What? They are reporting the story. What the victim is saying, what the SFPD are saying and what Apple is not saying. When news breaks, you report it. You have to use the pat terms to make sure you are not falsely accusing anyone and to make clear that what is being reported is only what is being said You sir need a clue.
The reporter is supposed to verify stuff before they print it, by calling witnesses and police themselves. Then they don't need weasel words like "reportedly" and "allegedly" everywhere.
The San Francisco Police Department has said it has no record of a formal investigation into yet another missing prototype iPhone. In addition, the man whose home was searched claims people impersonating police offers came into his residence, with evidence suggesting one of the individuals was an Apple-employed "senior investigator."...
It's worth noting that all of this recent information seems to come from the guy who stole/appropriated the prototype, so it's not likely to be very believable. It sounds remarkably similar to the claims made by the guy that stole the other prototype which were also walked significantly back by the time it all went to court.
If someone is going to steal an iPhone prototype, how stupid and/or unreliable is he likely to be?
It's standard procedure that Apple would hire private investigators in a case like this so that part sounds realistic to me. The investigator could have pretended to be a cop, and that would of course be wrong. It doesn't seem too likely to me though, and if he did in fact do that, he's going to be fired and Apple is likely at enough of a distance from the act to not be liable for whatever some private detective did or didn't do.
I think it likely that the investigator merely implied they were police and that the idiot thief is just panicking and saying stuff that he believed to be true but isn't actually true. Remember that the detective/investigator is well aware of the law and where the line is in regards what he can say or do and the thief is likely not.
Seems [BApplezilla[/B] has the most likely call here so far. Probably a setup by somebody to create some bad Apple news, not necessarily Gizmodo, though.
Gatorguy, check your swallow reflex.
My father was a police officer. He felt that when presented with conflicting stories, the most simple explanation was generally the one closer to the truth. It seems you'd find a secret plan by CNET and others to plant a bogus Apple Investigator profile on Linkedin, invent a bogus story about a missing iPhone some months later, bribe some guy to claim his home was invaded by Apple security personnel and possible posing as police officers, then tell the fake Apple Investigator to pull his profile to add to the suspicions, to be more believable than Apple actually looking for a lost phone, leaving no rock unturned.
The reporter is supposed to verify stuff before they print it, by calling witnesses and police themselves. Then they don't need weasel words like "reportedly" and "allegedly" everywhere.
Wow, the level of ignorance is astounding. How do you verify what someone said? The victim said this occurred, read his mind, polygraph? Really? Have you read the story, they did call the police and the police said they have no knowledge. So they should now polygraph the police? news is just that news and they are reporting it. It is up to the reader to determine how much of it, if any, they choose to believe. It is apparent though that some people do not have the brain capacity to make this determination and needs everything spelled out, cross checked, verified, proofed and blessed off by god before it is released So maybe sometime next year when the iPhone 6 comes out we may have this story.
As long as we're being very careful in our fact-finding, did you come across some clear evidence that this man actually stole the phone, or did you mean to include "allegedly"?
Funny how so many here can pick fly shit from pepper to defend Apple, but will damn others to jail time and even hell itself with nothing more than the loosest of rumors.
It's worth noting that all of this recent information seems to come from the guy who stole/appropriated the prototype, so it's not likely to be very believable. It sounds remarkably similar to the claims made by the guy that stole the other prototype which were also walked significantly back by the time it all went to court.
If someone is going to steal an iPhone prototype, how stupid and/or unreliable is he likely to be?
A few days ago nearly every regular here who offered an opinion said they didn't believe there ever was a missing iPhone didn't they? Now Apple security is looking for a phone that wasn't ever missing to begin with? I'll say it again.: There's a lot of smoke hanging in the air. That doesn't mean there's a fire, but it does mean you should look.
