# Police Seize Gizmodo Reporter's PCs Over Leaked iPhone



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

This story could have some serious ramifications for the whole tech-blogging world as a whole. Should be interesting to see how it plays out and if Apple was behind it or if a D.A. took it upon him / herself.

http://gizmodo.com/5524843/


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Just typical of the current legal system...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

What do they hope to find in this reporter's notes that isn't already out there?

What charges would they press?

Against whom would they press charges?

Was this done through a warrant or probable cause?

The slopes don't get much greasier than this.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

harsh said:


> What do they hope to find in this reporter's notes that isn't already out there?
> 
> What charges would they press?
> 
> ...


The story is unusual in that it appears that they (Gizmodo) might have been expecting it because their COO and Legal Counsel had prepped the reporter (Chen) with references to California law that exempts reports from search / seizure. The officers had a search warrant and since he wasn't at home they kicked in his door (he can apparently apply for re-reimbursement for that). I also think its unusual that the are publishing the letter they sent to the Detective on their website, usually people don't want to publicize what is going on in a legal dispute but I suppose Gizmodo figures it can only help the number of hits they get.

I really like your question of what do they expect to find that hasn't already been published? I hadn't thought of it that way but it is certainly a valid point. The only thing I can think of is that they want to know who found the device and eventually turned it over to Gizmodo and if they paid that person. If the reporter hadn't returned the device to Apple when they were asked for it I can see them having a real issue, as it is I think they have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

bobukcat said:


> The story is unusual in that it appears that they (Gizmodo) might have been expecting it because their COO and Legal Counsel had prepped the reporter (Chen) with references to California law that exempts reports from search / seizure. The officers had a search warrant and since he wasn't at home they kicked in his door (he can apparently apply for re-reimbursement for that). I also think its unusual that the are publishing the letter they sent to the Detective on their website, usually people don't want to publicize what is going on in a legal dispute but I suppose Gizmodo figures it can only help the number of hits they get.
> 
> I really like your question of what do they expect to find that hasn't already been published? I hadn't thought of it that way but it is certainly a valid point. The only thing I can think of is that they want to know who found the device and eventually turned it over to Gizmodo and if they paid that person. If the reporter hadn't returned the device to Apple when they were asked for it I can see them having a real issue, as it is I think they have no one to blame but themselves.


I'd think Apple knows who found it, he called them and apparently even got a ticket number.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

As to the question of what they would find.... It seems to me, reading the warrant (and no, I am not a lawyer, so take it for what it's worth), they want to show that the apple employee sold the phone directly to Gizmodo, or that Jason Chen somehow manipulated situation to get the phone from the apple employee.

I don't know exactly how that changes things, if Gizmodo got the phone directly from the employee rather than paying some 3rd party who "found" the phone on the floor in a bar... but that's what I read into the warrant.

As to the letter, etc... Certainly Gizmodo was expecting this. Sounds like the detective had already contacted Jason Chen, or his bosses, looking for information... and so everyone was put 'on notice' as to what the police could do (and might want to do beyond that).

As has already been pointed out.... it's a slippery slope...


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Reading the Search Warrant, it doesn't appear that they are looking at Jason Chen just to get the source of his info, but rather looking at him as an accomplice to the crime of the stolen iPhone. I didn't read anything prior as to what he wrote regarding the 4G phone or what photos he might have posted, but if he actually had the phone in hand and knew he shouldn't have it, he could be charged with possession of stolen property regardless of his journalistic ties.

- Merg


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

There was something on the news recently where a blogger invoked the "reporters right to not identify a source" and an appeals court rejected it saying a blogger is not considered a reporter.

I found it .... it was in my State of NJ. That would be an interesting precedent.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674



> "Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media," the judges said in Too Much Media v. Hale, A-0964-09, the first N.J. appellate ruling and only the second in any state to address whether bloggers can invoke the newspersons' privilege to protect the identity of their sources.
> 
> The blogger's sources were not protected because she "exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity," the court said.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Disappointing... very disappointing to read that this is going on.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm reserving judgment until all the facts come out.

If it turns out the reporter knew he was buying a stolen phone OR bought it directly from the Apple employee... then that's a whole 'nother can of worms than just having acquired something they didn't know was stolen.

At a minimum, in a situation like this, to even publish the article about a prototype iPhone they had to know that they were in possession of something dicey in the first place. If that is compounded by further entanglements, then I'd understand why all the police involvement.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> There was something on the news recently where a blogger invoked the "reporters right to not identify a source" and an appeals court rejected it saying a blogger is not considered a reporter.
> 
> I found it .... it was in my State of NJ. That would be an interesting precedent.
> http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674


A guy with a blog might not get the same protections, but a site like Gizmodo is different.

It's also interesting that the case Gawker Media cited also involves Apple.

http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case430.cfm


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

I'll go back to what I posted in that my guess is the angle they are taking is his possession of the stolen property and not "who is his source". Of course, if he gives up his source, he might fair better in court by being a cooperative defendent.

