iPhone Leak: Police Seize Gizmodo Computers

[Lifeisabeach]

Apple's starting to look like a tyrant right now. That's rediculous that they're going to raid a journalist's house for this. I can definitely see them facing a lawsuit at some point because of their behaviour.

Apple didn't raid the house. Law enforcement officials did. Even based solely on Gizmodo's account of the event, there's plenty of reason to believe a crime was committed and investigations do lead to seizure of property as part of such investigations. And let's not forget that this was not a $600 cellphone widely available in stores. It was a prototype that is one of perhaps a couple dozen or so, and as such represents a significant investment well in excess of 600 bucks. And further, you can bet that Apple will press for charges. They can't afford to be lax about protection of their IP… being such nearly killed the company. Sure… their employee was negligent in leaving that phone behind in a bar, but that doesn't mean it's open season on Apple just because Gizmodo has been offering a bounty for such a device. Under California law, and probably every other state in this country, that device was stolen. Don't give me this silly nonsense about him calling tech support… as if some lower level employee like that would even be privy to know something like that existed. Any rational person would have turned it over to the bar… the FIRST place the owner logically would have gone back to.

 

[bargsbeer]

Apple didn't raid the house. Law enforcement officials did. Even based solely on Gizmodo's account of the event, there's plenty of reason to believe a crime was committed and investigations do lead to seizure of property as part of such investigations. And let's not forget that this was not a $600 cellphone widely available in stores. It was a prototype that is one of perhaps a couple dozen or so, and as such represents a significant investment well in excess of 600 bucks. And further, you can bet that Apple will press for charges. They can't afford to be lax about protection of their IP… being such nearly killed the company. Sure… their employee was negligent in leaving that phone behind in a bar, but that doesn't mean it's open season on Apple just because Gizmodo has been offering a bounty for such a device. Under California law, and probably every other state in this country, that device was stolen. Don't give me this silly nonsense about him calling tech support… as if some lower level employee like that would even be privy to know something like that existed. Any rational person would have turned it over to the bar… the FIRST place the owner logically would have gone back to.

Your right Apple didn't raid the house, But I would be willing to bet they have a lot of pull when it comes to matters like this.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

There was an awesome comment I had read elsewhere that summarizes how ridiculous Gizmodo's defense is on all this. It went something like this:

"You mean to tell me that I can go grow some weed, smoke it and sell it, and I'm immune from prosecution because I'm blogging about it?"

Seriously… Gizmodo is run by a bunch of juvenile wannabe journalists. They are the National Enquirer of technology. I stopped reading their site a few months ago because I quite frankly felt my IQ dropping a few points every time I read their articles and comments.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Your right Apple didn't raid the house, But I would be willing to bet they have a lot of pull when it comes to matters like this.

They actually are on a task force that oversees computer crimes. And quite frankly this was a crime. What… do you really think Apple should let it slide just because it happened to them?

 

[Zoolook]

I'm not saying Apple had anything to do with that workers death

Que? You said: "If you don't think Apple had something to do with his death your [sic] wearing Apple goggles or living under a rock"

Seems like you were saying they did pretty clearly.

A company like Apple knows what's happening in those factories and with the employees of those factories, Secrecy is important to Apple we all know that, I'm just not going to play dumb like there wasn't some Apple influence in both situations.

Aside from the fact you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether they had anything to do with his death or not, I think you've been watching too many James Bond movies.

Apple have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by being complicit in these kinds of activites.

 

[dtravis7]

I got myself a BlackBerry 8520, since what I mostly use my cellphone for is SMS, email and calls

I could never get used to typing on the virtual keyboard, so the actual BB keyboard is a blessing to me ... and the call quality on the 8520, even though it's a 'cheap' phone, is 10 times better than on the iPhone

10 times? Somehow I think that number is a bit inflated.


Also I agree completely with Zoolook. If I felt Apple had anything to do with that persons death, every apple product would be gone from my house. I take killing any innocent person very seriously.

 

[bargsbeer]

Que? You said: "If you don't think Apple had something to do with his death your [sic] wearing Apple goggles or living under a rock"

Seems like you were saying they did pretty clearly.



Aside from the fact you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether they had anything to do with his death or not, I think you've been watching too many James Bond movies.

Apple have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by being complicit in these kinds of activites.

Having some influence on the situation is one thing, The guy killed himself.
after basically being slapped around,beaten...etc and who knows what else happened.....

Are you still going to sit there and tell me Apple knew nothing about the entire situation? A company like Apple that is constantly in control and very secretive, Knew nothing about what happened to the guy who lost a iPhone prototype??? Why do you think they build these things in countries like China??

