So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?
Yes, he should've known better. But that doesn't justify the actions of the others involved.
You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?
There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?
I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.
You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?
There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?
I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.
why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?
also Calderon was at the bar...not up for debate...the GPS was tracked to his home...also not up for debate...however, we don't know if A) he was alone and he didn't have anyone else at his house when they tracked the phone who then left.
but all of that is beside the point...
even if he had taken the phone, assuming he isn't lying (and the external evidence seems to back him up) he gave consent to the SFPD, not Apple...
why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?
(and the external evidence seems to back him up)
Nothing in my post indicated that I was "so trusting" of Apple. I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions. However if I was forced to chose a side to believe I would 100% go with police/Apple. Apple has a lot to lose if it can be proven that they broke the law, so why would they do it? If Apple's security people are ex-law enforcement they would know the consequences of their actions. Calderon on the other hand has everything to gain by fabricating details about the encounter, especially if he really did steal the iPhone. People lie every day in the hopes of a big payday from a lawsuit.
for all we know, the police were told it was a private matter of a lost phone. Not a lost prototype. For all we know, they made it 100% clear that the other folks were not cops. For all we know, those other folks don't really work for Apple or where not there in an official capacity, .
yes, it is an if and we don't know enough to draw definitive conclusions. We do know those other people worked at Apple, or at least we know the police believe that. I would expect they would have asked for some proof/ID. You aren't still believing that this was hoax by the bar owner, are you?
So far, the only party that has made statements that have held up is Calderon. Apple hasn't spoken and the Police have been less than reliable in the info they have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
According to my sources, Apple ID badges don't have any info about where you work. This Tony guy could be a janitor who trumped up that LinkedIn profile (might explain why he put up a gomba looking photo on a professional network) with some friends that work at said bar to pull a 15 minutes of fame. He dresses up a little nice and goes to the police and says that he's a security guy from Apple and they need the police to help them keep the peace and so on. Which is in keeping with their duties. But with no warrant perhaps they can't come inside. Only the private folks can ask etc. But little do the cops know, this Sergio is Tony's buddy so of course he's going to say "I didn't take anything, why don't you come in and look for yourself" . and then go rat out the twisted version of the story to CNET etc. and then they pull the trumped up profile after everyone has had a change to go search the name and find it. All to make things look fishy.
Oh shit, you are still implying it could be a hoax.
I don't know how much stock I would put into your sources, since up until yesterday you were still asserting that it could be a hoax for publicity for the bar. As for the badges, often security officers will have distinct badges. No idea what Apple serurity uses.
As for the legality of consented search, the police and private security would be allowed to search if they were given consent. That consent has to be freely and voluntarily given. Consent gain through fraud/deception or undue duress may be illegal. They don't have to inform you of your constitutional right to deny the warrant-less search but there are things they are not allowed to do to gain your consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
It's just as plausible as the reported story given how little we know and how much we only have 'as told by' data regarding
It's just as plausible that a a couple Apple employees mislead SFPD, misrepresented themselves as security (licensed in Cali) and fraudulently claimed ownership of property? No, I would disagree. I don't think that is as plausible.
why is all this focused on possible misrepresentation on the part of the police force?
was the missing device found? was the guy charged with possession of stolen property?
Oh wait - I know - it is all part of the Apple propaganda machine - very clever to claim that an iPhone 5 prototype went missing in almost exactly the same manner as the iPhone 4 - that was you get a magnification of the media coverage leading up to the iPhone 5 launch, which by itself would otherwise have little if any drama because it looks and works just like the iPhone 4 just with faster CPUs - longer battery life - more storage - and tweaked antenna.
You don?t let them in. Rule of thumb, if you have any doubts, you ask for a warrant or you demand ID from all parties. That?s your right. The police cannot just flash their badges and enter your house without your explicit consent. If you grant them that, that is your fault (outside of deception).
Very good advice. But, even with consent, it has to be obtained legally. As you say, outside of deception. Private citizens may not have those same restrictions on gaining consent. But, private security, working with or as police might.
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy
We don?t know if any deception has happened and I doubt that we will ever know. Caledron has not filed any charges and even if he does, it comes down to a he-said-she-said scenario. A bunch of hearsay that is not enough to hang a case on.
We have he said, they said and they changed what they said. Calderon hasn't filed suit yet, but it's only been a week since he said he found out it might not have been police that searched his home and his is already in talks with lawyers. I am guessing there will be a lawsuit.