Remember, most journalistic shield cases look at the journalist as being a material witness with evidentiary information. In this case, it appears he is being looked at as a defendant.

- merg


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm reserving judgment until all the facts come out.
> 
> If it turns out the reporter knew he was buying a stolen phone OR bought it directly from the Apple employee... then that's a whole 'nother can of worms than just having acquired something they didn't know was stolen.


I will reserve judgement as well, but from what I have read, the phone was found, not stolen. Plus, if the finder really did try to contact Apple to return it and Apple didn't seem to want it, then the seller and the buyer should be in the clear. Plus, Gizmodo returned it as soon as they were asked.

Apple is just ticked this leaked out and want to try and scare the next person who tries this.

Now if the employee sold the phone, or "left it somewhere", then the whole situation changes.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Whenever the complexities of contemporary life begin to overwhelm, I tend to revert to what I learned in childhood. While Apple continues to chip away at its reputation by pursuing unproductive legal avenues to distract attention from their own monstrous gaffe, I just want to shout at Steve Jobs, *"Finders keepers, losers weepers!"*, and to Gizmodo, I call out *"Ollie, ollie ox, and all in free!"*


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

The Merg said:


> Reading the Search Warrant, it doesn't appear that they are looking at Jason Chen just to get the source of his info, but rather looking at him as an accomplice to the crime of the stolen iPhone. I didn't read anything prior as to what he wrote regarding the 4G phone or what photos he might have posted, but if he actually had the phone in hand and knew he shouldn't have it, he could be charged with possession of stolen property regardless of his journalistic ties.
> 
> - Merg


Here is a question in my mind: if the Apple employee snuck the phone out of the building and then lost it does it become stolen property?? What if he was actually allowed to take the device out of the building as Alpha testers (I work for an electronics manufacturer and that is common practice for the Engineers) and lost it - certainly it's not stolen property at that point, correct? I just don't see any real crime being committed if he paid the finder some amount of money for the device with the purpose of reporting on what he found, especially when he returned the device to Apple as soon as they asked for it back (if Apple wouldn't have denied it was an iPhone they would have gotten it back sooner). The Apple employee is certainly bound not to disclose company secrets but that doesn't apply to a reporter who finds their product.

Either way the section of California code that they cited makes it look like Chen is clearly exempted from search and seizure regarding actions pursuant to his job.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this one plays out.


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

I guess iPhones are dangerous controlled substances which warranted the extreme actions taken by the police department to recover any evidence available. 

I am sure we would have had the same results if this had been a Nikon Camera.....

/scarcasm


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

bobukcat said:



> Here is a question in my mind: if the Apple employee snuck the phone out of the building and then lost it does it become stolen property?? What if he was actually allowed to take the device out of the building as Alpha testers (I work for an electronics manufacturer and that is common practice for the Engineers) and lost it - certainly it's not stolen property at that point, correct? I just don't see any real crime being committed if he paid the finder some amount of money for the device with the purpose of reporting on what he found, especially when he returned the device to Apple as soon as they asked for it back (if Apple wouldn't have denied it was an iPhone they would have gotten it back sooner). The Apple employee is certainly bound not to disclose company secrets but that doesn't apply to a reporter who finds their product.
> 
> Either way the section of California code that they cited makes it look like Chen is clearly exempted from search and seizure regarding actions pursuant to his job.
> 
> I'm looking forward to seeing how this one plays out.


Of course, finding a lost phone is a different entity all together. Has it come out how Chen acquired the phone? Considering the security that Apple was using to keep the phone locked down, it would be known what Apple employee was assigned the phone. By the time the phone showed up, Apple would most likely have already known whether the phone was stolen, lost, or given away against company policy.

In the case of Chen, if he got the phone from a non-Apple employee, the fact that it was a prototype, would imply that the phone was illegally obtained to begin with. If he got it from an Apple employee, depending on the circumstances ("hey, don't tell anyone I gave this to you"), could also imply that he knew it was illegal for him to possess it.

As for the journalist exemption, once again, that only applies in his performance as a journalist. If he is in possession of stolen property, that is a crime in itself and that CA code section would not apply.

- Merg


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

kfcrosby said:


> I guess iPhones are dangerous controlled substances which warranted the extreme actions taken by the police department to recover any evidence available.
> 
> I am sure we would have had the same results if this had been a Nikon Camera.....
> 
> /scarcasm


The police executed a search warrant. From reading the article, it doesn't seem like they did anything extreme. Since he wasn't home, they forced entry into the house. And as Chen points out, they repeatedly told him how to file a reimbursement claim for the damage.

- Merg


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Couple of problems here...