 

[bargsbeer]

10 times? Somehow I think that number is a bit inflated.


Also I agree completely with Zoolook. If I felt Apple had anything to do with that persons death, every apple product would be gone from my house. I take killing any innocent person very seriously.

Comparing Blackberry to iPhone is like Apples and Oranges.

 

[dtravis7]

When I saw the 10 Times, I just had to comment as 10 times is a lot of difference. LOT should be in all caps. That would be NIGHT AND DAY! I have not used any good modern phone that had that bad quality.

I have compared my iphones sound quality to windows phones, Nokia, Blackberry and it sounds ever bit as good in every test I have done. The Blackberry may have a keyboard but that very keyboard bugs me. I do not get along with any Blackberry keyboard I have ever tried.

Agreed bargsbeer.

 

[bargsbeer]

When I saw the 10 Times, I just had to comment as 10 times is a lot of difference. LOT should be in all caps. That would be NIGHT AND DAY! I have not used any good modern phone that had that bad quality.

I have compared my iphones sound quality to windows phones, Nokia, Blackberry and it sounds ever bit as good in ever test I have done. The Blackberry may have a keyboard but that very keyboard bugs me. I do not get along with any Blackberry keyboard I have ever tried.

Agreed bargsbeer.

RIM makes a good product for a certain market, I used Blackberry for while all I can tell you, That if you think Apple fanboys are crazy, Go on over to Crackberry and see what those nuts are like lol ( no pun intended)


Like I said Blackberry is a solid device for certain individuals. I'm not knocking it at all, Just simply saying you can't compare it with an iPhone it's totally different.

 

[iggibar]

Wow, they're really going all out about this, I thought it was about over by now .

A bit far considering Gizmodo returned the device to Apple as soon as they found out it was a real prototype.

I'm almost confident that any company would be equally as ticked off if someone bought your stolen prototype, and took it apart to show to the world and use Apple's name/recognition as bait to obtain attention. If I had a company, assuming this is al *real*, I would do the same thing that apple is doing to Giz. I like how they are hiding behind their, "reporter rights!"

 

[NumberSix]

Ok maybe i exagerated a little But i truly was amazed at the difference in call quality between the BlackBerry and iPhone

And I'm not saying the rest of the features on the iPhones are bad. I'm saying the iPhone is not for me and that i prefer the BlackBerry

But, since the iPhone was paid for, i'm still using it as an iPod

On topic, Apple is overreacting, in my opinion.

 

[Village Idiot]

Don't you think it's kind of a stretch to call a blogger a "journalist"?

There was a case in NJ, I believe, that said that the blogger in that certain case was not a journalist.

The problem is, Gizmodo is a quite a large site and they pass a lot of news through. At what point are you considered a journalist? Physical media is dying. Eventually newspapers will be moot. Does that mean that eventually the only journalist will be the ones that report on TV?

 

[Village Idiot]

Apple didn't raid the house. Law enforcement officials did. Even based solely on Gizmodo's account of the event, there's plenty of reason to believe a crime was committed and investigations do lead to seizure of property as part of such investigations. And let's not forget that this was not a $600 cellphone widely available in stores. It was a prototype that is one of perhaps a couple dozen or so, and as such represents a significant investment well in excess of 600 bucks. And further, you can bet that Apple will press for charges. They can't afford to be lax about protection of their IP… being such nearly killed the company. Sure… their employee was negligent in leaving that phone behind in a bar, but that doesn't mean it's open season on Apple just because Gizmodo has been offering a bounty for such a device. Under California law, and probably every other state in this country, that device was stolen. Don't give me this silly nonsense about him calling tech support… as if some lower level employee like that would even be privy to know something like that existed. Any rational person would have turned it over to the bar… the FIRST place the owner logically would have gone back to.

Turn it over to the bar? OK, what if the bar then called Apple and told them they had the phone and none of their low level customer service reps believed them? What if the employee that never lost the phone came back to see if was there? What if there was a tech blogger working at the bar that posted all those photos?

It was lost.

Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: \ˈstēl\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole \ˈstōl\; sto·len \ˈstō-lən\; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base

It would seem pretty clear that we're talking about the usage under number one and I don't see how this phone was taken wrongfully from Apple.

 

[cwa107]

There was a case in NJ, I believe, that said that the blogger in that certain case was not a journalist.

The problem is, Gizmodo is a quite a large site and they pass a lot of news through. At what point are you considered a journalist? Physical media is dying. Eventually newspapers will be moot. Does that mean that eventually the only journalist will be the ones that report on TV?