The article doesn't state whether or not the cops (or guys saying they were cops but lying) produced a warrant when they showed up at his door. Whether it was the real cops or not, this guy should never have let them in the door or even answered a single question if they did not produce a warrant. Even if they DID have a warrant (which would have meant they were real law enforcement of SOME kind, otherwise the warrant would be a forgery, and that's a pretty deep rabbit hole), that still doesn't mean he had to answer any questions. Know your rights people! I'm sure it would be suuuuuper intimidating if you're a person who's never had a run in with the law in any way before and had a gang of guys, not just one guy, show up at your door, but you've got to try to keep your wits about you and stick by your guns in these situations. If there's no warrant, then do NOT allow any entry into my home, or the searching of anything. And if they don't place you under arrest, don't answer ANY questions. Of course, even if they do arrest you, don't answer any questions until you've got a lawyer physically with you, not just on the phone, and even then, let him do the talking. Basically, even if you're an innocent law abiding citizen, it's in your best interest to have an absolute "screw all police" attitude.
If these guys misrepresented themselves, and even if they are real law enforcement working in conjunction with apple security guys, but not in any way part of the SFPD, and they DID indeed say they were SFPD, then the shit will hit the fan. That's super duper felony stuff right there on top of a gigantic civil case. The shit will roll UPhill, and just like the Murdoch phone hacking stuff in the UK, the public will NOT believe that the Apple higher ups did not know anything about it.
All in all, still not enough information to come to any conclusions yet.
Apple was already caught red handed tracking people's movements and gathering the data without them knowing
That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. But please, keep repeating the position of the misinformed, that way, people will know to ignore your posts.
My father was a police officer. He felt that when presented with conflicting stories, the most simple explanation was generally the one closer to the truth. It seems you'd find a secret plan by CNET and others to plant a bogus Apple Investigator profile on Linkedin, invent a bogus story about a missing iPhone some months later, bribe some guy to claim his home was invaded by Apple security personnel and possible posing as police officers, then tell the fake Apple Investigator to pull his profile to add to the suspicions, to be more believable than Apple actually looking for a lost phone, leaving no rock unturned.
Becareful there.......you are starting to make too much sense.....
If this is true... wow. No amount of PR would save Apple from the resulting fallout.
Apple was already caught red handed tracking people's movements and gathering the data without them knowing - so maybe they are brazen enough to impersonate police.
- those who believe the BS PR that it was a programing 'glitch', I suggest you read up on the trial briefings. It was no glitch.
Comments
Could have just been part of REACT - REACT, Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team
That seems like the logical explanation. The same people Apple worked with when the iPhone 4 prototype was stolen.
What? They are reporting the story. What the victim is saying, what the SFPD are saying and what Apple is not saying. When news breaks, you report it. You have to use the pat terms to make sure you are not falsely accusing anyone and to make clear that what is being reported is only what is being said You sir need a clue.
The reporter is supposed to verify stuff before they print it, by calling witnesses and police themselves. Then they don't need weasel words like "reportedly" and "allegedly" everywhere.
The San Francisco Police Department has said it has no record of a formal investigation into yet another missing prototype iPhone. In addition, the man whose home was searched claims people impersonating police offers came into his residence, with evidence suggesting one of the individuals was an Apple-employed "senior investigator."...
It's worth noting that all of this recent information seems to come from the guy who stole/appropriated the prototype, so it's not likely to be very believable. It sounds remarkably similar to the claims made by the guy that stole the other prototype which were also walked significantly back by the time it all went to court.
If someone is going to steal an iPhone prototype, how stupid and/or unreliable is he likely to be?
It's standard procedure that Apple would hire private investigators in a case like this so that part sounds realistic to me. The investigator could have pretended to be a cop, and that would of course be wrong. It doesn't seem too likely to me though, and if he did in fact do that, he's going to be fired and Apple is likely at enough of a distance from the act to not be liable for whatever some private detective did or didn't do.
