Police Seize Gizmodo Editor’s Computers

[pgaster]

You guys seem to forget that the guy who found the phone did check it out and found the Apple engineer's Facebook page. The finder called Apple, but did he ever try to contact the Apple engineer directly? If not, why not? He had the dude's name.
Some of you might also remember this old school way of finding people, it's called a phone book. How about giving one of those a look?

Either the finder was just trying to make it look like he made an attempt to return it or he wasn't very smart.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

The only problem with that argument is that both the guy who sold the iPhone and Gawker clearly thought it was real and there forth the value argument of thinking its a knockoff goes out the window. If the dude didn't think it was the real deal then he would have no basis for being able to sell it If Gawker didn't believe that it could be real they wouldn't have bought it. Plus I'm pretty sure the guy who sold it said it worked when he originally picked it up so he damn well knew what it was.

But by that reasoning, if Gizmodo had opened the phone and discovered it was a just a broken knock off-of an iPhone, or a kid's toy with no connectivity ever, then it would still be worth $5000 because one person had paid that much for it?

It doesn't work like that. Apple had nothing on the phone to indicate that they owned it or that it was a genuine prototype, and they did not respond to inquiries that it had been found. There was no substantive evidence to conclude it was a genuine prototype or even Apple's property, and therefore no reason to believe it was worth more than $100 regardless of what someone was willing to pay for it on speculation that it was something else.

 

[thesmokingman]

Fuck you Apple.

 

[Ripskin]

(Skimmed most of the thread, but did not actively read all 7 pages...)

The original guy who sold the phone is the one that is at fault for not trying to get the owner. By his admission (At least what was reported) the phone had information and a face book account of the guy who lost it. The next day the phone was remotely wiped so it was a shell missing all major information by the time Giz got it.

Also, Giz was not positive that it was the real thing until they had it and could take it apart. I am sure they went back and forth with the guy before buying the thing. A site like that would never get tips or information on upcoming equipment that is false...

I can see why the police would raid that persons home as he reported the article and most likely had the phone at his house instead of at the office.

But taking all of his computer equipment and user manuals seems pointless for this type of deal. They might be trying to search his emails (stored online?) with the guy they bought it from to see if they looked into the legalities of any of it. But they couldn't really corroborate the story until they knew the thing was legit and everything started to unfold with Apple wanting it back etc.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

Incorrect. He had proof that it was real because the phone worked when he picked it up from the bar. The phone was fully functioning originally.

As I remember the story, he played around with it a little bit but didn't make any calls. He knew it had something that looked like reports of the iPhone 4 OS, but again - it wasn't working by the time he tried to turn it on again in the morning.

Was that proof that this was a secret prototype of the new iPhone? Unless this guy has inside knowledge of Apple, how could he possibly know what it really was?

I keep thinking of how totally ridiculous Apple's claims are if you try to apply it to anything else. If you found an unfamiliar Intel CPU that wasn't marked externally as a prototype (the way they really do mark their new chips) and it stopped working after you booted it once, how could you know what it was? If you could get Kyle (really drunk and then get him) to give you five grand for it, more power to you, but it doesn't prove anything about what it is, or what it's worth to anyone other than Kyle.

 

[HOCP4ME]

I bet apple has plenty of documentation to prove how much that pre-production phone cost them to build. He obviously knew what he had, since it ran over to gizmodo and sold it for a pretty hefty sum of cash.

Nah, Apple couldn't use that in court. We all know iPhones cost less than $200 to build.

 

[OkToBeR[hocp]]

Depends on if the return attempt can be considered a reasonable attempt. Personally I wouldn't consider calling some tech support monkey as being a reasonable attempt, especially since he knew the name of the guy who lost it AND had his Facebook info. He could have sent the guy a message on Facebook telling him he had his phone.

Like I stated, this is one of the two possible bases for a case. Keep in mind, the said owner of the phone himself may have acted irresponsibly as well. He did after all lose a prototype phone. Who knows his motives and what potential ramifications he feared for losing it and perhaps acted irrationally by not answering requests for the return of the phone in fear that the news that it got out would be bad enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but there are three parties. The original owner, the finder, and then Gizmodo/Gawker. At the current time it appears that only one of those three are being investigated heavily. And the case against Gizmodo/Gawker is slim at best.

