Police take Mac of blogger who posted iPhone pics

Yahoo news ^ | On Monday April 26, 2010, 4:20 pm

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Of course, everything one does is illegal. Persons cannot live one day without breaking several laws.

This is one that he should have contacted his lawyer about, being that it's concerning his business.

Futhermore, that's why I advise people not to write about their crimes if they're going to commit them... LOL ... (and certainly don't go on TV, like some I've seen, and tell the world about your crimes; you might expect to see the police coming over soon, then ...).

[Yaelle]

It wasn't legal for him to buy that property... :-)

Explain this. If I found an object in the street, couldn't I sell it on Ebay?

[Vendome]

Things are great!

Just talked to my mom and we were looking at her house and property on Google.

I did not think Google would have street view, where she lives, but they do.

She thought it was pretty cool.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Explain this. If I found an object in the street, couldn't I sell it on Ebay?

If you advertised the object as being a development project from some big electronic company and sold it that way, I would expect the first people to contact you -- to be, perhaps, the police, doncha know ... :-)

[Yaelle]

Hmmm. I can see why the big electronics company would LIKE to sic the police on me, but I do not understand the law being broken. Remember that it was legitimately left behind in a public place. This is something that could result from such carelessness.

The responsibility lies with Apple. They could insist that their prototypes are only for use on their large campus.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I did not think Google would have street view, where she lives, but they do.

I may have told you this before, but in case I didn't... I was walking the dogs around the block a while back (last year or so ...) and the "Google car" came by and, snapped me there, I thought. As I got back home again, going around the block, the same car came by and stopped and talked to me about the dogs (several miniature Dachshunds). He then told me, "You're on Google now, you know." (from the other side of the block). So, I waited until they got Street View up and sure enough, there I was with the weenie dogs, walking them around the block ... :-)

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Hmmm. I can see why the big electronics company would LIKE to sic the police on me, but I do not understand the law being broken. Remember that it was legitimately left behind in a public place. This is something that could result from such carelessness.

It's a California law, so you'll have to take it up with them. But, the problem didn't stem from the guy who found it, it was the guy who bought it, knowing what it was -- who is in a heap of trouble. And perhaps, the guy who sold it, knowing what it was, too -- as that may be the next article we read about, him being charged and arrested.

Anyway, it's a California law that they're referring to. And you know that no judge would sign a warrant on the basis of no law being broken -- so just getting that warrant where they could confiscate the computers and electroniic equipment of that guy put it way over into probable cause, for sure.

---

The responsibility lies with Apple. They could insist that their prototypes are only for use on their large campus.

Well, the problem "legally speaking" (regarding the violation of the law), wasn't the "losing of it" -- but it was the buying of it, knowing what it was... there's the problem. There's your crime ...

And I would have to check further, but I would imagine that the guy who sold it, also knowing what it was, is also in a heap of legal trouble.

[Star Traveler]

We'll see how this pans out regarding the "press" and whether the press can "get away" with stuff like this, especially when it deals with a violation of California law. This will be an interesting case ... for sure ... :-)

---

The iPhone Leak Gets Ugly: Police Raid Gizmodo Editor’s House, Confiscate Computers

by Jason Kincaid on Apr 26, 2010

Wow. Last week, Gizmodo published a massive scoop when they got their hands on what is mostly likely the next iPhone. At the time there was plenty of talk about the legality of Gizmodo’s actions (as they admitted to paying $5000 for the device). Now Gizmodo has just published a post saying that editor Jason Chen had four of his computers and two servers confiscated last night by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, who entered the house with a search warrant.

Gawker’s COO Gaby Darbyshire responded to the actions by citing California Penal Code 1524(g), which states that “no warrant shall issue for any items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code”, which protects information obtained in protection of a news organization. Darbyshire also points out that the California Court of Appeal has previously found that these protections apply to online journalists (O’Grady v. Superior Court).

In Gizmodo’s post, Chen recounts last night’s events. Chen wasn’t home when the raid began, and came home after officers had already been in his house for hours. Chen’s door was broken open because he wasn’t home to open it. He wasn’t arrested, but police seized external hard drives, four computers, two servers, phones, and more.

The document detailing what police intended to seize refers to Apple’s “prototype 4G iPhone” and is also referred to as “stolen” (Gizmodo has contended that the device was found in a bar, not stolen). Also note that all of this went down on Friday night, and Gizmodo didn’t say anything until today.

Here’s Chen’s full account, via Gizmodo:

[Vendome]

Now that’s funny.

I really couldn’t conceive they would have drove that road all the way out in North Tulsa. I mean it’s practically Sperry on a country road but it’s there.

[Star Traveler]

Here's an interesting post, from a reader, on this news story ... it's further on down the page ...

---

D-Rock Says:
April 26th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

I’m not a lawyer, but I do have a journalism degree, and I’m pretty sure there are some limits to most shield laws. Also, I’m fairly certain that felony theft is not protected.

