Almost everything you say here is predicated on the idea that he connected it to his PC which is not (AFAIK) in evidence at all.
The rest of it (about the legality of what went on), is just incorrect.
In cases like this it is in fact quite typical to hire private investigators. I have read other stories in the past, that pretty much take it for granted that Apple actually has guys like this on the payroll. All big companies do. The shutdown of the fake Apple stores was handled by exactly such people.
As licensed private investigators, they cannot break the law, but if you read the actual story, it said quite clearly that they asked him if they could search the place and he said "yes." There is nothing illegal in that at all. The only question is whether the investigators merely let him *think* they were from the police, or whether they actually impersonated police officers. The later of the two is of course illegal (but far from unheard of).
I'm thinking that the evidence strongly indicates he is the guy, but that he was smart enough to just put it in a safety deposit box or something and it wasn't in the house. So he had nothing to lose really from letting them search.
Haven't you ever watched the Rockford Files?
None of the reported behaviour of the investigator seems either unusual or illegal to me. It's what private investigators do.
I would expect he did connect it, but that isn't necessary. Your theory of him hiding it away from his home would be predicated on the assumption that he was smart enough to know to hide it, that he had reason to believe he was being traced (yet left it on an went home with it tracking his location all the way), knew not to connect it to his PC, had time to go home and later decide to move it offsite (which further assumes Apple waited a hell of a long time to send their team out to look for it, but that the had the location of where it went on that night). That is a lot of assumptions.
The original claim was that Apple was liable even if the guy acted on his own.
I pointed out that if the guy acted on his own on his own time that Apple has no liability.
You're now claiming that if the guy acted under orders from Apple that Apple would be liable.
OBVIOUSLY, if someone did something illegal under orders from Apple, then Apple would have some liability. But there's absolutely no evidence of that - and it is extraordinarily unlikely that Apple would do anything so stupid.
The most likely scenario is that the entire story is made up. The fact that the guy hasn't filed a report with the police affirms that.
No claim was made that he acted on his own. Never. The stories, as we have them, all claim multiple persons showed up at his home. As in a team. From Apple. Looking for the phone. Doing their job.
But I guess you had to make sit up again to fit your agenda. (Does that mean you vilify yourself?)
So, at least we are now agreed, if in the process of fulfilling is duties as a employee of Apple charged with finding the device, he committed these acts, then Apple is liable.
Or how about a couple of dickheads want to concoct a story bigger that the whole Gizmodo thing so they create a fake linkedin account for a fake employee. Then one of them goes to said bar so people can remember him there. Then he contacts CNET claiming he was searched etc. Tony is his partner carrying around a disposable phone in case anyone calls it for a response etc. Heck Sergio could be a fake name, for all we know and it was made up by the reporter that posted the story.
Well, that actually could be possible. Does it seem more likely than the story we have?
Oh noes. I love Apple, but this sounds bad. I don't know what to think. If it was a group of scared employees trying to get their phone back the quickest way possible, I could understand why they did it. Without condoning it of course.
But what worries me is that an Apple security employee was involved, not just the group closest to the incident, which means some thought went into the operation and potentially higher up employees may know what was attempted.
This could be very bad. You can't pretend to be the police. Even if you are a mega-corp. That thin blue line is there to protect the haves from the have-nots, and the haves won't allow that line to be compromised.
If the story is true, then it is going to be bed. Sergio says Tony was on the phone during the invasion. Who do you think he was talking to? Someone higher up than him. (I guess that would just be another 'rogue' employee to some).
The whole scam gets off to a bad start, because we have to believe that another Apple employee lost a prototype iPhone after the shitstorm that followed the other such incident. I think someone is trying to shake down Apple for a payoff. They upped the ante by saying Apple employees impersonated police officers. Let's see what cards get dealt next.
Yep. This is most likely all made up or someone was having some fun with this guy after seeing him at the bar and following him home. Someone not connected to Apple.
Consider the claim that this was a day or two later. Apple would have acted within two hours. And they have enough clout they would have been able to get the police involved, no need to pretend
Except it's quite likely they would not want to involve the police as that would entail pictures of the evidence (if found), an Apple description of the supposed stolen property, a police report available to open records demands and an altogether undeniable story of Apple losing yet another unreleased product.
Apple guards their product secrets like I vainly tried to protect my 16 year old daughter. The old "cleaning the shotgun" act didn't work twice.
Man, what a way to spoil a party. Come on man, get in the groove: let's go to this dude's house with pitchforks and torches until he confesses he's a witch!
You don't think that is a legitimate concern for this guy now? The Apple community is great, but the devotion they inspire can really lead some off the deep end. There are some real nut jobs out there that this guy probably should be aware of.
Maybe Sergio is a cyborg from the future sent back by future Google to ruin past Apple. Assuming that to be the case, it's vitally important that we establish a time line of where and when "Tony" was alleged to be and what he was wearing, since there's a chance that he, too, was a time traveler and there may well be continuity errors. Even experienced temporal operators slip up for time to time.