 

[Disposed]

Read the statute again.

He actually did do what was required by law. He took possession of it, and since the owner was known, contacted them and said, "Hey I have this, how can I return it".

There's NO requirement in the law that I see that says "If you find something in a bar you have to leave it with the bartender". Care to point that line out to me?

IANAL but looks to me that the only problem was that he (the original finder) transfered it to Gizmodo. Gizmodo made Apple aware they had it, and said "send us an official letter and we'll send it back". After all they wanted to make sure it got back to the rightful owner.

This is just an Apple strong arm tactic.

No he did not, i dont know what part is unclear about that the statute to you but he did absolutely nothing he should have done. You should probably read it again for yourself.

Obviously calling apple would get him nowhere which is why he should have taken the phone directly to the fucking police like the LAW SAYS.

2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the
property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more,
within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police
department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to
the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city
limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she
found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the
property was saved, the affidavit shall state:

No matter how you look at it he had no right to sell it and its pretty clear doing so was illegal.

If apple employees where giving him the run around when he called he should have turned it over to the police.

If you lost your phone and whoever found it called your work and didnt find you does that make the phone all of a sudden his?

 

[prtzlboy]

Define the meaning of reasonable time to contact the owner. Is it reasonable if you don't give it your best to find the owner? I mean, you also have other things to do in your daily life. Do you need to take a leave just to find the owner or it is reasonable for you to wait until the weekend to find the owner?

If you're so damn busy, don't pick up the phone. Or, if you do pick up the phone, give it to whoever runs the establishment in which it's been left. You know, the same thing any reasonable person (who didn't intend to steal the phone in the first place) would do.

I don't really see how anyone can defend Chen or Gawker here, unless they were somehow truly ignorant of the circumstances in which the phone was acquired--which I highly doubt.

They are probably really after the person who took the phone in the first place, anyway. In this case, that person is not a "source," they're a "thief."

This really has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. The fact that it's Apple's next iPhone just makes it more sensational.

 

[prtzlboy]

As I remember the story, he played around with it a little bit but didn't make any calls. He knew it had something that looked like reports of the iPhone 4 OS, but again - it wasn't working by the time he tried to turn it on again in the morning.

Was that proof that this was a secret prototype of the new iPhone? Unless this guy has inside knowledge of Apple, how could he possibly know what it really was?

I keep thinking of how totally ridiculous Apple's claims are if you try to apply it to anything else. If you found an unfamiliar Intel CPU that wasn't marked externally as a prototype (the way they really do mark their new chips) and it stopped working after you booted it once, how could you know what it was? If you could get Kyle (really drunk and then get him) to give you five grand for it, more power to you, but it doesn't prove anything about what it is, or what it's worth to anyone other than Kyle.

I don't think Kyle would pay $5000 for something like that. That's just not the way it's done. Anyone with scruples would smell something fishy and walk away.

 

[krotch]

He should have just gotten with the guy, teared up the phone, took pictures, posted it, but not actually buy the phone. Viola! In the clear.

 

[prtzlboy]

Well, let me ask you this: You lose your phone. The person who finds it contacts you and you don't reply for weeks. Then you contact them finally, and they say they sold it because you showed no interest in it. They give you the contact information for the person who bought it off them from Ebay. You contact the 2nd person, and the 2nd person IMMEDIATELY offers to give it back to you. You meet them and they return it as promised.

Now, do you honestly think you can call the cops, and they'll go and break down the door (LITERALLY) of that 2nd person, then take every electronic gadget they have for 'evidence'? I don't think so, and I doubt you do either. Clearly the cops are doing things differently because Apple's involved rather than an ordinary citizen.

Lol, actually, yeah I think that I could make that happen. If the 2nd person posts pics on the internet and admits they bought stolen property, I do believe it would be pretty easy to get a warrant to seize anything that might provide evidence of the person who stole it in the first place.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

If Apple really has no case and every charge is dropped due to lack of evidence then all accused parties have the ability to counter sue. Not exactly the smartest tactic considering the small amount of evidence we've seen already.