1. California law recognizes bloggers as journalists.
2. I think that there is a good case that the authorities may have broken state law.
3. Like it or not, Federal law states the officials " cannot seize material from the journalist even if it’s investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime."
4. The police involved in the seizure were part of the California Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team... and Apple is on an advisory board to the Team.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Unless I'm mistaken, it's not clear what role Apple has (if any) in this police raid (or entire investigation for that matter). It's funny how some of the media plays it up... "Steve Jobs goes Jack Bauer on Gizmodo". I don't know that Jobs/Apple has anything to do with this whatsoever. What I think this does prove is, is that the phone wasn't a plant. I think Apple would have stepped in and cleared that up once the police got involved. 

This whole story has quite a few head-scratchers. Why wasn't the phone locked with a 4-digit passcode? Why didn't the guy who found it just turn it into the bartender like any normal person would do? Why didn't he insist to be pushed further up the chain when calling Apple? Why would you sell a phone that you found in a bar? That just has illegal written all over it.

Either way... It does look like some laws may have been broken in the raid itself. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, it's not clear what role Apple has (if any) in this police raid (or entire investigation for that matter). It's funny how some of the media plays it up... "Steve Jobs goes Jack Bauer on Gizmodo"...


If Jack Bauer _had_ been in charge of the case, it would have been over in 12 hours.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

It looks like Chen paid the guy who found the phone $5000 for it, unsure at that time if it even was an Apple device. Gizmodo has advertised for some time that they would pay "significant sums" for access to non-released Apple products. The phone was left in the bar disguised in a 3GS case but the person who found it figured out pretty quickly that it was something special. Apple obviously had security running on it and remote killed it because by the time Chen got it the device wouldn't even go past the Apple logo on bootup.

In the story on Foxnews.com the local D.A. says that they have not played any part in the investigation at all and would examine it if it's brought to them for prosecution. He also suggests that it was the Apple Employee who lost the phone (probably an ex-employee by now) who contacted the task force and not Apple corporate - of course he could have done so because someone in Corporate told him he should. I'm sure more of this will come out as this progresses but I personally believe the police executed an illegal search and seizure - of course my opinion doesn't really matter.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> Couple of problems here...
> 
> 3. Like it or not, Federal law states the officials " cannot seize material from the journalist even if it's investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime."


Gotta disagree with that blanket statement. So, if a journalist is using his computer to look at child porn, the police cannot seize his computer as evidence?

If there is probable cause to believe the computer was used to commit a crime or contains evidence of a crime, the police can seize it.

- Merg


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> This whole story has quite a few head-scratchers. Why wasn't the phone locked with a 4-digit passcode? Why didn't the guy who found it just turn it into the bartender like any normal person would do? Why didn't he insist to be pushed further up the chain when calling Apple? Why would you sell a phone that you found in a bar? That just has illegal written all over it.


I agree. If the device was sold, the seller had to have known it's significance. That can't be a "finders keepers" type of situation. This is a big deal because it deals with corporate trade secrets.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

durl said:


> I agree. If the device was sold, the seller had to have known it's significance. That can't be a "finders keepers" type of situation. This is a big deal because it deals with corporate trade secrets.


$5000 for a phone?........Someone knew something.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

The Merg said:


> Gotta disagree with that blanket statement. So, if a journalist is using his computer to look at child porn, the police cannot seize his computer as evidence?


But what if the journalist was legitimately using his computer to search out child porn to research a story on how easiy it is to find online?

Slippery slope.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

SO, are they going after the guy that found the phone and sold it to Gizmodo? Seems like he is as culpable or moreso than Gizmodo.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

R


Herdfan said:


> But what if the journalist was legitimately using his computer to search out child porn to research a story on how easiy it is to find online?
> 
> Slippery slope.


One question is if Chen is protected as a journalist or is he just a blogger. A blogger isn't protected under the law.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I really don't understand what's criminal here.

I can't see how reporting on a new piece of hardware that was obtained legally (I would guess that’s probably the sticking point) is illegal. Unless he went into Apple and stole the dang thing they can’t have much of a case.

Personally, I sometimes see Gizmodo as less of a blog and more like maybe Cnet. I have a funny feeling that the whole reporter vs. blogger distinction is far from over. Is a review of a piece of hardware a simple blog entry? I certainly don’t think I’m smart enough to tell but I bet the lines between blogger and reporter will continue to blur. I guess the question is, can someone fill both the role of reporter and blogger and how would you tell the difference. :shrug:

This has been just some of my random ramblings. Does that make this a blog entry or a forum post? :grin:

Mike


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The Merg said:


> If there is probable cause to believe the computer was used to commit a crime or contains evidence of a crime, the police can seize it.


This whole thing reeks of the worst aspects of the Patriot Act applied to Apple's corporate security.

If I were trying to broker a deal with a nefarious type, I would be using an untraceable wireless phone to voice and text my partner(s) in crime. That's they way they do it in the movies.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lee L said:


> SO, are they going after the guy that found the phone and sold it to Gizmodo?