Oh, I agree - a good portion of the "news" I read is from blogs. Rarely do I visit traditional media outlets to read news.

But I guess the bigger question is - at what point does a blogger become a journalist? Anyone can be a blogger - I've written several blog entries for M-F, does that make me a journalist? Do I need to be compensated for my blogging to be a journalist? I guess I'm just not sure where the line is. Clearly the law protects journalists who write for or represent traditional media outlets. I'm just not sure the Gawker blogs really count as journalist outlets, given their style and content.

 

[MYmacROX]

Here's the post about it on Gizmodo's site. It has an image of the Search Warrant and some other legal docs.
They are claiming the search warrant is "invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code."

Police Seize Jason Chen's Computers - Iphone 4 leak - Gizmodo

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Turn it over to the bar? OK, what if the bar then called Apple and told them they had the phone and none of their low level customer service reps believed them? What if the employee that never lost the phone came back to see if was there? What if there was a tech blogger working at the bar that posted all those photos?

Besides the fact that California law provides specifically for how the finder of a lost item should handle it (i.e. turn it over to the police), it has been reported that the engineer repeatedly and frantically called the bar asking if it had been turned in. None of your "what if" scenarios have any bearing whatsoever on what actually happened.

EDIT:

Just to elaborate on why it most properly should have wound up with the police eventually (via the finder or the bar, it doesn't matter)… if Joe Schmoe calls Apple, gets tech support, says he has an iPhone prototype that he found in a bar, he's likely going to get nowhere from such a low-level employee who wouldn't know anything whatsoever about this and is, and may well have gotten false alarms or crank calls in the past. If the police department calls, I'm pretty sure they get passed directly to a much higher level manager who is authorized to deal directly with the police.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

It was lost.

Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: \ˈstēl\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole \ˈstōl\; sto·len \ˈstō-lən\; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base

It would seem pretty clear that we're talking about the usage under number one and I don't see how this phone was taken wrongfully from Apple.

Actually, more accurately, ownership of the device was illegally converted. The finder had no rights to keep it or sell it, Gizmodo had no rights to buy what the finder had no rights to sell. Not "exactly" stealing, but they are kissing cousins. "Finders Keepers" is not the law of the land.

 

[the8thark]

My 2 cents on the issue are:

Finding something just lying around hapens all the time. And if you lose something too bad on you, learn to look after your property more carefully. And most people if they find something that is just lying around, they don't thingk "now where to I hand in it do". No no, people in their mind are more likely saying "Score!".

So to me if this was a case of finding something someone lost I'd have no worries about it. But the fact Gizmodo paid $5000 for the iphone tells us, hey this is not lost property someone just happened to find. That kind of money hints really strongly at purchasing stolen property. I think Gizmodo did not steal or misplace the phone. Someone else did. But Gizmodo bought it knowing it was stolen. Heck they know what features current iphones have. And they would not pay $5000 for something that is not a genuine prototype.

And the sad part is Gizmodo bragged essentially about their crime (of knowingly purchasing stolen property) and took it apart and posted the pictures before they handed it in. And the posting the pics of the internals breaks many business prototype product laws too.

I agree the police did treat Gizmodo like a man convicted of child rape, murder and treason all on the same day. Way to harsh. But on the other hand they are guilty of what they did. There is a reason you can't publish inside information till it's made public. It screws up the way investors view the company and then overall share price.

So Gizmodo was treated way to harshly for my money. But they deserve a punishment for their crimes.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Oh, I agree - a good portion of the "news" I read is from blogs. Rarely do I visit traditional media outlets to read news.

But I guess the bigger question is - at what point does a blogger become a journalist? Anyone can be a blogger - I've written several blog entries for M-F, does that make me a journalist? Do I need to be compensated for my blogging to be a journalist? I guess I'm just not sure where the line is. Clearly the law protects journalists who write for or represent traditional media outlets. I'm just not sure the Gawker blogs really count as journalist outlets, given their style and content.

If you go strictly by Meriam-Webster's definition of a journalist:

a: a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium
b: a writer who aims at a mass audience

.. then yes, it would seem that Gizmodo's writers count as journalists. But in reality, I see this as being far too broad to be a practical definition. In my mind, I think writers who simply regurgitate news items from other sources and add their own comments like Gizmodo's people generally do don't really qualify for the label of "journalist". Any schmuck can do that. They occasionally do go out and actually report on events and some interviews, but that is more the exception than the rule.