But of course this calls into question the Linked-In account and the sequence that led to it's removal. Pre or post temporal incursion? There's a screen shot now available, does that set up a recursive paradox and collapse this particular time line at some point?
I ask because it seems likely at this point that the original "lost iPhone" is actually an artifact from an earlier, modified timeline our awareness of which is simply an echo of an imperfect modification to the vectors.
One thing is perfectly clear, however: Google totally botched the job. I suspect there will be profound reproductions once the other shoe drops, dropped, or is dropping, depending.
Maybe Sergio is a cyborg from the future sent back by future Google to ruin past Apple. Assuming that to be the case, it's vitally important that we establish a time line of where and when "Tony" was alleged to be and what he was wearing, since there's a chance that he, too, was a time traveler and there may well be continuity errors. Even experienced temporal operators slip up for time to time.
But of course this calls into question the Linked-In account and the sequence that led to it's removal. Pre or post temporal incursion? There's a screen shot now available, does that set up a recursive paradox and collapse this particular time line at some point?
I ask because it seems likely at this point that the original "lost iPhone" is actually an artifact from an earlier, modified timeline our awareness of which is simply an echo of an imperfect modification to the vectors.
One thing is perfectly clear, however: Google totally botched the job. I suspect there will be profound reproductions once the other shoe drops, dropped, or is dropping, depending.
You didn't blow my mind, because I watched "The Adjustment Bureau" last night.
I have a hard time believing that a Citadel alumn would be so stupid. I have even a harder time believing that a Citadel alumn was only a sergeant in a local PD for 20 years. In fact, it's utterly unbelievable that a Citadel alumn would join a police department at all. Sorta like a Harvard graduate going to work for Home Depot
But...
I love all my Apple stuff. If this turns out to be true, and all of them are not fired and prosecuted, all my Apple stuff is for sale.
For all we know, none of the people in this article even exists.
Wow. That much kool-aid, really?
Or maybe... maybe YOU don't exist. Or maybe *I* don't exist. OMG, if I don't exist, how can it be that I'm able to sense the inanity of your comment? What a conundrum.
Or maybe... maybe YOU don't exist. Or maybe *I* don't exist. OMG, if I don't exist, how can it be that I'm able to sense the inanity of your comment? What a conundrum.
If Solipsism chimes in he may write that none of us exist, except him
Quick, someone blame Sergio for the police department lying. (here comes JR)
Edit: Or I guess you could shoot the messenger and vilify sfweekly and cnet (as has already been done here and in the other thread) or hell, let's blame Gizmodo.
Comments
Almost everything you say here is predicated on the idea that he connected it to his PC which is not (AFAIK) in evidence at all.
The rest of it (about the legality of what went on), is just incorrect.
In cases like this it is in fact quite typical to hire private investigators. I have read other stories in the past, that pretty much take it for granted that Apple actually has guys like this on the payroll. All big companies do. The shutdown of the fake Apple stores was handled by exactly such people.
As licensed private investigators, they cannot break the law, but if you read the actual story, it said quite clearly that they asked him if they could search the place and he said "yes." There is nothing illegal in that at all. The only question is whether the investigators merely let him *think* they were from the police, or whether they actually impersonated police officers. The later of the two is of course illegal (but far from unheard of).
I'm thinking that the evidence strongly indicates he is the guy, but that he was smart enough to just put it in a safety deposit box or something and it wasn't in the house. So he had nothing to lose really from letting them search.
Haven't you ever watched the Rockford Files?
None of the reported behaviour of the investigator seems either unusual or illegal to me. It's what private investigators do.
I would expect he did connect it, but that isn't necessary. Your theory of him hiding it away from his home would be predicated on the assumption that he was smart enough to know to hide it, that he had reason to believe he was being traced (yet left it on an went home with it tracking his location all the way), knew not to connect it to his PC, had time to go home and later decide to move it offsite (which further assumes Apple waited a hell of a long time to send their team out to look for it, but that the had the location of where it went on that night). That is a lot of assumptions.
You're talking in circles.
The original claim was that Apple was liable even if the guy acted on his own.
I pointed out that if the guy acted on his own on his own time that Apple has no liability.
You're now claiming that if the guy acted under orders from Apple that Apple would be liable.
OBVIOUSLY, if someone did something illegal under orders from Apple, then Apple would have some liability. But there's absolutely no evidence of that - and it is extraordinarily unlikely that Apple would do anything so stupid.
The most likely scenario is that the entire story is made up. The fact that the guy hasn't filed a report with the police affirms that.
No claim was made that he acted on his own. Never. The stories, as we have them, all claim multiple persons showed up at his home. As in a team. From Apple. Looking for the phone. Doing their job.
But I guess you had to make sit up again to fit your agenda. (Does that mean you vilify yourself?)
So, at least we are now agreed, if in the process of fulfilling is duties as a employee of Apple charged with finding the device, he committed these acts, then Apple is liable.