I think the assertion is that there is no "middle man".


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

The Merg said:


> The police executed a search warrant. From reading the article, it doesn't seem like they did anything extreme. Since he wasn't home, they forced entry into the house. And as Chen points out, they repeatedly told him how to file a reimbursement claim for the damage.
> 
> - Merg


Problem. Night Search was NOT authorized. It's plainly marked on the search warrant. Yet Jason Chen came home at almost 10:00 and the team had been there "a couple of hours". Entry at 8:00 would constitute "night" to me...



The Merg said:


> Gotta disagree with that blanket statement. So, if a journalist is using his computer to look at child porn, the police cannot seize his computer as evidence?
> 
> If there is probable cause to believe the computer was used to commit a crime or contains evidence of a crime, the police can seize it.
> 
> - Merg


This is one of those slippery slope deals... If they allow this search, then where does it stop? This is, assuming, of course, that the Gizmodo story is true that they purchased the phone from a 3rd party and had nothing to do with separating it from it's lawful owner... If a reporter writes a piece on a large corporation that's cutting corners somewhere - will the police sieze his computer because it "contains evidence of a crime"?

If they're pursuing Jason Chen as the stealer of the phone, as opposed to simply the beneficiary of a lost phone.... then I can see where some of those protections would not apply. If the Apple engineer, in an attempt to cover his backside, contacted the taskforce and reported the phone "stolen" instead of "lost", and Chen is being investigated as a thief, then perhaps his protections as a journalist are null and void.



BubblePuppy said:


> $5000 for a phone?........Someone knew something.


Clearly they knew something... but is that in and of itself a crime? Is purchasing "lost property" illegal? Or is lost property of this nature considered "stolen"? I don't know the answer to that question....


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> R
> One question is if Cheney is protected as a journalist or is he just a blogger. A blogger isn't protected under the law.


That is what is going to make this the most compelling part of this story.

While it may have its roots as a blog, it does publish "news" and reviews on products. People go there to get updated tech news. Ok, so it is not published on paper. But does paper make the guy who reviews movies or the lady who writes stories about recipies real journalists?


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> R
> One question is if Chen is protected as a journalist or is he just a blogger. A blogger isn't protected under the law.


They assert that he is employed as a reporter by Gizmodo's parent company, certainly that makes him a reporter or editor - both of which can, and do blog but that doesn't make them just another blogger rambling about something that has nothing to do with their professional life.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

harsh said:


> I think the assertion is that there is no "middle man".


Ok, lets assume for a minute that is correct and Gizmodo paid an Apple Employee $5000 for it. Why take possesion? Why not just have him bring it over for you to look at and play with? Then he leaves with it.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> $5000 for a phone?........Someone knew something.


They knew it was a prototype of some kind but weren't convinced it was really from Apple until the opened it up - at least that's their version of the story. However, $5K for a story as big as leaking the next iPhone and the kind of traffic that can (and did) bring to your site would be a very minimal investment.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> $5000 for a phone?........Someone knew something.


Exactly. Especially if he didn't even know if it was an Apple device. Don't see paying anyone for $5,000 for something that may or may not be an Apple device.

- Merg


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

The Merg said:


> Exactly. Especially if he didn't even know if it was an Apple device. Don't see paying anyone for $5,000 for something that may or may not be an Apple device.
> 
> - Merg


Yep, that is very suspect.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Speaking in some generalities for a moment...

There are stores that sell watches... and there are guys in alleys that sell watches. Most reasonable people know that when buying a "rolex" from a guy in an alley you are either: not getting a rolex, or getting potentially "hot" merchandise.

So you pays your money and takes your chances.

If I buy a cellphone at a retailer, I wouldn't have an expectation of getting stolen merchandise... but if a guy who says "hey I found this in a bar" is trying to sell what he found and he wants $5000 and I'm even entertaining that notion of paying $5000 for it... then BOTH he and I know very well that we are dealing in potentially "hot" merchandise.

If I find a $20 bill on the street and I don't see who dropped it and no one else seems to notice... it would be very unlikely that the person who lost it could be contacted to return it.

IF, however, I find a large satchel full of money in small unmarked bills... it's highly likely that it is either from a bank robbery or a drug deal or some other unsavory source... so it behooves me to contact proper authorities.

The proper procedure for the guy who "found" the phone?

1. Talk to the bartender and other patrons and see if anyone lost it.
2. Call Apple if he suspected it of being an Apple-owned device.
3. Turn it in to the bartender for lost-and-found

OR

3A. Turn it in to local police IF he feels the bar lost-and-found might not be trustworthy.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Speaking in some generalities for a moment...
> 
> There are stores that sell watches... and there are guys in alleys that sell watches. Most reasonable people know that when buying a "rolex" from a guy in an alley you are either: not getting a rolex, or getting potentially "hot" merchandise.
> 
> ...


