Police Raid Gizmodo Editor's Home Over iPhone 4G

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

drunkalien6

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2008
2
0
18,510
If this is what Apple does in public, having a journalist arrested, and his belongings confiscated. Wtf do they do behind closed doors. Just imagine the horror stories from Foxconn.

The iPhone 4G/HD was on my list of candidates for my next smartphone. But after reading this i realize how tyrannical Apple is, i pledge to never buy an Apple product. Until they have a change of heart on there business practices, and even then i dont think they will deserve me money
 

gm0n3y

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2006
1,548
0
19,730
[citation][nom]dopey117[/nom]Except it wasnt stolen... It was left in a bar by a drunken employee[/citation]

Apple claims that it was stolen. Gizmodo says it wasn't (and presumably whatever middleman found and sold it to Gizmodo also says he didn't steal it). We - the public - don't know which case is true. The only one who actually knows is the guy who 'found' it.

The police gather the stories of all of the interested parties, present this information to a judge, judge decides if this is sufficient evidence to search the house. To me, it seems like there is enough evidence for a warrant here.

Example:

1) I steal a one of a kind TV from Bob
2) Bob finds out that I have his TV because I tell a lot of people that I have his TV and put photos of it on the internet.
3) Bob goes to police to tell them that I stole his TV.

That is enough justification for a search warrant on my house.

Of course like I said before, they gave it back and Apple is being pretty douchey to try to charge them here.
 

dreamphantom_1977

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2008
217
0
18,830
Then they should raid apple for stealing technology.
Technically, apple stole technology from other companies, yet you don't see apple getting raided....
Apple = Hypocrites...
 

dannyaa

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2001
55
0
18,580
[citation][nom]drunkalien6[/nom]If this is what Apple does in public, having a journalist arrested, and his belongings confiscated.[/citation]

Umm, and reality check. The police did this, not Apple. All Apple can do is report the situation and press charges. State and federal law handles these cases. Your government did this. The police did this.
 

filmman03

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
58
0
18,580
[citation][nom]dannyaa[/nom]You are right - none of this has necessarily been proven yet, but that's what the court hearings are for. Let's take a supposed look at Gizmodo here for a second and see who the bad guy is, based on what is likely the case:- Gizmodo pays for stolen intellectual property without any reasonable attempt to return it to the original owner, with full intent/hope that it is, indeed, leaked intellectual property- Gizmodo black mails Gray Powell for $12,000 telling him that's what it will take to get the phone back, or they will publish it along with information on Powell himself. Yikes, if true, that certainly removes any doubt on the last point.- Gizmodo slanders Gray Powell by posting pictures of him from his facebook with alcohol and writing a story with subtle yet snide remarks implying his irresponsibility with the device. Slander.- Gizmodo blatantly publishes information on the Apple prototype device, claiming themselves that is almost certainly the next, top secret iPhone... which just so happens to be acknowledging that they are in fact broadcasting trade secrets and in illegal possession of intellectual property.- Apple sends a letter asking for the phone back. Gizmodo proceeds to tear down the device and post more information, after Apple has confirmed that the device is in fact theirs.The state police respond (likely on behalf of Apple's request) with well warranted legal action in response to this. And you claim that by upholding state and federal law, Apple is "losing customers with how they handle things?" In my book, Gizmodo loses readership and support for pulling something like this. It's unethical and unprofessional, whether they did it to Microsoft, Apple, or Taco Bell. Any charges or legal action Apple takes is well within their right, both by legal standards and ethical standards.Your statement that "all Apple is doing is losing customers" is based on no fact and (in my opinion) poor reasoning, likely induced from a very small (and quite skewed) sampling of forum responses on a website full of people that predominantly already dislike anything and everything Apple.[/citation]
Fuzzy math?

- Gizmodo pays for an unknown phone. they didn't return it to the original owner BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHO THE ORIGINAL OWNER WAS. not until the investigated and later found out it was Apple's and upon knowing that information posted it online and RETURNED THE PROPERTY TO APPLE.

- the rest of your statements are quite funny and obscure. any sources that you could site could in fact prove what you write. but you don't give sources, just merely stating random information.

- whats stopping me or anyone else (especially say nokia, blackberry, htc, etc) from sending gizmodo a letter stating that it is their property? o hey or even a chinese knockoff manufacturer?

