the police. So, once again, why are you trying to blame her?
Umm... you're getting me confused with the other posters. On the topic of whether the roommate (Martinson) was a nasty snitch, the conversation goes like this:
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.
To which MacApfel responded:
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.
MacApfel above postulates that the roommates "did not deliberately betray her, but sloppily put her in a dangerous position... she could (not must, just could!) have done, is to yell at them... then call the cops..."
I responded with generally saying:
...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.
MacApfel said:
I think we agree. But please don't forget that a prototype iPhone is not an illegal item...That's why I meant she could have told them to call the cops, so they have the chance to think about it again.
To which I replied:
Fair enough. Maybe she was just scared. It may not have been like drugs but she had an instinct that something wasn't right. Could she have persuaded the guys to stop and think about what they're doing? Maybe...
Then, after this, I read (and still am reading) the affidavit original text, which I now discover states that she did try to convince them. So I'm not blaming her... I never have.
Before I knew it she tried to speak to the roommates, I said, maybe she went straight to the cops because she was scared.
But the records show she tried to convince them. So, if she did try to convince them, well, then she covered her bases.
Thus I concluded above,
...Was the roommate just a nasty snitch? In light of what I now think, probably not. Hogan and Warner seem like dodgy guys and she just didn't want to be involved in what was happening, particularly seeing that they wanted to use her computer.