The D.A. is acting on behalf of Apple, that's apparent. I only see one of two things being the basis for these charges. Either it was never attempted to be returned or the purchaser knowingly bought a stolen good. Both of which appear to be false. There's not much else they can be charged with.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, I seriously doubt if Apple's lawyers are dumb enough to file a blatantly false report with the police. But there's a ton of gray area short of that where they can tell the police what they need to hear to move forward against Chen and Gizmodo. They can paint a picture where they say that their internal investigation so far says that this is a case of theft and industrial espionage instead of an engineer losing a phone in a bar. As long as they don't make any declarative statements they can leave themselves room for evidence to be discovered later that shows it was nothing like what they told the cops.

It's not just the DA that is doing Apple's bidding. That is happening. Show me any county or city government where the prosecutor or DA isn't on a first-name basis with the business leaders in the community, and I'll eat a hat. If an executive at Apple calls the San Mateo DA's office, someone at the top of the food chain is going to take the call. It's even worse at the law enforcement level, where corporate security is staffed by retired officers from the departments they are most likely to interact with, and where a lot of current officers would like to work after they get their pension.

Apple is infamous for being in control of their messaging and roll outs, and this is the biggest bedshit they've ever had. They are going to push every lever they can get their hands on to punish Gizmodo and whoever found this phone.

I really think this is about forcing Gawker/Gizmodo to spend a lot of money on legal fees and tie them up in court. I think they want to wipe out any money Gawker made off this story, and they want to send a clear message to any other bloggers who get a chance in the future to break an exclusive on a new Apple product: Write unauthorized Apple stories and risk of the police taking down your door in and confiscating your computers. Regardless of where this case goes from here (my bet is that it doesn't go much further) that message has been sent loud and clear.

 

[Derangel]

But by that reasoning, if Gizmodo had opened the phone and discovered it was a just a broken knock off-of an iPhone, or a kid's toy with no connectivity ever, then it would still be worth $5000 because one person had paid that much for it?

It doesn't work like that. Apple had nothing on the phone to indicate that they owned it or that it was a genuine prototype, and they did not respond to inquiries that it had been found. There was no substantive evidence to conclude it was a genuine prototype or even Apple's property, and therefore no reason to believe it was worth more than $100 regardless of what someone was willing to pay for it on speculation that it was something else.

Thats really boarding on straw man logic. You're argument doesn't hold much water in the fact that only a complete idiot would believe that a prototype iPhone was worth under $100. And he quit clearly believed that he had a prototype iPhone. Which really kills the value argument. Beyond that, ignorance is not excuse in the eyes of the law.

As I remember the story, he played around with it a little bit but didn't make any calls. He knew it had something that looked like reports of the iPhone 4 OS, but again - it wasn't working by the time he tried to turn it on again in the morning.

Was that proof that this was a secret prototype of the new iPhone? Unless this guy has inside knowledge of Apple, how could he possibly know what it really was?

I keep thinking of how totally ridiculous Apple's claims are if you try to apply it to anything else. If you found an unfamiliar Intel CPU that wasn't marked externally as a prototype (the way they really do mark their new chips) and it stopped working after you booted it once, how could you know what it was? If you could get Kyle (really drunk and then get him) to give you five grand for it, more power to you, but it doesn't prove anything about what it is, or what it's worth to anyone other than Kyle.

The problem there is that he did know what it was, or at least had a very good idea. He should have done more as he had the name of the person who lost the phone.

To answer your hypothetical situation: Simple. A simple boot up would tell you its real, the markings would tell you what it is (assuming you understood the markings on it) and the fact that it fit into the socket on your motherboad would tell you it belonged to Intel If it booted to the BIOS the BIOS would be able to provide basic information about the product.

Like I stated, this is one of the two possible bases for a case. Keep in mind, the said owner of the phone himself may have acted irresponsibly as well. He did after all lose a prototype phone. Who knows his motives and what potential ramifications he feared for losing it and perhaps acted irrationally by not answering requests for the return of the phone in fear that the news that it got out would be bad enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong here but there are three parties. The original owner, the finder, and then Gizmodo/Gawker. At the current time it appears that only one of those three are being investigated heavily. And the case against Gizmodo/Gawker is slim at best.

