I feel the probable cause was already published by GIZ themselves. They had to have known when buying the phone that the phone was not received through proper channels... My understanding is that Engadget had the first opportunity to acquire the phone and wisely passed on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.
The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.
I think both your points are good, but clearly I've accidently obscured my larger point while trying to give an example. My intent was to illustrate how the seizure of property for evidence can sometimes benefit the person whose property was seized, by sequestering it from tampering by either plaintiff or defendant. And mel, you'll note that I myself acknowledged that a conspiracy to "hunt down" a phone was less plausible than the offering of money for one already found.
Although, if some third person from Apple knew that that engineer had the phone on him and then alerted the other two, they could have...
You're missing one point. Gizmodo claims to have all sorts of inside information from sources within Apple (which, of course, makes it even more laughable that they didn't know how to return it).
It is not hard to imagine, for example, a secretary letting Gizmodo know that John Doe is an engineer who carries a prototype iPhone who's about 5'8", brown hair, slender and hangs around such and such bar, usually going there Fridays after work.
That'a a lot easier to believe than the long string of coincidences that Gizmodo's story requires.
I'm not missing the point. You guys are talking about a conspiracy that's about as likely as me winning the race for President in China.
This guy would have to convince the police that it was not only possible that he would find this, but that is was probable.
It's VERY doubtful to believe that a secretary, even assuming the unlikely story that a secretary would even know, would tell someone, even for money.
When Gizmodo, or other sites claim they have contacts, it means that one or two people will give them a small bit of information from time to time. It's dangerous to do just that.
I know a few people in Apple engineering, both hardware and software, who are in management positions. They've been friends for a long time. But I rarely ever get more than a hint of something, and mostly, not even that. Sometimes, a Mona Lise smile, or a slight cough, or a looking up into space is the most I'll get. These are really close friends, and I don't publish what little I do get, and they know I wouldn't. Still, that's the best I can do.
I think both your points are good, but clearly I've accidently obscured my larger point while trying to give an example. My intent was to illustrate how the seizure of property for evidence can sometimes benefit the person whose property was seized, by sequestering it from tampering by either plaintiff or defendant. And mel, you'll note that I myself acknowledged that a conspiracy to "hunt down" a phone was less plausible than the offering of money for one already found.
Although, if some third person from Apple knew that that engineer had the phone on him and then alerted the other two, they could have...
Nah!
I just don't believe it. This is a much bigger crime. It amounts to corporate espionage. This is serious. Much more so than a felony. I don't see it happening for such a small payback.
I'm not missing the point. You guys are talking about a conspiracy that's about as likely as me winning the race for President in China.
This guy would have to convince the police that it was not only possible that he would find this, but that is was probable.
It's VERY doubtful to believe that a secretary, even assuming the unlikely story that a secretary would even know, would tell someone, even for money.
When Gizmodo, or other sites claim they have contacts, it means that one or two people will give them a small bit of information from time to time. It's dangerous to do just that.
I know a few people in Apple engineering, both hardware and software, who are in management positions. They've been friends for a long time. But I rarely ever get more than a hint of something, and mostly, not even that. Sometimes, a Mona Lise smile, or a slight cough, or a looking up into space is the most I'll get. These are really close friends, and I don't publish what little I do get, and they know I wouldn't. Still, that's the best I can do.
What, you think that if your friends were out with a prototype they wouldn't tell you? or that if they were out it, they wouldn't notice some creeper checking them out or drifting in 10 inches from them peering over their shoulder? or that someone hired to go steal it for Giz would offer it first to Engadget and Wired so that they could more readily be identified?
(maybe it is just me, but even if I was drunk at a bar, I'd still notice some guy grinding up on me...I might even move away, even it I didn't have a top secret prototype in my pocket)
Shouldn't they have worked out this journalist issue before doing the seizure? Seems fishy to seize equipment to risk finding they cannot do anything with it but return it. A bungled investigation would feed right into Gawker's M.O.
Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.
That would be a smart move, but I think that the guys in Gizmodo think that they have the law on their side, and may have even kept the evidence to try to prove they acted as proper journalists.