Here’s my question. Should gadget blogging be afforded the same protections of other traditional journalists?

This whole sorry episode is about a company’s prototype product that was either lost or stolen, and when it was found or “found” it was not returned to the rightful owner, as prescribed by local law. Then this private property was exposed to the world by a blog. This is not about government or public info. It was not about uncovering any legal or ethical wrongdoing by Apple. It was about covering Apple’s possibly stolen private property that they had chosen not to share with the public at the time. How was the public interest or public good served by exposing this product? Is your life somehow better now that you know about it? Did it enhance society in any way?

Mr. Chen may still avoid charges because of the shield laws. The police are probably collecting information to see if he can or should be charged with a crime. They’re also probably seeking the identity of the gentleman who sold the iPhone to Gizmodo.

Who’s within their rights here? I don’t know. Obviously I think Gizmodo may have crossed the line in this story. I hate to seem them rewarded for their behavior with the money they made from all the traffic to their site. However, I’d hate to seem them as the martyr too.

[Star Traveler]

You know there’s a big Google center right outside of Tulsa... they’re probably covering the whole area very thoroughly. Also..., the interesting thing about that car is it was licensed in California. So, I imagine they send the cars around the country in packs and cover these areas. But, since there’s a big Google center here, they would probably cover this area thoroughly, too...

[tubebender]

Excuse me says a Mac user?

[editor-surveyor]

But are you also a Mac Promotor?
.

[Star Traveler]

Here's some more information for you ....

---

Gizmodo faces visit from cops over 'found' iPhone

By Bill Ray
Posted 26th April 2010 10:04 GMT

A tech blog that paid five grand to the finder of a prototype iPhone is under police investigation, as it seems buying found property is against the law. Gizmodo paid $5,000 to the chap who found a next-generation iPhone in a bar, and the blog made merry with the device before returning it to Apple - after forcing Cupertino to admit that the prototype was genuine, in writing. But it seems that paying for found property is illegal in California, and now CNET reports that the police are taking an interest.

The prototype iPhone was left in a bar by an engineer who was field-testing it; with the launch scheduled for June it makes sense that Apple would do some field testing. An unknown person picked it up and played with it briefly before Apple remotely pulled the plug. That person apparently tried to return the handset to Apple, but the support desk staff (who don't have access to the goings on in the R&D department) told him it was just Chinese knock-off and not to bother them with it.

So he sold it to Gizmodo, who spent a week taking it apart and then posted the details, causing their servers to melt down as everyone scrambled to get sight of the device (sight only, the software was long gone).

[ ... see more at link ... ]

[tubebender]

Of course I am. There are 6 Macs and 2 iPhones in my extended family and I have convinced 3 other friends to purchase iMacs.

The prototype iPhone in question may have been found OR it may have been stolen...

[BunnySlippers]

How do you know the Apple employee who “lost it” didn’t actually sell it?

How do you know Apple got it back before proprietary information was sold?

[Star Traveler]

And that CNET article that was referenced ...

---

Lost iPhone prototype spurs police probe

April 23, 2010 12:11 PM PDT
by Greg Sandoval and Declan McCullagh

Silicon Valley police are investigating what appears to be a lost Apple iPhone prototype purchased by a gadget blog, a transaction that may have violated criminal laws, a law enforcement official told CNET on Friday.

Apple has spoken to local police about the incident and the investigation is believed to be headed by a computer crime task force led by the Santa Clara County district attorney's office, the source said. Apple's Cupertino headquarters is in Santa Clara County, about 40 miles south of San Francisco.b

...

The purpose of an investigation is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to file criminal charges. Spokesmen for Santa Clara County and San Mateo County--home to the Redwood City bar--declined to comment.

...

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 that any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.

[ ... more at the link ... ]

---

The California law ...

CAL. PEN. CODE § 485 : California Code - Section 485

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

[mowowie]

The only people i would convince to buy a Mac are some of my friends and family who for some reason (stupidity?) cannot keep their PC running for more than a week.

There are LOT’S of these type people and i am sick of helping them.
Mac’s are perfect for them.

[Glenn]

How do you know the Apple employee who “lost it” didn’t actually sell it? How do you know Apple got it back before proprietary information was sold?

For that matter, how do I know Apple didn't have the employee "lose" the prototype on purpose to provide publicity worth millions of dollars?

If you are going to speculate, might as well speculate big, eh?

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

For that matter, how do I know Apple didn't have the employee "lose" the prototype on purpose to provide publicity worth millions of dollars?

Well, that's why you have an "investigation" going on... doncha know ... LOL ... you can bet that all parties are going to be questioned on all aspects of this case...

But, my bet is that when the police investigation is done, you're gonna find one particular guy, who knowingly bought this property, charged with a crime ... ooops...