- in the end, gizmodo RETURNED the phone.

- the statement "all apple is doing is losing customers" can and may be true. when you see a company that has a monopoly on their products and they make you stay in the apple sandbox, they regulate applications for their iphones, ipads, ipod touches, and now have the super cool rent a cop REACT team raid people's houses, yea, you bet, they will lose customers.

who is Apple going to come after next? those who are running Hackintosh's in their homes because they want bigger faster and better performance PC's with OSX?
 

dannyaa

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2001
55
0
18,580
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]Of course like I said before, they gave it back and Apple is being pretty douchey to try to charge them here.[/citation]

The part you are missing, like I mentioned early, is that Apple is not very concerned with a piece of hardware that in itself is worth about $200. It's the leakage and broadcasting of intellectual properties and trade secrets. As a mastercard commercial would phrase it, that my friend is 'priceless'
 

waylander

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2004
42
0
18,580
To be honest, while I agree that Apple may, MAY, have the right to do something like this, I don't necessarily agree it was the best thing to do... unless they are looking for more free marketing of course. Keeping this issue in the news may help them in the end. Remember, any publicity is good publicity.

As for confiscation of the computers... if this is about getting the "intellectual" property back then that does make sense. As long as all the equipment is returned I don't think it's a big issue. I am worried about what else may be found, even if unrelated to the case, anything found under a search warrant can be used for further prosecution...

In the end, legally right or wrong, I still think they were in the mind set of any publicity is good publicity.
 

jerreece

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2006
400
0
18,930
First off: If Gizmodo had any reason to believe this iPhone prototype was obtained illegally (i.e. stolen) then this is outside the claim of journalistic freedom or protecting sources. This is a matter of a crime being committed (fencing stolen property). In most states, the mere possession of knowingly stolen property is a crime in and of itself.

Frankly, it would only surprise me if he got off. My guess is that the courts will uphold the search warrant and any criminal charges that are filed against Gizmodo as he likely purchased stolen property. That's not something being a journalist protects you from (even if they agree to call him Media in the first place).
 

dannyaa

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2001
55
0
18,580
filmman03,

1.) They didn't know who the original owner is? LOL!! Who is this Gray Powell that they write all about than? You know, the OWNER. Or how about Apple? The phone was labeled! Besides that, you don't have to know who the original owner is, you have to make reasonable attempts to find and return it to the original owner. Seeing as how the device was clearly a prototype (gizmodo paid $5,000 on the gamble it was, and then acknowledged that they certainly believed it was - yet never made an attempt to return it) they had every reason to believe it belonged to Apple. The bar it was lost at was never contacted.

Funny and obscure statements? Like what? I haven't cited sources because unless you have been living under a rock this has been heavily detailed on every tech site out there. Gizmodo themselves is where most of this information is coming from!

You are right that the Apple losing customers may be true, but the statement is STILL based on no fact and is still induced from a poor source and faulty logic.

REACT did not raid their home, police did. Apple is working with REACT, but that is separate from the police involvement.

You say it like it's a bad thing that they would come after hackintosh users. LOL! It's ILLEGAL! Cyber crime is in it's infancy which is the only reason things like hackintosh use and software piracy have not been enforced further. It's illegal. It should be enforced. Seriously, are you joking? Wow.

And lastly, to re-iterate for the umpteenth time. it DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY RETURNED THE PHONE! It's not about the phone! It's about the INFORMATION. The intangible trade secrets and IP. You think Apple gives a flying rip about $200 of plastic and metal components? It's the trade secrets.

 

bloody llama

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2010
17
0
18,560
It's like a giant joke, gone horribly wrong to the point where the government is going on a witch hunt...