Yes, but they could have removed the evidence from the seized computers and kept it "in an undisclosed location."
Huh!?!?! By what book??! The book that says go ahead and execute a search warrant FIRST and THEN figure out if it was LEGAL for them to actually do it?!?!
If I were to 'perform a questionably legal act' FIRST and THEN tried to determine if it was actually legal I would not be able to talk my way out of the situation like the Wagstaffe seems to have no problem getting away with.
By the book... that's a good one!
You seem to be arguing against your own point. If they look at the stuff, and later it is determined to be inadmissible, then the evidence is tainted and cannot be used even if admitted on appeal. By the book can also mean exercising great care to avoid shooting themselves in the foot.
What, you think that if your friends were out with a prototype they wouldn't tell you? or that if they were out it, they wouldn't notice some creeper checking them out or drifting in 10 inches from them peering over their shoulder? or that someone hired to go steal it for Giz would offer it first to Engadget and Wired so that they could more readily be identified?
(maybe it is just me, but even if I was drunk at a bar, I'd still notice some guy grinding up on me...I might even move away, even it I didn't have a top secret prototype in my pocket)
No, they wouldn't. I've signed a lot of NDA's, and have had a lot of others sign them. It's serious stuff. Sometimes some things leak out because the person wants to see the info out there while thinking "I did that!" But most people wouldn't.
Why would someone be peering over their shoulder in the first place? In a dark bar, you couldn't tell anyway.
I don't like the direction Apple is going in lately. It seems as though they're suing everyone lately.
I don't like the fact they fired an employee for showing Woz an ipod yet the moron who lost the Godphone starting this whole mess gets to keep his and now it's costing tax payers money. This moron deserves to be fired
I don't like the fact Apple sent their thugs to the guys house who found the Godphone. What right do Apple employees have to search someones home?
I don't like the fact Apple is suing HTC instead of Google. Why don't they pick on someone their own size. Are they afraid of Google?
I don't like the fact that The Steve feels a need to bash competitors products. I don't know any other company that does this to the degree Apple does. It shows a lack of class.
I don't like the fact that The Steve has become a bitter grumpy old man who tucks his sweater into his pants.
In their quest to overtake MS they've become MS only much more greedy and spitefull.
Since returning from his "hormonal problems" The Steve's behavior has been erratic and disturbing I honestly believe he's unstable and most likely Bi Polar.
So you're going to boycott Apple because they're the only one in the industry who creates anything worth stealing and they try to protect their designs?
Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.
Other than a couple of e-mails, found on the servers anyway, there should be no other evidence on the computers. They surely wouldn't keep records of; "One illegally obtained iPhone. Paid so and so $5,000 for it." Now, would they? That would be off the record. All news organizations, magazines and such have cash for these kinds of things.
actually there's a catch 22 here. if indeed the police retract the identity of the seller from Chen then he looses all credibility as a journalist as that's what the CA Shield Law is about, protecting your source. However in order to prove his innocence Chen will need the seller's to testify that Chen did indeed was not aware of the iPhone's dubious status.
But i do agree with the previous poster is that the authorities need to be absolutely clear of their purpose for a search warrant as this may reflect negatively to both the district office and Apple. You can't break into someone's property confiscating their belongings then try to justify it after the fact.
That Chen doesn't ID the seller is moot. The guy shopped it around to a number of people, any of whom could either identify him or at least point the cops in the right direction.
That Chen doesn't ID the seller is moot. The guy shopped it around to a number of people, any of whom could either identify him or at least point the cops in the right direction.
In fact, it's a lot simpler than that. He was supposed to have contacted Apple about it. Apple would have his identity. They didn't need the police or Chen to get it.
All of this fuss over a stolen iPhone. If one of us lost an iPhone and reported it to the police all that would happen is that the police would take a report and that would be the end of it. I doubt the police or anyone else would do more than take a report if one of us lost an iPhone. It certainly helps when you have lots of political influence.
Serious reductionism. This wasn't just any iPhone. It was an unreleased product. The damages incurred from the compromise of trade secrets is substantial. As opposed to the few hundred bucks the average joe would lose in the theft of a released product.