From what it sounds like the seller contacted low level support people from Apple and told them. While that might sound like a good place to start, they're not going to know anything and they won't believe that kind of story. Its highly unlikely that even if a support ticket was made that it was passed along up the food chain beyond the support person's boss. At that point, since he had the original person's name, he should have either turned it into the police or tried different numbers to get a hold of him. He was either willfully ignorant or a complete moron. Either way, Gawker is kind of the third party in all of this. The DA would have to prove they bought it not only knowing it was stolen but with no intent to return it to Apple. It seems like a pretty slim case to me and since the law protects sources its not like the case will force Gawker to give up the person who they bought it from.

 

[welcomerain]

Guy should have turned the phone in to police, not sold it. Gizmodo should not have bought property from a guy when they knew he wasn't the owner and had no claim on the item aside from "IM 12 FINDERS KEEPERS LOSERS WEEPERS."

He made no such claims. Chen gladly relinquished possession of the phone when it was requested of him. No. Actually, he contacted the supposed owner first, offering to return it. But of course, not before taking it apart. He ethically acquired the prototype phone, perhaps taking it from the hands of some fool who might have just as easily rid it elsewhere, say, CNN, who would have laughed at him, and broke the story on one of the most coveted secrets in the industry.That's just good journalism.

 

[Omerta]

this is ridiculous and apple is ridiculous. calling the police cause you can't protect your prototypes? lol

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

No he did not, i dont know what part is unclear about that the statute to you but he did absolutely nothing he should have done. You should probably read it again for yourself.

Obviously calling apple would get him nowhere which is why he should have taken the phone directly to the fucking police like the LAW SAYS.



No matter how you look at it he had no right to sell it and its pretty clear doing so was illegal.

If apple employees where giving him the run around when he called he should have turned it over to the police.

If you lost your phone and whoever found it called your work and didnt find you does that make the phone all of a sudden his?

Article 7 of that same ordinance says this:

The provisions of this article have no application to things which have been intentionally abandoned by their owner.

You're also quoting the California Civil Code. Here's the relevant part of the Penal code:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

If he contacted Apple, he didn't commit a crime.

 

[Andrmgic]

+1 this

Gizmodo did not reveal the contact details of the person that sold them the phone. That is why the police seized the computers.. to try and find that information on Mr. Chen's hard drive.

In California, ownership of "lost" property doesn't change for approximately 3 years.. i.e. the owner has 3 years to claim it. The person that sold it to Gizmodo should have given the phone to the bartender to hold for the owner (or custodian in this case) in case he called (which he did, repeatedly).. if no one claimed it, the the bartender would have turned it over to the police. If you don't own something you sure as hell don't offer to sell it to a gadget site for $5,000.

The people that sold the device are clearly in the wrong.. all they did was contact customer service about a product that doesn't exist yet and then try to sell it to a gadget site instead of giving it to the police like they should have done.

 

[Derangel]

If he contacted Apple, he didn't commit a crime.

Maybe, maybe not. He contacted a tech support support. Unless he is a god damn idiot he would know that contacting low level tech support will do jack shit. Any idiot should know that tech support people wouldn't believe the story or know anything about a prototype iPhone. Personally I wouldn't call that attempting to return it, especially as he knew the person's name and knew the person had a facebook page that could have been used as a way to contact him and get the phone returned. Seems to me like he did some half-assed "attempt" to return it knowing full well it wouldn't work but its something he could use later to claim he tried.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

Thats really boarding on straw man logic. You're argument doesn't hold much water in the fact that only a complete idiot would believe that a prototype iPhone was worth under $100. And he quit clearly believed that he had a prototype iPhone. Which really kills the value argument. Beyond that, ignorance is not excuse in the eyes of the law.

But there is no proof this was an Apple prototype. No identification that it was owned by Apple or that its use by unauthorized persons was a violation of law, and there were no pictures out publicly to indicate this was the new iPhone.

I don't know what you're trying to say with the "and he quit clearly believed" sentence.