The person who found the phone did indeed give it to someone else at the bar they believed was with whoever lost it. That person in turn did try to contact Apple but seeing as how no one in their call center knows anything (unsurprisingly) about a next gen iPhone they think the guy is a crackpot or has some Chinese knock-off and thanks him for calling. Apple found out the device was missing and apparently did not call or send a txt to the phone asking whoever had it to return it to them - they just remotely wiped it. When Gizmodo original published a story saying they had a 4G iPhone Apple denied it was a real device instead of asking for the device back.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

This is pretty funny from Gizmodo's site. It's Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) showing he has a pretty good sense of humor. :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bobukcat said:


> The person who found the phone did indeed give it to someone else at the bar they believed was with whoever lost it. That person in turn did try to contact Apple but seeing as how no one in their call center knows anything (unsurprisingly) about a next gen iPhone they think the guy is a crackpot or has some Chinese knock-off and thanks him for calling. Apple found out the device was missing and apparently did not call or send a txt to the phone asking whoever had it to return it to them - they just remotely wiped it. When Gizmodo original published a story saying they had a 4G iPhone Apple denied it was a real device instead of asking for the device back.


That's a good start... but it doesn't explain why no one turned the phone in to police once they could not return it directly to Apple. It also doesn't explain how they decided it was worth $5000 to sell OR why Gizmodo thought it worth paying $5000.

Anyone trying to sell or pay that much for the device knew it was something they should not have.

I'll give a couple of personal examples from my own life...

#1. A place I worked, I stepped out of the elevator one morning and saw a credit card on the floor. I thought maybe it might belong to someone who worked there, but I was new and didn't know what to do... so I approached a receptionist and she helped lookup the name and sure enough it was an employee. He was happy to get his credit card back.

#2. In the drive-thru at a Teller, the car in front of me drove away and left the ATM card in the slot! I waited a bit in case they came back... but they did not. I didn't want it to fall into the wrong hands, and it was after hours so I couldn't take it inside. I went home and tried to look up the phone number for the person. I called information and found out that it was an unlisted number and while the operator appreciated the situation, she obviously couldn't help. I then called the bank and explained the situation. They couldn't help either because of the unlisted number... BUT what they did was immediately cancel the ATM card, said they would issue a new one directly to the customer, and thanked me for calling. They asked me to destroy the card and I shredded it.

I also found someone's ID badge... the kind of badge that lets you into secure areas of the building... and I located that person (company I worked for) and returned it to her.

Once it gets to the "how can I profit" phase... that's where I start doubting the honesty of both parties... and while it might not be more sinister than reported so far... I think it is worth investigating, and it is prudent for law enforcement to investigate.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Once it gets to the "how can I profit" phase... that's where I start doubting the honesty of both parties... and while it might not be more sinister than reported so far... I think it is worth investigating, and it is prudent for law enforcement to investigate.


I think this depends entirely upon what the LAW states about the situation.... If the 3rd party met his LEGAL obligation to attempt to return the phone to Apple, but was told "We don't want it".... then is it ILLEGAL to sell it to a reporter who thinks it might be something worth investigating? If you lost your phone in a bar and I called you up to try and return it and you told me "I never liked that phone anyway... I don't want it back". Should I try to turn it into the police and tell them "My friend lost this phone, but he doesn't want it back... but it's lost, so you should have it".

I think it's fairly obvious that both the guy who found it and the reporter had a good idea what the phone was. If the guy who found it thought it was "just another phone", he'd have turned it into the bar and be done with it. It would seem he realized it needed "special handling", went directly to Apple, and was turned away.

I agree that it's a little *shady* to sell a phone that you think is something special and that doesn't "_exactly_" belong to you. But I'm not sure if it's illegal, in this scenario.

If lost property = stolen property, or if they have some evidence to show that the reporter was somehow responsible for separating the phone from it's owner.... then by all means investigate, and pursue whatever remedies are allowed by law. As the DA in the Ben Rothlisberger complaint said "We prosecute crimes, not morals".

I don't know the law, or the specifics of this case well enough to make a judgement as to how prudent the police are being. I would *hope* that they have a legal leg to stand on in all this and it isn't just some runaway attempt to make points with Apple.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

"There's a statistical theory that if you gave a million monkey's typewriters and set them to work, they'd eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true"

I tend to agree with you, but it all depends on what he means by "eventually." Yes, so far the monkeys on the Internet haven't duplicated Shakespeare.

As for the original topic, I think this will all blow over in a few days with no charges.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> I think this depends entirely upon what the LAW states about the situation.... If the 3rd party met his LEGAL obligation to attempt to return the phone to Apple, but was told "We don't want it".... then is it ILLEGAL to sell it to a reporter who thinks it might be something worth investigating? If you lost your phone in a bar and I called you up to try and return it and you told me "I never liked that phone anyway... I don't want it back". Should I try to turn it into the police and tell them "My friend lost this phone, but he doesn't want it back... but it's lost, so you should have it".