No, they wouldn't. I've signed a lot of NDA's, and have had a lot of others sign them. It's serious stuff. Sometimes some things leak out because the person wants to see the info out there while thinking "I did that!" But most people wouldn't.
Why would someone be peering over their shoulder in the first place? In a dark bar, you couldn't tell anyway.
if they were trying to get a good look at the phone to confirm it was the prototype they were told to steal, then looking over the shoulder would be the only way to see it well enough. Unless they took it out and were showing to complete strangers for fun.
if they were trying to get a good look at the phone to confirm it was the prototype they were told to steal, then looking over the shoulder would be the only way to see it well enough. Unless they took it out and were showing to complete strangers for fun.
Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?
Seriously? Your handle kinda speaks volumes about your analysis of this.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It was sarcasm. of course Giz didn't pay someone to steal the phone. That is in no way plausible. Just some James Bond fantasy about Chen that keeps getting spouted.
Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.
Where a lot of people make a mistake is thinking that deleting files from your computer actually deletes them. I would think that Chen is smart enough to know this. You must either encrypt the data or overwrite the sectors or else the authorities can retrieve it.
I just don't get it. I guess my life is pretty boring. We are talking about a phone right? a stupid phone! Some of you people need to get a life, get outside, enjoy the outdoors, get some exercise. A Phone! Daddy I lost my phone! Call the police!!!!
Comments
I feel the probable cause was already published by GIZ themselves. They had to have known when buying the phone that the phone was not received through proper channels... My understanding is that Engadget had the first opportunity to acquire the phone and wisely passed on it.
That doesn't sound very plausible. There're only a few of these handsets out there at any one time. Chen would have had to have this guy looking all over the area for one. How would he know when he saw one? remember that it was disguised. Only up close, in a bright area could that happen, and then only if he stared at the phone long enough to see the slight color difference where the camera is.
The engineer must have put it down, and then left. I suppose, depending on what was worn, this guy could have slipped it out of his jacket, assuming it was there. But I can't see Chen hiring a guy to go out and find one. It's like a needle in a haystack.
I think both your points are good, but clearly I've accidently obscured my larger point while trying to give an example. My intent was to illustrate how the seizure of property for evidence can sometimes benefit the person whose property was seized, by sequestering it from tampering by either plaintiff or defendant. And mel, you'll note that I myself acknowledged that a conspiracy to "hunt down" a phone was less plausible than the offering of money for one already found.
Although, if some third person from Apple knew that that engineer had the phone on him and then alerted the other two, they could have...
Nah!
You're missing one point. Gizmodo claims to have all sorts of inside information from sources within Apple (which, of course, makes it even more laughable that they didn't know how to return it).
It is not hard to imagine, for example, a secretary letting Gizmodo know that John Doe is an engineer who carries a prototype iPhone who's about 5'8", brown hair, slender and hangs around such and such bar, usually going there Fridays after work.
That'a a lot easier to believe than the long string of coincidences that Gizmodo's story requires.
I'm not missing the point. You guys are talking about a conspiracy that's about as likely as me winning the race for President in China.
This guy would have to convince the police that it was not only possible that he would find this, but that is was probable.
It's VERY doubtful to believe that a secretary, even assuming the unlikely story that a secretary would even know, would tell someone, even for money.
When Gizmodo, or other sites claim they have contacts, it means that one or two people will give them a small bit of information from time to time. It's dangerous to do just that.
I know a few people in Apple engineering, both hardware and software, who are in management positions. They've been friends for a long time. But I rarely ever get more than a hint of something, and mostly, not even that. Sometimes, a Mona Lise smile, or a slight cough, or a looking up into space is the most I'll get. These are really close friends, and I don't publish what little I do get, and they know I wouldn't. Still, that's the best I can do.
I think both your points are good, but clearly I've accidently obscured my larger point while trying to give an example. My intent was to illustrate how the seizure of property for evidence can sometimes benefit the person whose property was seized, by sequestering it from tampering by either plaintiff or defendant. And mel, you'll note that I myself acknowledged that a conspiracy to "hunt down" a phone was less plausible than the offering of money for one already found.