Call it a strawman, but there is reasonable doubt.

From what it sounds like the seller contacted low level support people from Apple and told them. While that might sound like a good place to start, they're not going to know anything and they won't believe that kind of story. Its highly unlikely that even if a support ticket was made that it was passed along up the food chain beyond the support person's boss. At that point, since he had the original person's name, he should have either turned it into the police or tried different numbers to get a hold of him. He was either willfully ignorant or a complete moron. Either way, Gawker is kind of the third party in all of this. The DA would have to prove they bought it not only knowing it was stolen but with no intent to return it to Apple. It seems like a pretty slim case to me and since the law protects sources its not like the case will force Gawker to give up the person who they bought it from.

I don't know how far a non-Apple employee could get in their phone system. If Apple is typical of large companies, the public number would be the only one he would have access to. If he had the employees name would be worthless unless he also knew what department that person worked in or the employee had a publicly listed phone number.

But the law doesn't say you have to exhaust all opportunities. He called Apple and they filled out a support ticket. What they do after that is their responsibility.

Should he have turned this into the police? Maybe, but this is only prescribed under California civil codes, which does not specify a penalty for non-compliance. It's damn well not a felony or the grounds to kick down someone's door and seize all of their computers.

 

[sdy284]

good. for how much they WHORED that stupid iphone all over their site, creating articles about nothing... they deserve this.

 

[FLECOM]

was I the only one that noticed on page 2 of the search warrant it said NO night searches? yet he found them at his house at almost 10pm after getting back from dinner... most people are out to dinner an hour or two at most... sounds like night to me?

 

[thesmokingman]

Should he have turned this into the police? Maybe, but this is only prescribed under California civil codes, which does not specify a penalty for non-compliance. It's damn well not a felony or the grounds to kick down someone's door and seize all of their computers.

This. Apple pretty much lied to the DA to give them the impression that it was a felony to get this warrant.

 

[Derangel]

But there is no proof this was an Apple prototype. No identification that it was owned by Apple or that its use by unauthorized persons was a violation of law, and there were no pictures out publicly to indicate this was the new iPhone.

I don't know what you're trying to say with the "and he quit clearly believed" sentence.

Call it a strawman, but there is reasonable doubt.



I don't know how far a non-Apple employee could get in their phone system. If Apple is typical of large companies, the public number would be the only one he would have access to. If he had the employees name would be worthless unless he also knew what department that person worked in or the employee had a publicly listed phone number.

But the law doesn't say you have to exhaust all opportunities. He called Apple and they filled out a support ticket. What they do after that is their responsibility.

Should he have turned this into the police? Maybe, but this is only prescribed under California civil codes, which does not specify a penalty for non-compliance. It's damn well not a felony or the grounds to kick down someone's door and seize all of their computers.

The problem is he clearly believed (correctly it seems) that is was the real deal. Proof or not he sold it as such, thats kind of the sticking point. Whether what he did was illegal or not is up to the courts to decide, but there is something to be said for belief and intent.

Yeah, as I said somewhere in this topic, its really up to the courts to decide if his efforts were acceptable. That is, of course, assuming they're able to get him on trial. I doubt Gawker would dare give him up willingly as it would kill any and all credibility they had with their sources. It would severely harm, if not kill the company as I can imagine a few employees and a lot of readers would be displeased with them breaking one of the most important codes of ethics for journalists. Since we're on the subject of that, this whole thing feels like nothing more than a poor excuse to get the seller. Of course what Gawker's COO says is correct, it is illegal for the police to seize the work computer of a journalist for this kind of case. The information on the computer is protected by a law that neither DA nor judge can oppose. So as long as Gawker can prove the property taken is used for work the case is dead as there will be no evidence to be gained other than what is visible to the public.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

Maybe, maybe not. He contacted a tech support support. Unless he is a god damn idiot he would know that contacting low level tech support will do jack shit. Any idiot should know that tech support people wouldn't believe the story or know anything about a prototype iPhone. Personally I wouldn't call that attempting to return it, especially as he knew the person's name and knew the person had a facebook page that could have been used as a way to contact him and get the phone returned. Seems to me like he did some half-assed "attempt" to return it knowing full well it wouldn't work but its something he could use later to claim he tried.