Imagine the police show up at your door asking for permission to search because there is a missing girl in the neighbourhood and they are search everywhere. You quickly give consent (whether because you are naive, stupid or just want to help(not calling you stupid, just using an example of reasons)). A month later you find out the people that searched your home were not police but private security, but the real police were there. Would you feel violated? Would you wonder who it was that was crawling through your wife's panty drawer? Would you get a lawyer?
why is all this focused on possible misrepresentation on the part of the police force?
was the missing device found? was the guy charged with possession of stolen property?
The police said Apple didn't even file a lost property report, let alone a stolen property report. The last statement I read from the only referred to it as lost property. Hard to file charges if there is no evidence of wrong doing and no one is claiming anything was stolen. Yet.
You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?
he is potentially a terrorist too, but that would only be speculation. Ruling out his claimed based only on speculation doesn't seem fair. His statements are the only ones that have, in only small ways, been validated. Not one of his claims has been denied nor shown to be false. Apple has made no statements and the SFPD have released conflicting information. So, why should we doubt him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?
No, there is only evidence that it was in proximity to his home. Calderon has openly admitted he was at the bar. He admitted it to the police the night they searched his home. He very well could have hid the phone, but if it was still turned on and reporting it's location as being in his house, I very much doubt Apple would have just walked away or offered only $300.
There is no mention of how thoroughly the house was searched. We do know they didn't find any evidence of it on this PC. Connecting it to iTunes to wipe it would probably be the first thing many thieves would do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague
I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.
A very good idea not to jump to conclusions. Another good idea would be to not assign more believability to one party over another without reason.
So far, there hasn't been anything that puts Calderon's credibility into question. Nothing from his story has been proven to be false. Only one part was ever challenged, when the SFPD denied being there, but that was later corrected. The SFPD's credibility, in the case has been shown to be questionable. There statements are conflicting, they acknowledge protocols were not followed and are now investigating their own actions from that night. We shouldn't draw conclusions, but were shouldn't automatically discredit everything from Calderon either.
The police said Apple didn't even file a lost property report, let alone a stolen property report. The last statement I read from the only referred to it as lost property. Hard to file charges if there is no evidence of wrong doing and no one is claiming anything was stolen. Yet.
but why not just add fuel to the fire if all we are doing here is wildly speculating about things for which we do not have enough information to be accurate - WAAAY more fun that sticking to the "facts"
They funny part is that there is nothing to apologize for, at least from Apple. Yet reasons are being preemptively tossed to discredit Calderon, perhaps because if he is being honest it makes the whole ordeal stick.
Circling the wagons to defend Apple is all well and good, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with being anti-everyone-not-Apple just yet.
but why not just add fuel to the fire if all we are doing here is wildly speculating about things for which we do not have enough information to be accurate - WAAAY more fun that sticking to the "facts"
Speculating is great fun, but speculating new 'facts' in order to fir some pre-conceived world order is disappointing.
he is potentially a terrorist too, but that would only be speculation. Ruling out his claimed based only on speculation doesn't seem fair.
There is no evidence to suggest he is a terrorist and no one is suggesting he is. There was however enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that property not belonging to him and last seen in a place where he was, had been in or near his home for the police to go with the Apple personnel to his house. So while it seems reasonable to say "potential thief" your argument against it is nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
He very well could have hid the phone, but if it was still turned on and reporting it's location as being in his house, I very much doubt Apple would have just walked away or offered only $300.
There is no mention of how thoroughly the house was searched. We do know they didn't find any evidence of it on this PC. Connecting it to iTunes to wipe it would probably be the first thing many thieves would do.
I wouldn't dispute your claim, it seems reasonable enough. However, there are any number of possibilities to explain why it might not have been sending signal. He could have run the battery dead. He could have restored to factory settings directly from the handset but never plugged it into a computer. He could have used a different computer that was either not found or not on site when they came.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
A very good idea not to jump to conclusions. Another good idea would be to not assign more believability to one party over another without reason.
In my second post above I explained my reasons for assigning more believability to one party over the other. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on them.
It seems his car was also searched in addition to the home. Did the police witness that search since it was outside? No one has said and Apple has refused comment so far.
"Criminal defense attorneys in San Francisco say that some of the allegations are worrisome if true. . .
Police aren't supposed to try to obtain permission to search a home by putting someone under duress. . .
. . . police must be transparent about the facts of a search and not identifying who was performing the search wouldn't be lawful if proven true. However, both Runfola and Walia said that because the phone was not found and nothing was taken, there might be little recourse for Calderon outside of filing a complaint with the police."
