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.
Don't be silly. All PR aside, there is a major factor that points to a programming error...
If Apple were tracking your movements they would stream that data to a server, not store it on your phone. Do you know why that is? Because if you did that for something like, "movement tracking", that file would become massive and when files become massive hard drives run out of space. Do you know what happens when hard drives run out of space? The devices that use them become unstable and when that happens YOU start asking questions and YOU might take it to a third party repair shop that might just find that file... not a very effective method of tracking now is it?
If an Apple employee does something at night without telling Apple and without Apple's approval, how is that Apple's fault?
If a Walmart employee robs your home, is that Walmart's fault?
Companies are responsible for acts of their employees committed in the line of work. So acts of an Apple employee doing something illegal in the course of his work (investigating a lost prototype; doesn't matter the hour of the day) would become Apple's responsibility.
A Walmart employee robbing your home would not be acting within the scope of his work, so Walmart would not be responsible.
My Cousin has been on the job for 20 years and has been promoted to detective and given commendation several times.
<insult removed>
Tulkas on ignore.
No wait, please come back. Would you mind giving us her name? No reason not to, right? Sorry you don't like your feeble arguments being so easily shown to be garbage.
(or are you still certain and will prove to the world that this was a hoax? lol)
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
Uh, whatever. Citadel isn't all that and a bag of chips. I know Ivy League grads who are now organic farmers in Vermont - is that less unlikely than a Citadel alum being a police sargeant? And who says he didn't graduate at the bottom of his class. Maybe one too many concussions as a football player, now him think not good and does dumb things like impersonating police officers...
This actually makes it a little more interesting, if a little less sensationalist for some of the posts on here today. So we have 4 (+/-) SFPD flashing badges, then 2 Apple employees go inside - if the Apple employees clearly IDed themselves as not being cops, no problem. But if they kept mum and let Calderon assume they were SFPD too, and went inside - then it starts getting into actionable territory.
If those officers were acting in their on-duty official capacities, investigating a reported theft, why would they stay outside and rely on the second hand report of Apple security people on what was said, found or seen. Not at all a likely scenario, with no witness to what actually takes place behind closed doors. Nothing that a police department would sanction, so this new report doesn't smell right at all.
Now if they were off-duty and there as "show", badges and all, to intimidate the homeowner, which seems entirely plausible . . .
This actually makes it a little more interesting, if a little less sensationalist for some of the posts on here today. So we have 4 (+/-) SFPD flashing badges, then 2 Apple employees go inside - if the Apple employees clearly IDed themselves as not being cops, no problem. But if they kept mum and let Calderon assume they were SFPD too, and went inside - then it starts getting into actionable territory.
Very possible they didn't ID themselves as Apple employees, or maybe they did. In either case, showing up with legal muscle in the form of the SFPD, a non-subtle way to intimidate someone, I would suggest there is still a problem. The fact that those officers deliberately choose to keep it off the books and further did not come forward when the department was openly seeking info, shows they knew there was a problem.
Well, now that the PD says "yeah, we were there", it throws any allegations of someone impersonating a law officer out the window. If nothing against the law happened there, plus the guy let them in and agreed to the search, then essentially no laws were broken with regards to this search at all. Why the cops said "wasn't us" and then changed their story to "whoops, yeah, we were there" is a separate thing that might come back to bug them later, but that won't mean anything for Apple. What this means to me is that Apple will not be subject to any legal ramifications from this search at all. PR ramifications though, that's another thing entirely...
I have a clue. You do not. My clue comes from four decades of news editing experience - separating quality news sourcing and reporting from unsubstantiated rumor mongering. Because of the proliferation of substandard reporting like this, it's no accident that the current title of the Associated Press Stylebook now reads "The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual."
Sloppy reporting and smarmy disclaimers like "allegedly" and "reportedly" used in this so-called news report are not an effective legal shield if committing libel. Nor are these "pat terms" as you call them defenses for willfully and knowingly distributing false and defamatory information.
Sad, but true. In today's age, Woodward and Bernstein would stop at "reportedly Nixon campaign is embroiled in alleged break-in at Watergate Hotel."
Comments
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.
Don't be silly. All PR aside, there is a major factor that points to a programming error...
If Apple were tracking your movements they would stream that data to a server, not store it on your phone. Do you know why that is? Because if you did that for something like, "movement tracking", that file would become massive and when files become massive hard drives run out of space. Do you know what happens when hard drives run out of space? The devices that use them become unstable and when that happens YOU start asking questions and YOU might take it to a third party repair shop that might just find that file... not a very effective method of tracking now is it?