He contacted a paid agent of Apple at a phone number Apple provides the public to use to contact them with questions about their products. If the person answering the phone is uninformed by his superiors or incompetent in his duties is Apple's problem.

The thing that surprises me most in all of this is how phenomenally half-assed Apple's prototype securities policies are. I have some experience in this area, and whenever you let a prototype out into the wild you need to take legal precautions to protect your intellectual property. You don't have to be obvious. Had Apple engraved or foil stamped the back of the case with "Property of Apple Inc." and had a phone number to someone who did know what the hell was going on, they would have established clear ownership. Had the phone had a splash screen that said "Property of Apple Inc. Unauthorized possession or use is a violation of civil and criminal laws", Chen wouldn't have risked taking a single picture of it. But these dumbasses didn't even require a pass code to see what was on it, and they didn't put up an ownership warning when they bricked it. The one person at Apple who deserves to be fired over this isn't the kid who lost it at the bar - it's the morons in a corner office who let it into the wild with no intellectual property protections.

 

[BaldHeadedDork]

Since we're on the subject of that, this whole thing feels like nothing more than a poor excuse to get the seller. Of course what Gawker's COO says is correct, it is illegal for the police to seize the work computer of a journalist for this kind of case. The information on the computer is protected by a law that neither DA nor judge can oppose. So as long as Gawker can prove the property taken is used for work the case is dead as there will be no evidence to be gained other than what is visible to the public.

I totally agree with you. They want the name of the seller to see if there is a way they can make his life miserable, like if he works for a company that does business with Apple or by turning their lawyers loose on him in civil court. Or both.

I think Apple is going after Gawker to make them pay for breaking this story and they want to send a clear message to anyone else who thinks about running a story like this in the future: Fuck with Apple and risk having the police kick down your door and confiscate all of your computer equipment. Gawker is lucky to have a practicing lawyer as a COO. Most other bloggers aren't as fortunate. I think this is going to have a chilling effect on how Apple is covered, and I think that's exactly why Apple is doing it.

Good conversation. I've enjoyed this.

 

[Sly]

Maybe, maybe not. He contacted a tech support support. Unless he is a god damn idiot he would know that contacting low level tech support will do jack shit. Any idiot should know that tech support people wouldn't believe the story or know anything about a prototype iPhone. Personally I wouldn't call that attempting to return it, especially as he knew the person's name and knew the person had a facebook page that could have been used as a way to contact him and get the phone returned. Seems to me like he did some half-assed "attempt" to return it knowing full well it wouldn't work but its something he could use later to claim he tried.

Please try to remember what a 'Regular Joe' is. You sit at a bar, you're likely sitting next to an average american. Not a CSI guy.

 

[Derangel]

I totally agree with you. They want the name of the seller to see if there is a way they can make his life miserable, like if he works for a company that does business with Apple or by turning their lawyers loose on him in civil court. Or both.

I think Apple is going after Gawker to make them pay for breaking this story and they want to send a clear message to anyone else who thinks about running a story like this in the future: Fuck with Apple and risk having the police kick down your door and confiscate all of your computer equipment. Gawker is lucky to have a practicing lawyer as a COO. Most other bloggers aren't as fortunate. I think this is going to have a chilling effect on how Apple is covered, and I think that's exactly why Apple is doing it.

Good conversation. I've enjoyed this.

Yeah, though this is really something everyone protected under journalism laws should know. This kind of crap happens more often than it should, we just don't hear about it all the time.

As for Apple, I completely agree. Although I find some of their products interesting I despise the tactics the company takes. Both Intel and Microsoft have done some bad stuff in their time, but Apple seems to take the cake at times.

 

[Derangel]

Please try to remember what a 'Regular Joe' is. You sit at a bar, you're likely sitting next to an average american. Not a CSI guy.

I'm not a CSI guy either, but if I had someone's phone and knew their name on Facebook I would send them a message there and let them know I found the phone and want to return it. Either way (to repeat myself for the 10th time) my opinions aside its up to the court to decide if his efforts were enough.