Or how about a couple of dickheads want to concoct a story bigger that the whole Gizmodo thing so they create a fake linkedin account for a fake employee. Then one of them goes to said bar so people can remember him there. Then he contacts CNET claiming he was searched etc. Tony is his partner carrying around a disposable phone in case anyone calls it for a response etc. Heck Sergio could be a fake name, for all we know and it was made up by the reporter that posted the story.
Well, that actually could be possible. Does it seem more likely than the story we have?
Oh noes. I love Apple, but this sounds bad. I don't know what to think. If it was a group of scared employees trying to get their phone back the quickest way possible, I could understand why they did it. Without condoning it of course.
But what worries me is that an Apple security employee was involved, not just the group closest to the incident, which means some thought went into the operation and potentially higher up employees may know what was attempted.
This could be very bad. You can't pretend to be the police. Even if you are a mega-corp. That thin blue line is there to protect the haves from the have-nots, and the haves won't allow that line to be compromised.
If the story is true, then it is going to be bed. Sergio says Tony was on the phone during the invasion. Who do you think he was talking to? Someone higher up than him. (I guess that would just be another 'rogue' employee to some).
Yep. This is most likely all made up or someone was having some fun with this guy after seeing him at the bar and following him home. Someone not connected to Apple.
Consider the claim that this was a day or two later. Apple would have acted within two hours. And they have enough clout they would have been able to get the police involved, no need to pretend
Except it's quite likely they would not want to involve the police as that would entail pictures of the evidence (if found), an Apple description of the supposed stolen property, a police report available to open records demands and an altogether undeniable story of Apple losing yet another unreleased product.
Apple guards their product secrets like I vainly tried to protect my 16 year old daughter. The old "cleaning the shotgun" act didn't work twice.
Man, what a way to spoil a party. Come on man, get in the groove: let's go to this dude's house with pitchforks and torches until he confesses he's a witch!
You don't think that is a legitimate concern for this guy now? The Apple community is great, but the devotion they inspire can really lead some off the deep end. There are some real nut jobs out there that this guy probably should be aware of.
When SF Weekly called the number, they reached an Anthony Colon, who reportedly said he is an employee of Apple.
The guy is obviously an a**hole.
But of course this calls into question the Linked-In account and the sequence that led to it's removal. Pre or post temporal incursion? There's a screen shot now available, does that set up a recursive paradox and collapse this particular time line at some point?
I ask because it seems likely at this point that the original "lost iPhone" is actually an artifact from an earlier, modified timeline our awareness of which is simply an echo of an imperfect modification to the vectors.
One thing is perfectly clear, however: Google totally botched the job. I suspect there will be profound reproductions once the other shoe drops, dropped, or is dropping, depending.
So basically, SFPD is now seeking the source of a rumor within another rumor, or is this just another rumor?
I dunno. Did the top ever stop spinning?
Maybe Sergio is a cyborg from the future sent back by future Google to ruin past Apple. Assuming that to be the case, it's vitally important that we establish a time line of where and when "Tony" was alleged to be and what he was wearing, since there's a chance that he, too, was a time traveler and there may well be continuity errors. Even experienced temporal operators slip up for time to time.
But of course this calls into question the Linked-In account and the sequence that led to it's removal. Pre or post temporal incursion? There's a screen shot now available, does that set up a recursive paradox and collapse this particular time line at some point?
I ask because it seems likely at this point that the original "lost iPhone" is actually an artifact from an earlier, modified timeline our awareness of which is simply an echo of an imperfect modification to the vectors.
One thing is perfectly clear, however: Google totally botched the job. I suspect there will be profound reproductions once the other shoe drops, dropped, or is dropping, depending.
You didn't blow my mind, because I watched "The Adjustment Bureau" last night.
But...
I love all my Apple stuff. If this turns out to be true, and all of them are not fired and prosecuted, all my Apple stuff is for sale.
honestly? I think it's most likely Apple employees legally tricked this dude and he assumed they were cops based on clever wordplay.
remember this whole story is his perspective.
and that's if it happened at all.
You think?
For all we know, none of the people in this article even exists.
Wow. That much kool-aid, really?
Or maybe... maybe YOU don't exist. Or maybe *I* don't exist. OMG, if I don't exist, how can it be that I'm able to sense the inanity of your comment? What a conundrum.
IIf this is true, Apple is going to be paying through the ass for the invasion of this guys home. And yes, I use the word invasion intentionally.
Unless someone asked and you invited them in, then it's not an "invasion".
Funny how so many here can pick fly shit from pepper ....
wow, never heard that one before. that's awesome!
Wow. That much kool-aid, really?
Or maybe... maybe YOU don't exist. Or maybe *I* don't exist. OMG, if I don't exist, how can it be that I'm able to sense the inanity of your comment? What a conundrum.
If Solipsism chimes in he may write that none of us exist, except him
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ple_police.php
Quick, someone blame Sergio for the police department lying. (here comes JR)
Edit: Or I guess you could shoot the messenger and vilify sfweekly and cnet (as has already been done here and in the other thread) or hell, let's blame Gizmodo.