So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?
Do you know that Apple misled him? I will be interested in seeing the video record of the events since you seem to know what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Very good advice. But, even with consent, it has to be obtained legally. As you say, outside of deception. Private citizens may not have those same restrictions on gaining consent. But, private security, working with or as police might.
The first part is true (that consent has to be obtained legally). The latter part is false (that the police can not use deception). It is well established that the police do not have to be truthful in obtaining permission to search a home.
Furthermore, I'm still waiting for evidence that there was deception.
We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?
We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?
How could they be lying when so far those plainclothes officers, Apple security and Apple themselves have not made any public comments?
They're neither lying nor telling the truth. They're not saying anything.That's what keeps the story looking shady. If there's nothing to hide and nothing was done wrong, then just come out with an official statement. Heck, it's not as tho the incident happened just a few days ago, it's been weeks.
How could they be lying when so far those plainclothes officers, Apple security and Apple themselves have not made any public comments?
They're neither lying nor telling the truth. They're not saying anything.That's what keeps the story looking shady. If there's nothing to hide and nothing was done wrong, then just come out with an official statement. Heck, it's not as tho the incident happened just a few days ago, it's been weeks.
It *could* be that individuals were acting on their own initiative - without knowledge or consent from the parent organization (Apple or SFPD) and that now that the parent organizations have been made aware of the activities of their employees - they need to investigate before they can make any sort of statement - and if there is evidence of wrong doing on their part - then they need to spend a little more time working out how to mitigate the consequences.
Comments
Exactly. If you have any doubt you ask to see badges (yes every badge) and warrants. We all know what happens when you ASSume things.
If this story was anymore than that, we would have already seen more legal action taken. To include some sort of a get-rich-quick civil suit.
So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?
Yes, he should've known better. But that doesn't justify the actions of the others involved.
So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?
Yes, he should've known better. But that doesn't justify the actions of the others involved.
You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?
There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?
I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.
You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?
There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?
I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.
why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?
also Calderon was at the bar...not up for debate...the GPS was tracked to his home...also not up for debate...however, we don't know if A) he was alone and
but all of that is beside the point...
even if he had taken the phone, assuming he isn't lying (and the external evidence seems to back him up) he gave consent to the SFPD, not Apple...
why are you so trusting of a multinational corporation that has more rights than you while allegedly being a person also?
(and the external evidence seems to back him up)
Nothing in my post indicated that I was "so trusting" of Apple. I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions. However if I was forced to chose a side to believe I would 100% go with police/Apple. Apple has a lot to lose if it can be proven that they broke the law, so why would they do it? If Apple's security people are ex-law enforcement they would know the consequences of their actions. Calderon on the other hand has everything to gain by fabricating details about the encounter, especially if he really did steal the iPhone. People lie every day in the hopes of a big payday from a lawsuit.
What is this external evidence you speak of?
That's a huge IF.
for all we know, the police were told it was a private matter of a lost phone. Not a lost prototype. For all we know, they made it 100% clear that the other folks were not cops. For all we know, those other folks don't really work for Apple or where not there in an official capacity, .
yes, it is an if and we don't know enough to draw definitive conclusions. We do know those other people worked at Apple, or at least we know the police believe that. I would expect they would have asked for some proof/ID. You aren't still believing that this was hoax by the bar owner, are you?
So far, the only party that has made statements that have held up is Calderon. Apple hasn't spoken and the Police have been less than reliable in the info they have.
According to my sources, Apple ID badges don't have any info about where you work. This Tony guy could be a janitor who trumped up that LinkedIn profile (might explain why he put up a gomba looking photo on a professional network) with some friends that work at said bar to pull a 15 minutes of fame. He dresses up a little nice and goes to the police and says that he's a security guy from Apple and they need the police to help them keep the peace and so on. Which is in keeping with their duties. But with no warrant perhaps they can't come inside. Only the private folks can ask etc. But little do the cops know, this Sergio is Tony's buddy so of course he's going to say "I didn't take anything, why don't you come in and look for yourself" . and then go rat out the twisted version of the story to CNET etc. and then they pull the trumped up profile after everyone has had a change to go search the name and find it. All to make things look fishy.
Oh shit, you are still implying it could be a hoax.
I don't know how much stock I would put into your sources, since up until yesterday you were still asserting that it could be a hoax for publicity for the bar. As for the badges, often security officers will have distinct badges. No idea what Apple serurity uses.