 

[kirbyrj]

The police can't seize the computers unless they are planning on charging Chen with a felony of buying stolen goods. They can't seize it to "look for evidence" of who they bought the iphone off of. If they do find a name, I doubt they will be able to use any "evidence" off of the computer because of the way it was collected. Either way, this is a complete abuse of a search warrant.

 

[dr.kevin]

if you have all of your data encrypted, and they seize your shit,
are you obligated to decrypt it?

 

[kirbyrj]

if you have all of your data encrypted, and they seize your shit,
are you obligated to decrypt it?

No...5th amendment would protect against that I would imagine.

 

[chrnochime]

Where's my popcorn?

I'm so looking forward to the court hearing, if Apple doesn't come out and state all this was a hoax.

 

[chrnochime]

I totally agree with you. They want the name of the seller to see if there is a way they can make his life miserable, like if he works for a company that does business with Apple or by turning their lawyers loose on him in civil court. Or both.

I think Apple is going after Gawker to make them pay for breaking this story and they want to send a clear message to anyone else who thinks about running a story like this in the future: Fuck with Apple and risk having the police kick down your door and confiscate all of your computer equipment. Gawker is lucky to have a practicing lawyer as a COO. Most other bloggers aren't as fortunate. I think this is going to have a chilling effect on how Apple is covered, and I think that's exactly why Apple is doing it.

Good conversation. I've enjoyed this.

They're lucky this didn't happen in a country where the government don't give nearly as much crap about them.

 

[Disposed]

Article 7 of that same ordinance says this:

Are you kidding? How does that even have anything to do with this at all? You think the guy left the iphone on purpose?

You're also quoting the California Civil Code. Here's the relevant part of the Penal code:

If he contacted Apple, he didn't commit a crime.

I do not believe him contacting apple in the manner he did would be considered "satisfactory" and clearly the DA agrees...

I mean honestly, do you really think anyone working on one of apples public numbers would have anyone with a freaking clue about the prototype iphone?

Someone calls one of the apple numbers out of a freaking phonebook saying "yeah i found an iphone and its not a normal one" is not going to get any sort of helpful response. Its completely unrealistic to think that gets him off the hook.

Like i said he should have given it to the cops and he had NO right to sell the thing under any circumstances.

Like i said if you left your iphone at the bar and some prick picks it up and calls your work and dont get an answer does that give him the right to ebay your phone?

 

[mastercheeze]

It seems like most of you guys are missing the forest for the trees. Someone hit on it earlier...what's the purpose of getting the guys computers?

Apple clearly smells a conspiracy here...and they are out for blood. It's not about the police doing Apple's bidding...it's about possible industrial espionage.

Anyone ever seen "The Spanish Prisoner"? It's a little outlandish, but still a plausible scenario in this case. Someone sets up Mr. Powell (or whatever his name was), "acquires" the phone....the phone disappears for several weeks, unaccounted for, then in the ultimate fuck you to Apple, is given to a tech site MONTHS ahead of launch.

It's possible someone pissed in Apples Wheaties, then made them eat the whole damn bowl, down to the last drop.

 

[krotch]

No...5th amendment would protect against that I would imagine.

So long as they can obtain a search warrant for the encrypted device, file, etc, they can force you to decrypt it.

Now, I'm not sure what kind of evidence is needed to get the search warrant, but I'm assuming the same kind of stuff needed to get a search warrant for a car, property, etc.

 

[neodark088]

This is one good publicity stunt and hyping up the next Iphone device, kudos to apple for doing all of these stuff!

 

[thesmokingman]

So long as they can obtain a search warrant for the encrypted device, file, etc, they can force you to decrypt it.

Now, I'm not sure what kind of evidence is needed to get the search warrant, but I'm assuming the same kind of stuff needed to get a search warrant for a car, property, etc.

Ain't that self incrimination which is like you know illegal?

 

[krotch]

Ain't that self incrimination which is like you know illegal?

As self incriminating as in, getting a search warrant, finding the bloody knife that killed someone in their house or pictures of you actually killing that person, left in a nice pretty "I killed these ppl" photo album.