Although, if some third person from Apple knew that that engineer had the phone on him and then alerted the other two, they could have...
Nah!
I just don't believe it. This is a much bigger crime. It amounts to corporate espionage. This is serious. Much more so than a felony. I don't see it happening for such a small payback.
I'm not missing the point. You guys are talking about a conspiracy that's about as likely as me winning the race for President in China.
This guy would have to convince the police that it was not only possible that he would find this, but that is was probable.
It's VERY doubtful to believe that a secretary, even assuming the unlikely story that a secretary would even know, would tell someone, even for money.
When Gizmodo, or other sites claim they have contacts, it means that one or two people will give them a small bit of information from time to time. It's dangerous to do just that.
I know a few people in Apple engineering, both hardware and software, who are in management positions. They've been friends for a long time. But I rarely ever get more than a hint of something, and mostly, not even that. Sometimes, a Mona Lise smile, or a slight cough, or a looking up into space is the most I'll get. These are really close friends, and I don't publish what little I do get, and they know I wouldn't. Still, that's the best I can do.
What, you think that if your friends were out with a prototype they wouldn't tell you? or that if they were out it, they wouldn't notice some creeper checking them out or drifting in 10 inches from them peering over their shoulder? or that someone hired to go steal it for Giz would offer it first to Engadget and Wired so that they could more readily be identified?
(maybe it is just me, but even if I was drunk at a bar, I'd still notice some guy grinding up on me...I might even move away, even it I didn't have a top secret prototype in my pocket)
Shouldn't they have worked out this journalist issue before doing the seizure? Seems fishy to seize equipment to risk finding they cannot do anything with it but return it. A bungled investigation would feed right into Gawker's M.O.
Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.
That would be a smart move, but I think that the guys in Gizmodo think that they have the law on their side, and may have even kept the evidence to try to prove they acted as proper journalists.
Yes, but they could have removed the evidence from the seized computers and kept it "in an undisclosed location."
Clearly the training they received from the steering committee was inadequate.
Unless the AP Extreme had a hard drive plugged into it. Or maybe it was a Time Capsule and was misidentified.
Huh!?!?! By what book??! The book that says go ahead and execute a search warrant FIRST and THEN figure out if it was LEGAL for them to actually do it?!?!
If I were to 'perform a questionably legal act' FIRST and THEN tried to determine if it was actually legal I would not be able to talk my way out of the situation like the Wagstaffe seems to have no problem getting away with.
By the book... that's a good one!
You seem to be arguing against your own point. If they look at the stuff, and later it is determined to be inadmissible, then the evidence is tainted and cannot be used even if admitted on appeal. By the book can also mean exercising great care to avoid shooting themselves in the foot.
What, you think that if your friends were out with a prototype they wouldn't tell you? or that if they were out it, they wouldn't notice some creeper checking them out or drifting in 10 inches from them peering over their shoulder? or that someone hired to go steal it for Giz would offer it first to Engadget and Wired so that they could more readily be identified?
(maybe it is just me, but even if I was drunk at a bar, I'd still notice some guy grinding up on me...I might even move away, even it I didn't have a top secret prototype in my pocket)
No, they wouldn't. I've signed a lot of NDA's, and have had a lot of others sign them. It's serious stuff. Sometimes some things leak out because the person wants to see the info out there while thinking "I did that!" But most people wouldn't.
Why would someone be peering over their shoulder in the first place? In a dark bar, you couldn't tell anyway.
I don't like the direction Apple is going in lately. It seems as though they're suing everyone lately.
I don't like the fact they fired an employee for showing Woz an ipod yet the moron who lost the Godphone starting this whole mess gets to keep his and now it's costing tax payers money. This moron deserves to be fired
I don't like the fact Apple sent their thugs to the guys house who found the Godphone. What right do Apple employees have to search someones home?
I don't like the fact Apple is suing HTC instead of Google. Why don't they pick on someone their own size. Are they afraid of Google?
I don't like the fact that The Steve feels a need to bash competitors products. I don't know any other company that does this to the degree Apple does. It shows a lack of class.
I don't like the fact that The Steve has become a bitter grumpy old man who tucks his sweater into his pants.