I think part of the problem is the money that changed hands.

IF the guy found the phone, tried to call Apple but was rebuked, and then gave it to someone else.. that might be the end of it if it truly wasn't stolen and since Gizmodo gave it back once Apple sent that letter.

But the money... and the amount being $5000 pretty much shows that both parties engaged in that sale knew they were doing something they shouldn't be doing.

It still might not be illegal... but that's why the investigation has to occur.

Forget Apple for a minute...

Let's say I'm in inventor... and I'm working on something but I accidentally lose it. I'm probably out of luck BUT also it is highly unlikely anyone will try and sell it to a news agency because no one will care or even suspect that it might be something.

Because Apple is Apple and has a reputation and people out there know about upcoming devices currently in development... there becomes a "black market" for such things.

If I go to Best Buy and buy a stereo, there won't be a problem because I went to a reputable store.

If, however, I go and buy a stereo from a guy in an alley who seems to have a better deal than he should... I might be engaging in illegal activity by paying for potentially stolen merchandise. I should know better than to engage in that. It might not get me arrested, but I shouldn't later be surprised if police show up and want to investigate.

The reality of the situation is this could be anything from simple lost merchandise and a "lucky" finder who made some money off someone else's bad luck TO espionage... and that's why police investigate, to find out what the truth is.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I interpret this as Gizmodo "rewarding" the finder for turning the phone over to them and now Apple "owes" Giz five grand, plus Apple should show their appreciation to Giz by offering an additional "reward" for returning the missing phone.

At least, that's the way I see it. :shrug:


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

billsharpe said:


> "There's a statistical theory that if you gave a million monkey's typewriters and set them to work, they'd eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true"
> 
> I tend to agree with you, but it all depends on what he means by "eventually." Yes, so far the monkeys on the Internet haven't duplicated Shakespeare.
> 
> As for the original topic, I think this will all blow over in a few days with no charges.


To pay homage to Shakespeare, I think this whole situation is "Much Ado About Nothing"


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The reality of the situation is this could be anything from simple lost merchandise and a "lucky" finder who made some money off someone else's bad luck TO espionage... and that's why police investigate, to find out what the truth is.


I don't disagree with you on this point, Stewart. Police investigate, that's their job...

My concern is whether the investigators are being overly aggressive in their investigation. All the stories thus far point to somebody making a buck off of an Apple employees bad luck.

Without all the facts of the case, I'm willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt, and assume they had some further information that we don't which might suggest that this is more nefarious than it seems at first blush.

Of course, none of that changes the fact that a search was conducted from 8:00 - 10:00 pm on a search warrant for which a night search was NOT approved.

(Properly served search warrants are a pet peeve of mine. When I was a kid, the cops broke into our home and held my parents at gunpoint, only to realizt that they had the wrong house - they wanted the green house two doors down. Their response "Oops, sorry, have a nice life"... The only good part about the whole thing was that after the lawsuit, I pretty much have a 'get out of jury duty' card for life. As soon as the prosecutors hear that we sued the local law enforcement, they decide we're not very good potential jurors!)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I agree with you there Sharkie... Granted, we don't know all the details... but I don't think this guy was like an arms dealer that they wanted to surprise before he disposed of his arsenal... so it does seem like the search may have been more aggressive than warranted (pun intended).


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

On a related note... tonight on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart was chastising Apple over all of this... as if Apple somehow is in control of local law enforcement.

But what truly is ironic... is that it wasn't too long ago that Comedy Central was one of the networks threatening people who posted clips of their already-aired TV shows on Youtube!

So it seemed like a pot vs kettle re: blackness scenario.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> On a related note... tonight on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart was chastising Apple over all of this... as if Apple somehow is in control of local law enforcement.
> 
> But what truly is ironic... is that it wasn't too long ago that Comedy Central was one of the networks threatening people who posted clips of their already-aired TV shows on Youtube!
> 
> So it seemed like a pot vs kettle re: blackness scenario.


The problem I have with Apple in all this is that the phone was lost on March 18th. The phone was then reported "stolen" last week when Gizmodo released their articles.... If they thought it was stolen, why not report it when the 'theft' occurred?

Also.... just came across this article from WIRED:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-raid/

They have a legal expert who is supporting the claim by Gizmodo that Jason Chen is protected by law from having a warrant served on him.

To those who argued earlier that shield laws don't apply if they think the reporter was committing a crime... Think again. (At least according to this 'expert').

According to the article



> The federal Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from seizing materials from journalists and others who possess material for the purpose of communicating to the public. The government cannot seize material from the journalist even if it's investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime by receiving or possessing the material, which seems to be the nature of the investigation involving Chen.
> 
> Instead, investigators need to obtain a subpoena, which would allow the reporter or media outlet to challenge the request and segregate information that is not relevant to the investigation.