As for the legality of consented search, the police and private security would be allowed to search if they were given consent. That consent has to be freely and voluntarily given. Consent gain through fraud/deception or undue duress may be illegal. They don't have to inform you of your constitutional right to deny the warrant-less search but there are things they are not allowed to do to gain your consent.
It's just as plausible as the reported story given how little we know and how much we only have 'as told by' data regarding
It's just as plausible that a a couple Apple employees mislead SFPD, misrepresented themselves as security (licensed in Cali) and fraudulently claimed ownership of property? No, I would disagree. I don't think that is as plausible.
was the missing device found? was the guy charged with possession of stolen property?
Oh wait - I know - it is all part of the Apple propaganda machine - very clever to claim that an iPhone 5 prototype went missing in almost exactly the same manner as the iPhone 4 - that was you get a magnification of the media coverage leading up to the iPhone 5 launch, which by itself would otherwise have little if any drama because it looks and works just like the iPhone 4 just with faster CPUs - longer battery life - more storage - and tweaked antenna.
You don?t let them in. Rule of thumb, if you have any doubts, you ask for a warrant or you demand ID from all parties. That?s your right. The police cannot just flash their badges and enter your house without your explicit consent. If you grant them that, that is your fault (outside of deception).
Very good advice. But, even with consent, it has to be obtained legally. As you say, outside of deception. Private citizens may not have those same restrictions on gaining consent. But, private security, working with or as police might.
We don?t know if any deception has happened and I doubt that we will ever know. Caledron has not filed any charges and even if he does, it comes down to a he-said-she-said scenario. A bunch of hearsay that is not enough to hang a case on.
We have he said, they said and they changed what they said. Calderon hasn't filed suit yet, but it's only been a week since he said he found out it might not have been police that searched his home and his is already in talks with lawyers. I am guessing there will be a lawsuit.
Imagine the police show up at your door asking for permission to search because there is a missing girl in the neighbourhood and they are search everywhere. You quickly give consent (whether because you are naive, stupid or just want to help(not calling you stupid, just using an example of reasons)). A month later you find out the people that searched your home were not police but private security, but the real police were there. Would you feel violated? Would you wonder who it was that was crawling through your wife's panty drawer? Would you get a lawyer?
why is all this focused on possible misrepresentation on the part of the police force?
was the missing device found? was the guy charged with possession of stolen property?
The police said Apple didn't even file a lost property report, let alone a stolen property report. The last statement I read from the only referred to it as lost property. Hard to file charges if there is no evidence of wrong doing and no one is claiming anything was stolen. Yet.
You don't know what the actions of the others involved really were. It's all hearsay from a guy who is potentially a thief. Why are you so trusting of a random person (and potential criminal) over the more likely scenario that the police and Apple obeyed the law?
he is potentially a terrorist too, but that would only be speculation. Ruling out his claimed based only on speculation doesn't seem fair. His statements are the only ones that have, in only small ways, been validated. Not one of his claims has been denied nor shown to be false. Apple has made no statements and the SFPD have released conflicting information. So, why should we doubt him?
There's at least some evidence to suggest that Calderon was involved. One article confirmed that Calderon was at the bar where the phone was lost and Apple would have had to show the police evidence that the iPhone was (or had) giving a GPS signal from that house. If he hid the iPhone well enough it could easily have still been there without them finding it. There is no mention of the Apple people going into his crawl spaces or tearing up the floorboards is there?
No, there is only evidence that it was in proximity to his home. Calderon has openly admitted he was at the bar. He admitted it to the police the night they searched his home. He very well could have hid the phone, but if it was still turned on and reporting it's location as being in his house, I very much doubt Apple would have just walked away or offered only $300.
There is no mention of how thoroughly the house was searched. We do know they didn't find any evidence of it on this PC. Connecting it to iTunes to wipe it would probably be the first thing many thieves would do.
I don't know what the truth is which is why I'm not jumping to any conclusions and neither should you or anyone else.
A very good idea not to jump to conclusions. Another good idea would be to not assign more believability to one party over another without reason.
So far, there hasn't been anything that puts Calderon's credibility into question. Nothing from his story has been proven to be false. Only one part was ever challenged, when the SFPD denied being there, but that was later corrected. The SFPD's credibility, in the case has been shown to be questionable. There statements are conflicting, they acknowledge protocols were not followed and are now investigating their own actions from that night. We shouldn't draw conclusions, but were shouldn't automatically discredit everything from Calderon either.
