DA Presses Charges in Lost iPhone Case

You are all missing a caveat here. This is an iPhone, which is a GSM phone, meaning it has a SIM card which tells you who the Provider is (not to mention you can punch in, I think #3 or *3 and universally be connected with the provider's support line) so all the guy had to do if he was legit as contact the cellular provider and say "I found this phone, the SIM# is 123456" and they would have arranged for him to deliver it to an AT&T store where they would then return it to it's owner.

Also, as stated he could have turned the phone over the the manager on duty (but for sake of argument, maybe he didn't think of that at the time and/or figured the owner would just sell the phone despite this (which is sadly quite common))

The guy obviously was trying to get something out of apple (either information, $$$, or something else) by trying to force them to admit it was a prototype iPhone4. He was NOT being a "good Samaritan"

Of course it is *possible* that the guy was just an idiot... if he had found a Samsung phone, would he have called Samsung??

The phone bricked itself.
 
Here is the story: http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone


"He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.

He thought that eventually the ticket would move up high enough and that he would receive a call back, but his phone never rang. What should he be expected to do then? Walk into an Apple store and give the shiny, new device to a 20-year-old who might just end up selling it on eBay?"

So why did he not just take the thing to Apple's headquarters himself, and turned it over to them there? It's obvious he knew where it was located, so why call them instead?
 
So why did he not just take the thing to Apple's headquarters himself, and turned it over to them there? It's obvious he knew where it was located, so why call them instead?

Could have turned it in to the police.
 
The point being that there are tons of ways he could have returned it but chose to sell it to Gawker instead.
 
The point being that there are tons of ways he could have returned it but chose to sell it to Gawker instead.

The counterpoint is that he DID make an effort to return it, and was turned down, so it's no longer a case of theft.
 
The counterpoint is that he DID make an effort to return it, and was turned down, so it's no longer a case of theft.

As I said, *if* this is true, it could be used as a defense. Where does this "fact" originate from?
 
The only "facts" we have on the case are what the media has reported on. His attempts to return the phone have been widely reported upon so much so that I'm hard pressed to understand how you can interact in this thread and not have read elsewhere that he at least made a few crude attempts to return it to Apple.

For all your defense of the DA's actions, I haven't seen you give an explanation for why the person selling the iPhone is being held accountable for theft but not Gizmodo for buying it. If you want to promote the idea that everything is on the up and up in the way this case is being handled I think you should clarify why you believe what appears to be a double standard to lay persons is not the situation.
 
The only "facts" we have on the case are what the media has reported on. His attempts to return the phone have been widely reported upon so much so that I'm hard pressed to understand how you can interact in this thread and not have read elsewhere that he at least made a few crude attempts to return it to Apple.

For all your defense of the DA's actions, I haven't seen you give an explanation for why the person selling the iPhone is being held accountable for theft but not Gizmodo for buying it. If you want to promote the idea that everything is on the up and up in the way this case is being handled I think you should clarify why you believe what appears to be a double standard to lay persons is not the situation.

Well... I read the arrest warrant which is the only document out there, the media included, the someone is held accountable for if they are not telling the truth. As I said.... where does the fact come from. I have read the media accounts, but no source.

To answer your second question, I guess you are not familiar with the issue regarding the 1st Amendment and the rules that protect journalists. There is an entire body of law on the subject should you want to educate yourself. It is the type of thorny issue that one wants to avoid in a criminal case as the burden of proof is so high and the issue difficult even for those who deal with the issue of new media/journalism shield laws/the line between criminality and reporting. It is more of a policy issue that needs to be discussed and legislated in the public forum thus giving clear guidelines for all involved.

SMDA made the right call not stepping into the morass by not charging Gizmodo.
 
Well... I read the arrest warrant which is the only document out there, the media included, the someone is held accountable for if they are not telling the truth. As I said.... where does the fact come from. I have read the media accounts, but no source.

To answer your second question, I guess you are not familiar with the issue regarding the 1st Amendment and the rules that protect journalists. There is an entire body of law on the subject should you want to educate yourself. It is the type of thorny issue that one wants to avoid in a criminal case as the burden of proof is so high and the issue difficult even for those who deal with the issue of new media/journalism shield laws/the line between criminality and reporting. It is more of a policy issue that needs to be discussed and legislated in the public forum thus giving clear guidelines for all involved.

SMDA made the right call not stepping into the morass by not charging Gizmodo.
I'm actually well educated on the issue. In fact, I'm educated enough on the topic that I may have been your professor, if you in fact hold a JD.

Any follow up regarding either of our credentials should probably be taken to PM's instead of cluttering up the thread.


The investigation leading up to the charges undermines your position that the issue is as clear cut as you're trying to portray in this thread, however. Gizmodo was certainly more concerned and not without good reason since that large body of law you are suggesting exists certainly does not shield journalists from prosecution when they knowingly engage in illegal behavior.

Yours is an interesting way to try and discuss the issue. Rather, your response reads as an apologist for the prosecutor's questionable behavior by charging one party of the "theft" and not the receiver--who were much more clear in their attempts to extort Apple.
 
I'm actually well educated on the issue. In fact, I'm educated enough on the topic that I may have been your professor, if you in fact hold a JD.

Any follow up regarding either of our credentials should probably be taken to PM's instead of cluttering up the thread.


The investigation leading up to the charges undermines your position that the issue is as clear cut as you're trying to portray in this thread, however. Gizmodo was certainly more concerned and not without good reason since that large body of law you are suggesting exists certainly does not shield journalists from prosecution when they knowingly engage in illegal behavior.

Yours is an interesting way to try and discuss the issue. Rather, your response reads as an apologist for the prosecutor's questionable behavior by charging one party of the "theft" and not the receiver--who were much more clear in their attempts to extort Apple.

Please. I'd love to hear your expertise on this. I'll PM you.
 
Back
Top