I think it likely that the investigator merely implied they were police and that the idiot thief is just panicking and saying stuff that he believed to be true but isn't actually true. Remember that the detective/investigator is well aware of the law and where the line is in regards what he can say or do and the thief is likely not.
"If this guy is saying that people said they were SFPD, that's a big deal."
He's not kidding. If even a fraction of this is true, Apple is in big trouble.
On the other hand, Sergio Calderon could be lying about the whole incident. But I'm not sure what his motives would be.
Maybe Sergio is trying to sell clicks for his blog?
Seems [BApplezilla[/B] has the most likely call here so far. Probably a setup by somebody to create some bad Apple news, not necessarily Gizmodo, though.
Gatorguy, check your swallow reflex.
My father was a police officer. He felt that when presented with conflicting stories, the most simple explanation was generally the one closer to the truth. It seems you'd find a secret plan by CNET and others to plant a bogus Apple Investigator profile on Linkedin, invent a bogus story about a missing iPhone some months later, bribe some guy to claim his home was invaded by Apple security personnel and possible posing as police officers, then tell the fake Apple Investigator to pull his profile to add to the suspicions, to be more believable than Apple actually looking for a lost phone, leaving no rock unturned.
The reporter is supposed to verify stuff before they print it, by calling witnesses and police themselves. Then they don't need weasel words like "reportedly" and "allegedly" everywhere.
Wow, the level of ignorance is astounding. How do you verify what someone said? The victim said this occurred, read his mind, polygraph? Really? Have you read the story, they did call the police and the police said they have no knowledge. So they should now polygraph the police?
As long as we're being very careful in our fact-finding, did you come across some clear evidence that this man actually stole the phone, or did you mean to include "allegedly"?
Funny how so many here can pick fly shit from pepper to defend Apple, but will damn others to jail time and even hell itself with nothing more than the loosest of rumors.
Thank you.
It's worth noting that all of this recent information seems to come from the guy who stole/appropriated the prototype, so it's not likely to be very believable. It sounds remarkably similar to the claims made by the guy that stole the other prototype which were also walked significantly back by the time it all went to court.
If someone is going to steal an iPhone prototype, how stupid and/or unreliable is he likely to be?
A few days ago nearly every regular here who offered an opinion said they didn't believe there ever was a missing iPhone didn't they? Now Apple security is looking for a phone that wasn't ever missing to begin with? I'll say it again.: There's a lot of smoke hanging in the air. That doesn't mean there's a fire, but it does mean you should look.
If these guys misrepresented themselves, and even if they are real law enforcement working in conjunction with apple security guys, but not in any way part of the SFPD, and they DID indeed say they were SFPD, then the shit will hit the fan. That's super duper felony stuff right there on top of a gigantic civil case. The shit will roll UPhill, and just like the Murdoch phone hacking stuff in the UK, the public will NOT believe that the Apple higher ups did not know anything about it.
All in all, still not enough information to come to any conclusions yet.
Apple was already caught red handed tracking people's movements and gathering the data without them knowing
That is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. But please, keep repeating the position of the misinformed, that way, people will know to ignore your posts.
-kpluck
My father was a police officer. He felt that when presented with conflicting stories, the most simple explanation was generally the one closer to the truth. It seems you'd find a secret plan by CNET and others to plant a bogus Apple Investigator profile on Linkedin, invent a bogus story about a missing iPhone some months later, bribe some guy to claim his home was invaded by Apple security personnel and possible posing as police officers, then tell the fake Apple Investigator to pull his profile to add to the suspicions, to be more believable than Apple actually looking for a lost phone, leaving no rock unturned.
Becareful there.......you are starting to make too much sense.....
If this is true... wow. No amount of PR would save Apple from the resulting fallout.
Apple was already caught red handed tracking people's movements and gathering the data without them knowing - so maybe they are brazen enough to impersonate police.
- those who believe the BS PR that it was a programing 'glitch', I suggest you read up on the trial briefings. It was no glitch.
quit misrepresenting what actually happened.