The last part seems odd... If the reporter has time to segregate information, couldn't he simply erase any incriminating evidence?

I also read that the police haven't done anything with the computers yet, while they consider the validity of Gawker's claims that Jason Chen is protected by the PPA (federal Privacy Protection Act).

Also, according to this same article, search warrants may be served until 10:00 PM under normal circumstances. The 'Night Search Approval' would only be required for a search starting after 10:00 PM. So, it would seem the police were not outside the scope of the warrant in this instance after all.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

My thoughts on the protection of reporters went to instances when they have somehow obtained classified documents or internal-only type documents and they work on a story, sometimes contacting the company or agency those documents belong to get more insight or warn them they are about to do a story on it. These types of documents are very similar to this prototype iPhone in my opinion.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

bobukcat said:


> My thoughts on the protection of reporters went to instances when they have somehow obtained classified documents or internal-only type documents and they work on a story, sometimes contacting the company or agency those documents belong to get more insight or warn them they are about to do a story on it. These types of documents are very similar to this prototype iPhone in my opinion.


I would tend to agree with that comparison, and it's part of the reason that I think this is a bad search on the part of the police.

Another part of the problem lies with Apple, calling the police to report the phone "stolen". Unless there is some evidence which we don't know about that shows someone in the bar that night was involved with separating the phone from the engineer, I don't see how you can classify a "phone dropped by a drunk guy and picked up by a random bar patron" as stolen.

As far as Apple's involvement, I keep coming back to one thought: if they thought that someone had lifted the phone from Powell, rather than him just dropping it on the floor, why not report it stolen the night it happened? Instead, they wait, and when the phone gets to someone who they don't want to have it, they cry foul.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Part of the problem in stories like this is they tend to be sensationalized in one direction only...

Who told us that the phone was "lost"?

We really only have one side of the story on that front. Maybe it was taken from the guy's pocket when he wasn't paying attention? Or maybe it was in his pocket in the coat hanging on a coatrack and someone took it from there?

I've seen all sorts of cases go either way based upon the lack of public information available during the investigation.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> As far as Apple's involvement, I keep coming back to one thought: if they thought that someone had lifted the phone from Powell, rather than him just dropping it on the floor, why not report it stolen the night it happened? Instead, they wait, and when the phone gets to someone who they don't want to have it, they cry foul.


There is no way this would have been kept quiet. Once that police report was filed, there would be a mad scramble to find the phone.

My guess is that they were hoping the right person found it and returned it. Early reports indicate this might have been the case, but Apple didn't have the process in place to make it happen on their end.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Looks like the person who found and tried to return the iPhone has been identified and regrets his decision to sell it to Gizmodo.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/30/man-generation-iphone-revealed/?test=latestnews


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There is an AP wire story floating around that names the supposed "finder" of the phone and describes the process he went through to try to return the phone.

As he tells it, someone handed him the phone and asked if it was his. The phone was allegedly non-functional so he couldn't ascertain the owner in the usual fashion.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

bobukcat said:


> Looks like the person who found and tried to return the iPhone has been identified and regrets his decision to sell it to Gizmodo.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/30/man-generation-iphone-revealed/?test=latestnews


Similar story at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/30/wired.iphone.finder/index.html?hpt=T2

Interesting point in the CNN article:



> It's generally considered theft under California law if one "finds lost property under circumstances that give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner" and yet appropriates the property for his own use "*without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him*."
> 
> The person who found the phone "is very definitely one of the people who is being looked at as a suspect in theft," San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe told Wired.com Wednesday. "Assuming there's ultimately a crime here. That's what we're still gauging, is this a crime, is it a theft?"


The emphasis added is mine, but it answers one of the questions that I've had about the story from the get go: Was there actually a crime committed? I've admitted all along that at the very least it was "shady", but now there is some clarification that there "lost" may very well equal "stolen", depending on whether the accused went far enough in his efforts to return the phone, or, whether Apple disabling the phone remotely also crippled the accusers ability to find out the rightful owner of the phone.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Similar story at CNN:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/30/wired.iphone.finder/index.html?hpt=T2
> 
> ...


Someone claiming to be an employee at the Apple call center said that the guy next to him took the call from this guy trying to return it. They thought he was either some crackpot or that he had some Chinese knockoff and told him there was nothing they could do to help him. No the guy claiming this on the web could be a total crackpot but it makes you wonder how could this guy prove (he really shouldn't have to prove it but....) that he did try to call them to return it?


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Here's an interesting Newsweek article and summary on the iPhone scandal. http://www.newsweek.com/id/237186


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Hansen said:


> Here's an interesting Newsweek article and summary on the iPhone scandal. http://www.newsweek.com/id/237186


That's a good article and the first report I've read that says it was Powell and an Apple lawyer who called San Mateo police to report the phone stolen. How they can report something that is back in their possession as stolen is a little confusing but I imagine that it doesn't matter in legal terms.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Weirdness. :scratchin

The Newsweek article is the best account I've read so far.

