Skip to comments.Police Seize Gizmodo's Computers In iPhone Probe
Posted on 04/27/2010 4:36:16 AM PDT by Biggirl
Police have seized computers and servers belonging to an editor of Gizmodo in an investigation that appears to stem from the gadget blog's purchase of a lost Apple iPhone prototype. Deputies from the San Mateo County Sheriff's office obtained a warrant on Friday and searched Jason Chen's Fremont, Calif., home later that evening, Gizmodo acknowledged on Monday. In an article on Friday, CNET was the first to report on the criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the iPhone prototype and Gizmodo's acquisition of it, including that Apple had contacted local police. A San Mateo County judge signed the search warrant, which said a felony crime was being investigated, a few hours later.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...
And NOBODY could argue that Gizmodo had any intention of keeping the phone. If they had, they certainly wouldn't have published photos and videos of it, and as soon as they received an official response from Apple saying "that's our device" they returned it. Apple can't argue that its trade secrets were violated by Gizmodo when it was Apple's own employee who was stupid enough to leave the phone in a bar. They have a responsibility to protect their secrets if they want them to stay secret.
This is just Steve Jobs using law enforcement to try to scare the next guy away from doing something like this with iPad 2. This is how Gizmodo explains their source's attempt to return the phone to Apple:
So you recognize this handset as an iPhoneit looks and works like an iPhone, and it's even disguised as an iPhone 3GS. It's not password protected (!), it's running an OS that looks like the normal iPhone OS only a little different, and it has Facebook and other apps running. (Our source says he didn't poke around too deeply.) Hours laterbefore the next morning, actuallyit didn't work.
The assumption is that it was wiped remotely as soon as either the engineer or Apple realized it was lostprobably later that night, not just to lock down the features of the new hardware, but to avoid spilling the beans on the new operating system. So, with a bricked phone in hand, an obvious course of action would be to call Apple. And as we reported before, that's exactly what happenedour source started dialing Apple contact and support numbers. He was turned away, and given a support ticket number.
Here's how it went down, allegedly, from the perspective of the Apple reps who got the call:
I work for AppleCare as a tier 2 agent and before the whole thing about a leak hit the Internet the guy working next to me got the call from the guy looking to return the phone. From our point of view it seemed as a hoax or that the guy had a knockoff, internally apple doesn't tell us anything and we haven't gotten any notices or anything about a lost phone, much less anything stating we are making a new one. When the guy called us he gave us a vague description and couldn't provide pics, so like I mentioned previously, we thought it was a china knockoff the guy found. We wouldn't have any idea what to do with it and that's what sucks about working for apple, we're given just enough info to try and help people but not enough info to do anything if someone calls like this.
If the guy could have provided pictures it would have been sent to our engineers and then I'm sure we'd have gotten somewhere from there, but because we had so little to go on we pushed it off as bogus.
There might very well be a made-for-tv movie to come out of this. I honestly didn’t believe the story when I first heard it.
Apple getting whiney again. Their own guy blew their trade secret so they are blaming the guys who published it.
As I understand it, the phone was left in a bar and the guy who found it tried to return it to apple. Apple said “It’s not ours” so he sold it to gizmodo. Gizmodo was within their rights to publish anything about it because, according to apple, it wasn’t apple’s.
I can never decide from week to week which company is more evil, microsoft or apple.
Got to remember though, Apple is VERY PROTECTIVE of its trade secrets in a BIGTIME way.
PING this one over to you in regards to the Apple news article. :)=^..^=
Anyone who thinks that Apple plays any differently than anyone else in the tech industry, including Micro$oft, is deluding themselves.
My only question to Apple is....”What was your prototype doing in a bar all alone?” They need to suck it up!
How ironic that liberals are so free with other people’s property, but very guarded of their own.
Although they are both evil, I personally get more satisfaction in operating with no Microsoft products. Others may get their nut by jailbreaking Apple products. Both companies have the same mission statement:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Yes a crime was committed. By the Judge and Police.
If Apple alleges theft, then the police are obligated to investigate. If the case were a private citizen, then the police would probably spend twenty minutes and conclude that there was no crime. But this is Apple,... with a team of lawyers,...
Per fed and state law, the judge and police broke the law and should face the penalty. They should know the law and apply it equally.
The district attorney has to investigate, and search warrants are a part of that. I was thinking it would be rather amusing to have the DA come back and charge Apple with filing a false police report.
I really can't decide which I fear more, inoperable cancer or the bubonic plague.
Answer: Neither means you well.
Yes he has to investigate and follow the law, which makes it illegal to steal the eqipment as they did. they should all go to jail along with the Apple people.
I never knew it was illegal for the police to seize evidence in a criminal investigation. Learn something new every day, I guess.
You should read the article
” the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.
Darbyshire was referring to the portion of California law that prevents judges from signing warrants that target writers for newspapers, magazines, or “other periodical publications.”
Then you could learn something.
The federal newsroom search law known as the Privacy Protection Act is broader. It says that even journalists suspected of committing a crime are immune from searches—if, that is, the crime they’re suspected of committing relates to the “receipt” or “possession” of illegal materials. (Two exceptions to this are national security and child pornography.)
You should continue reading that article, "Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be but "appropriates such property to his own use" is guilty of theft. If the value of the property exceeds $400, more serious charges of grand theft can be filed. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.