After repeatedly claiming no knowledge and no involvement in this fiasco, San Fran police now admit they were there.
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ple_police.php
(sigh)
possible. but highly unlikely.
you iPhanboys are something else.
Ugh. You're way off-base.
Get lost. Get a life.
If an Apple employee does something at night without telling Apple and without Apple's approval, how is that Apple's fault?
If a Walmart employee robs your home, is that Walmart's fault?
Companies are responsible for acts of their employees committed in the line of work. So acts of an Apple employee doing something illegal in the course of his work (investigating a lost prototype; doesn't matter the hour of the day) would become Apple's responsibility.
A Walmart employee robbing your home would not be acting within the scope of his work, so Walmart would not be responsible.
(sigh)
Don't be sad adda. Your time travel theory could still work out.
Some police can choose to list their numbers. <insult removed>
My Cousin has been on the job for 20 years and has been promoted to detective and given commendation several times.
<insult removed>
Tulkas on ignore.
Thankfully the federal court recently clarified that issue:
Federal Courts Rule it is Not Illegal to Film Police
http://technorati.com/technology/art...ule-it-is-not/
It may not stop them from beating you up, but it'll increase the size of your settlement.
Excellent link, thank you!
My Cousin has been on the job for 20 years and has been promoted to detective and given commendation several times.
<insult removed>
Tulkas on ignore.
No wait, please come back. Would you mind giving us her name? No reason not to, right? Sorry you don't like your feeble arguments being so easily shown to be garbage.
(or are you still certain and will prove to the world that this was a hoax? lol)
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
Uh, whatever. Citadel isn't all that and a bag of chips. I know Ivy League grads who are now organic farmers in Vermont - is that less unlikely than a Citadel alum being a police sargeant? And who says he didn't graduate at the bottom of his class. Maybe one too many concussions as a football player, now him think not good and does dumb things like impersonating police officers...
Looks like I called it earlier:
San Francisco Police Now Admit Participating in Search for Lost iPhone 5
http://gizmodo.com/5837072/san-franc...-lost-iphone-5
SF police confirm search for lost, unreleased iPhone
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...?tag=cnetRiver
I hope everyone else reads these links... or it'll be just like the Schmidt thread earlier in the day....
Looks like I called it earlier:
San Francisco Police Now Admit Participating in Search for Lost iPhone 5
http://gizmodo.com/5837072/san-franc...-lost-iphone-5
SF police confirm search for lost, unreleased iPhone
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...?tag=cnetRiver
Yes you did. Raises suspicions even more IMHO.
Looks like I called it earlier:
San Francisco Police Now Admit Participating in Search for Lost iPhone 5
http://gizmodo.com/5837072/san-franc...-lost-iphone-5
SF police confirm search for lost, unreleased iPhone
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20...?tag=cnetRiver
This actually makes it a little more interesting, if a little less sensationalist for some of the posts on here today. So we have 4 (+/-) SFPD flashing badges, then 2 Apple employees go inside - if the Apple employees clearly IDed themselves as not being cops, no problem. But if they kept mum and let Calderon assume they were SFPD too, and went inside - then it starts getting into actionable territory.
Now if they were off-duty and there as "show", badges and all, to intimidate the homeowner, which seems entirely plausible . . .
This actually makes it a little more interesting, if a little less sensationalist for some of the posts on here today. So we have 4 (+/-) SFPD flashing badges, then 2 Apple employees go inside - if the Apple employees clearly IDed themselves as not being cops, no problem. But if they kept mum and let Calderon assume they were SFPD too, and went inside - then it starts getting into actionable territory.
Very possible they didn't ID themselves as Apple employees, or maybe they did. In either case, showing up with legal muscle in the form of the SFPD, a non-subtle way to intimidate someone, I would suggest there is still a problem. The fact that those officers deliberately choose to keep it off the books and further did not come forward when the department was openly seeking info, shows they knew there was a problem.
Or it's a hoax.
I have a clue. You do not. My clue comes from four decades of news editing experience - separating quality news sourcing and reporting from unsubstantiated rumor mongering. Because of the proliferation of substandard reporting like this, it's no accident that the current title of the Associated Press Stylebook now reads "The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual."
Sloppy reporting and smarmy disclaimers like "allegedly" and "reportedly" used in this so-called news report are not an effective legal shield if committing libel. Nor are these "pat terms" as you call them defenses for willfully and knowingly distributing false and defamatory information.
Sad, but true. In today's age, Woodward and Bernstein would stop at "reportedly Nixon campaign is embroiled in alleged break-in at Watergate Hotel."