Apple needs to just grow upfor gods sake.
 

filmman03

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
58
0
18,580
[citation][nom]dannyaa[/nom]filmman03,1.) They didn't know who the original owner is? LOL!! Who is this Gray Powell that they write all about than? You know, the OWNER. Or how about Apple? The phone was labeled! Besides that, you don't have to know who the original owner is, you have to make reasonable attempts to find and return it to the original owner. Seeing as how the device was clearly a prototype (gizmodo paid $5,000 on the gamble it was, and then acknowledged that they certainly believed it was - yet never made an attempt to return it) they had every reason to believe it belonged to Apple. The bar it was lost at was never contacted.Funny and obscure statements? Like what? I haven't cited sources because unless you have been living under a rock this has been heavily detailed on every tech site out there. Gizmodo themselves is where most of this information is coming from!You are right that the Apple losing customers may be true, but the statement is STILL based on no fact and is still induced from a poor source and faulty logic.REACT did not raid their home, police did. Apple is working with REACT, but that is separate from the police involvement.You say it like it's a bad thing that they would come after hackintosh users. LOL! It's ILLEGAL! Cyber crime is in it's infancy which is the only reason things like hackintosh use and software piracy have not been enforced further. It's illegal. It should be enforced. Seriously, are you joking? Wow.And lastly, to re-iterate for the umpteenth time. it DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY RETURNED THE PHONE! It's not about the phone! It's about the INFORMATION. The intangible trade secrets and IP. You think Apple gives a flying rip about $200 of plastic and metal components? It's the trade secrets.[/citation]

- the phone was labeled and disguised as an iphone 3gs ;) so how the fuck are you suppose to make reasonable attempts to return it to the owner if you don't know who the owner is?

- i am an engineer for apple. but i'm not going to cite any sources that prove it, like my linkedin page or facebook.

- *facepalm* poor source and faulty logic? how so? because of how they have been running their business as of late? that's a poor and faulty source/logic?

- whoops guess the internet isn't the best source for true facts eh? yea engadget.com states that REACT raided the editor's house. who's got the correct story?

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/26/police-investigating-lost-iphone-prototype-raid-gizmodo-editors/

- nope, im not joking. apple allowed the numbnut gray powell to take the iphone prototype from apple and in public. just like apple changed how OSX ran on computers; allowing them to run on the x86 processor, allowing hackers to mod the OS.

- if it doesn't matter that they returned the phone, then why have you mentioned several times that if you find something then you have to make several attempts to return it to the original owner?

- trade secrets. its another iphone. what was changed? a whole lot of nothing, because they have no new concepts, just redesigning old ones.
 

Honis

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2009
383
0
18,930
The guy who found it in the bar sold it to Gizmodo instead of making an attempt to contact the owner. That made the product stolen. Gizmodo has a vested interest in everything about the stolen item both for news stories and the $5k to dropped in that guys wallet. To ensure all items that could have been stolen out of the product, software is a product, the personal items of the Gizmodo reporter needed to be confiscated and searched. The judge who issued the warrant saw a reasonable suspicion to issue a warrant. Since the hardware has been returned only software could be left behind, so they take all of the his computers. The fact that he's a reporter doesn't change the fact that the guy he bought it from did not make a reasonable attempt to return an obvious Apple prototype to Apple.

If the DA see's a reasonable case to prosecute these guys he doesn't need Apple's consent. If this is anything, I'd say it's the DA's attempt to make some national headlines with elections coming up, not an attempt to punish infidels by Apple.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Please bring back common sense. Our country is drowning in stupidity. Enough of the lawyer speak. This is frivolous use of our tax dollars for the vanity of Apple. Pathetic.
 

omnimodis78

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
326
0
18,940
Oh wow - and all because of a crappy 4G... I'm sure Jason isn't a big fan of Apple right about now, but that we could have told him a long time ago. It's stories like these which actually cost a lot more to any company than the fallout over whatever actually happened. It's an iphone, only an iphone... Let's hope Jason sues apple for defemation of character once the dust settles.
 
G

Guest

Guest
This is just a small taste of the things to come when apple will be in dominant position !
As long as all those retards out there buy apple product beacose the feel that they look cool, jobs's head will inflate so much that it will explode !
The new face of Hitlerism = Apple
Jobs want to control your soul !
 

coldmast

Distinguished
May 8, 2007
135
0
18,630
Some phone manufacturer should take this opportunity to give Gizmodo first review.

Hey Steve Jobs, why so serious?

Jason Chen should sue: the police, apple, everyone! This is a violation of basic rights and freedoms, apparently lost hardware has more rights then the average 'merican.

I would like to take this time to request that everyone out there in the 'interwebz' get out Mr. Blurry Cam and take some photo of any thing with round 'friggin' corners and post it 'somewheres' on them 'interwebz' with the title "could this be the New iPhone 4G?"

0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.