In their quest to overtake MS they've become MS only much more greedy and spitefull.
Since returning from his "hormonal problems" The Steve's behavior has been erratic and disturbing I honestly believe he's unstable and most likely Bi Polar.
So you're going to boycott Apple because they're the only one in the industry who creates anything worth stealing and they try to protect their designs?
Whatever floats your boat.
Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.
Other than a couple of e-mails, found on the servers anyway, there should be no other evidence on the computers. They surely wouldn't keep records of; "One illegally obtained iPhone. Paid so and so $5,000 for it." Now, would they? That would be off the record. All news organizations, magazines and such have cash for these kinds of things.
actually there's a catch 22 here. if indeed the police retract the identity of the seller from Chen then he looses all credibility as a journalist as that's what the CA Shield Law is about, protecting your source. However in order to prove his innocence Chen will need the seller's to testify that Chen did indeed was not aware of the iPhone's dubious status.
But i do agree with the previous poster is that the authorities need to be absolutely clear of their purpose for a search warrant as this may reflect negatively to both the district office and Apple. You can't break into someone's property confiscating their belongings then try to justify it after the fact.
That Chen doesn't ID the seller is moot. The guy shopped it around to a number of people, any of whom could either identify him or at least point the cops in the right direction.
That Chen doesn't ID the seller is moot. The guy shopped it around to a number of people, any of whom could either identify him or at least point the cops in the right direction.
In fact, it's a lot simpler than that. He was supposed to have contacted Apple about it. Apple would have his identity. They didn't need the police or Chen to get it.
All of this fuss over a stolen iPhone. If one of us lost an iPhone and reported it to the police all that would happen is that the police would take a report and that would be the end of it. I doubt the police or anyone else would do more than take a report if one of us lost an iPhone. It certainly helps when you have lots of political influence.
Serious reductionism. This wasn't just any iPhone. It was an unreleased product. The damages incurred from the compromise of trade secrets is substantial. As opposed to the few hundred bucks the average joe would lose in the theft of a released product.
No, they wouldn't. I've signed a lot of NDA's, and have had a lot of others sign them. It's serious stuff. Sometimes some things leak out because the person wants to see the info out there while thinking "I did that!" But most people wouldn't.
Why would someone be peering over their shoulder in the first place? In a dark bar, you couldn't tell anyway.
if they were trying to get a good look at the phone to confirm it was the prototype they were told to steal, then looking over the shoulder would be the only way to see it well enough. Unless they took it out and were showing to complete strangers for fun.
if they were trying to get a good look at the phone to confirm it was the prototype they were told to steal, then looking over the shoulder would be the only way to see it well enough. Unless they took it out and were showing to complete strangers for fun.
Oh, come on! Really, this is getting too silly!
Was it, really ? I am not sure about all the facts and the TIMING, but the device has been returned to Apple after all. It is reported at the first try Apple refused to take the prototype back. Gizmodo gave it back voluntarily, the device was not seized from them. Is there any provision in the law that you need to return it to the original owner within 24 hours or so, otherwise it is considered stolen ?
Wander if someone visits 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino entrance hall and drops his phone there, and this phone is not returned to him immediately, the terminator force, or whatever is their name, comes and seize all equipment in the apple building ?
Seriously? Your handle kinda speaks volumes about your analysis of this.
Oh, come on! Really, this is getting too silly!
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It was sarcasm. of course Giz didn't pay someone to steal the phone. That is in no way plausible. Just some James Bond fantasy about Chen that keeps getting spouted.
next time I will add the <sarcasm> tag.
Not really. This prevents Chen from erasing incriminating evidence while a legal determination is made. This assumes he didn't erase it already.
Where a lot of people make a mistake is thinking that deleting files from your computer actually deletes them. I would think that Chen is smart enough to know this. You must either encrypt the data or overwrite the sectors or else the authorities can retrieve it.
I just don't get it. I guess my life is pretty boring. We are talking about a phone right? a stupid phone! Some of you people need to get a life, get outside, enjoy the outdoors, get some exercise. A Phone! Daddy I lost my phone! Call the police!!!!
Asked and answered. Many times.