Appologists
The police said Apple didn't even file a lost property report, let alone a stolen property report. The last statement I read from the only referred to it as lost property. Hard to file charges if there is no evidence of wrong doing and no one is claiming anything was stolen. Yet.
but why not just add fuel to the fire if all we are doing here is wildly speculating about things for which we do not have enough information to be accurate - WAAAY more fun that sticking to the "facts"
I seriously can't believe what I'm reading here.
Appologists
They funny part is that there is nothing to apologize for, at least from Apple. Yet reasons are being preemptively tossed to discredit Calderon, perhaps because if he is being honest it makes the whole ordeal stick.
Circling the wagons to defend Apple is all well and good, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with being anti-everyone-not-Apple just yet.
but why not just add fuel to the fire if all we are doing here is wildly speculating about things for which we do not have enough information to be accurate - WAAAY more fun that sticking to the "facts"
Speculating is great fun, but speculating new 'facts' in order to fir some pre-conceived world order is disappointing.
he is potentially a terrorist too, but that would only be speculation. Ruling out his claimed based only on speculation doesn't seem fair.
There is no evidence to suggest he is a terrorist and no one is suggesting he is. There was however enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that property not belonging to him and last seen in a place where he was, had been in or near his home for the police to go with the Apple personnel to his house. So while it seems reasonable to say "potential thief" your argument against it is nonsense.
He very well could have hid the phone, but if it was still turned on and reporting it's location as being in his house, I very much doubt Apple would have just walked away or offered only $300.
There is no mention of how thoroughly the house was searched. We do know they didn't find any evidence of it on this PC. Connecting it to iTunes to wipe it would probably be the first thing many thieves would do.
I wouldn't dispute your claim, it seems reasonable enough. However, there are any number of possibilities to explain why it might not have been sending signal. He could have run the battery dead. He could have restored to factory settings directly from the handset but never plugged it into a computer. He could have used a different computer that was either not found or not on site when they came.
A very good idea not to jump to conclusions. Another good idea would be to not assign more believability to one party over another without reason.
In my second post above I explained my reasons for assigning more believability to one party over the other. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on them.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...iphone-search/
It seems his car was also searched in addition to the home. Did the police witness that search since it was outside? No one has said and Apple has refused comment so far.
"Criminal defense attorneys in San Francisco say that some of the allegations are worrisome if true. . .
Police aren't supposed to try to obtain permission to search a home by putting someone under duress. . .
. . . police must be transparent about the facts of a search and not identifying who was performing the search wouldn't be lawful if proven true. However, both Runfola and Walia said that because the phone was not found and nothing was taken, there might be little recourse for Calderon outside of filing a complaint with the police."
So.. It's ok that Apple security mislead him (allegedly) because he should've known better?
Do you know that Apple misled him? I will be interested in seeing the video record of the events since you seem to know what happened.
Very good advice. But, even with consent, it has to be obtained legally. As you say, outside of deception. Private citizens may not have those same restrictions on gaining consent. But, private security, working with or as police might.
The first part is true (that consent has to be obtained legally). The latter part is false (that the police can not use deception). It is well established that the police do not have to be truthful in obtaining permission to search a home.
Furthermore, I'm still waiting for evidence that there was deception.
We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?
We have one person's word - a person who is potentially being accused of a crime, vs. (apparently) 4 police officers and 2 employees of a major corporation - employees who undoubtedly know what they can and can't do. Is it really plausible that all of them are lying and the putative criminal is telling the truth? Or is the converse more likely? Or is it that neither of them is lying and nothing illegal happened?
How could they be lying when so far those plainclothes officers, Apple security and Apple themselves have not made any public comments?
They're neither lying nor telling the truth. They're not saying anything.That's what keeps the story looking shady. If there's nothing to hide and nothing was done wrong, then just come out with an official statement. Heck, it's not as tho the incident happened just a few days ago, it's been weeks.
How could they be lying when so far those plainclothes officers, Apple security and Apple themselves have not made any public comments?
They're neither lying nor telling the truth. They're not saying anything.That's what keeps the story looking shady. If there's nothing to hide and nothing was done wrong, then just come out with an official statement. Heck, it's not as tho the incident happened just a few days ago, it's been weeks.
It *could* be that individuals were acting on their own initiative - without knowledge or consent from the parent organization (Apple or SFPD) and that now that the parent organizations have been made aware of the activities of their employees - they need to investigate before they can make any sort of statement - and if there is evidence of wrong doing on their part - then they need to spend a little more time working out how to mitigate the consequences.