To me it seems that either Apple is being petty or there's something we don't yet know. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

bobukcat said:


> That's a good article and the first report I've read that says it was Powell and an Apple lawyer who called San Mateo police to report the phone stolen. How they can report something that is back in their possession as stolen is a little confusing but I imagine that it doesn't matter in legal terms.


I haven't read the Newsweek article yet, but it is possible that someone realizes something has been stolen only after it is returned to them. That can happen when they don't realize the item was gone in the first place.

- Merg


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

The Merg said:


> I haven't read the Newsweek article yet, but it is possible that someone realizes something has been stolen only after it is returned to them. That can happen when they don't realize the item was gone in the first place.
> 
> - Merg


Powell knew it was gone. According to one of the articles, he returned to the bar several times to see if anyone had turned it in.

Perhaps he kept that information from Apple until he couldn't any longer - Gizmodo's article obviously would have made it impossible to hide anymore. At that point, Apple representation, knowing that if the finder of "lost" property doesn't try to return it to the owner they can be charged with theft, instructed Powell to report the "crime" to the police.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Powell knew it was gone. According to one of the articles, he returned to the bar several times to see if anyone had turned it in.
> 
> Perhaps he kept that information from Apple until he couldn't any longer - Gizmodo's article obviously would have made it impossible to hide anymore. At that point, Apple representation, knowing that if the finder of "lost" property doesn't try to return it to the owner they can be charged with theft, instructed Powell to report the "crime" to the police.


That's always a possibility, too. If I had lost something like that, I might have tried to find it first before reporting to my boss that it was missing.

- Merg


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

The Merg said:


> That's always a possibility, too. If I had lost something like that, I might have tried to find it first before reporting to my boss that I it was missing.
> 
> - Merg


Especially knowing how secretive Apple is about their upcoming products. That is most definitely NOT a conversation I'd like to have with the powers that be at Apple.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

It looks like several of the "mainstream" media outlets want the affidavit that was used to justify the search warrant for Chen's house unsealed. So far no charges have been filed nor has Chen's property been returned.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/06/searching-for-truth-iphone-raid-gizmodo/


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Hmmm....Apple is getting loads of free press outta this. :scratchin

Makes one wonder. 

Mike


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

bobukcat said:


> It looks like several of the "mainstream" media outlets want the affidavit that was used to justify the search warrant for Chen's house unsealed. So far no charges have been filed nor has Chen's property been returned.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/06/searching-for-truth-iphone-raid-gizmodo/


I think ingeneral, the mainstream media would be fine if police rounded up all teh bloggers and hauled them away so they could not "steal" their customers, but I think they eventually realized that if the police could do this to the guy from Gizmodo, that at some point they might try to do it to them. So, after some thought, they have become concerned about about it. Next will be outrage.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

U


MicroBeta said:


> Hmmm....Apple is getting loads of free press outta this. :scratchin
> 
> Makes one wonder.
> 
> Mike


Not good press, that's for sure. There is a very sour taste in the kool-Aid.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

If it weren't for the fact that Apple has plenty of publicity right now with the iPad and the fight with Adobe, I'd assume it was the old adage: "I don't care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right."

But I'm pretty sure it would be better if this incident had occurred a couple of months from now.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> U
> 
> Not good press, that's for sure. There is a very sour taste in the kool-Aid.


Yeah, they're also getting knocked for the number of popular iPhone apps that are not available for the iPad. I think more people let this kind of stuff go back when they were "the little guy" but now that they are the 1000 lb. Gorilla in the room people are taking shots at them.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

bobukcat said:


> Yeah, they're also getting knocked for the number of popular iPhone apps that are not available for the iPad. I think more people let this kind of stuff go back when they were "the little guy" but now that they are the 1000 lb. Gorilla in the room people are taking shots at them.


Not only that but with the advancements in the Blackberry and Android phones the iPhone that was once cutting edge has become a follower. The iPhone will be seen as the "ican't" "phone, without functions and features that are or will be standard in the others. Jobs sees this, especially since the review of the secret phone wasn't all that glowing, and he is very mad. The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. And users are realizing that Jobs is holding out on them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

From a very lengthy article on CNET *here*... very different light shed on the "lost" iPhone situation.

"In response to arguments made by CNET and other media organizations, a San Mateo judge unsealed documents (PDF) that provide a glimpse into an April 20 meeting between law enforcement and Apple lawyers and executives. They also highlight a madcap dash for evidence that evening that led a police detective to a gas station, a church, and a bush in Redwood City where a thumb drive and a 1GB Lexar Media compact flash card were allegedly hidden. "

Looks more and more like the guys who "found" the iPhone prototype knew full well what they had and its value... and Gizmodo took things a step further and almost blackmailed Apple when Apple initially requested it to be returned.


----------

