• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Police seize Gizmodo editor's computers

yojoe600 said:
u are right sir and my 2 years of college business law agree with you :)

omg and i have a final in that class on Thursday when the incredible is released... i hope i find time for my studying
Click to expand...

The phone was signed in to the engineer's facebook page when it was "found," so they the owner's name, address, phone number, favorite foods, whatever else and just neglected to bother returning it once he realized what it was. That's theft under CA law. Then turning around and selling it for $5k? That could mean 12 months in prison.
 
For someone who is so new, you really have quite a pair there asking for a thread to be moved.
 
autolycus said:
The phone was signed in to the engineer's facebook page when it was "found," so they the owner's name, address, phone number, favorite foods, whatever else and just neglected to bother returning it once he realized what it was. That's theft under CA law. Then turning around and selling it for $5k? That could mean 12 months in prison.
Click to expand...

Regardless they went about it the wrong way. They could have called jason and asked him to return it to the local PD, they didn't need to raid his home/place of business and take everything electronic in his residence. If he refused to return the item by an agreed upon amount of time then they would have a different situation at hand. Its just one more example of a large corp. using the federal government to do the dirty work for their own profitability. Its another case of a judge who didn't know what he was signing, signing off and letting the feds do whatever they please. If i had signed away my home and someone came and took my home, can i plead the same ignorance? Hell no, but a judge who knows nothing about electronic laws will sign away someone elses livlihood without fear of retribution. This country has problems, and this is a prime example of one of those problems.
 
autolycus said:
The phone was signed in to the engineer's facebook page when it was "found," so they the owner's name, address, phone number, favorite foods, whatever else and just neglected to bother returning it once he realized what it was. That's theft under CA law. Then turning around and selling it for $5k? That could mean 12 months in prison.
Click to expand...

i thought i heard somewhere that he tried to return it to apple and they wouldnt take it
 
jwm2 said:
Oh lol forgive me the guy with 27 posts says the guy with 19 posts is correct. My bad :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You do realize you are discussing an iPhone "news" item in an HTC Incredible section of the forum. I don't have to have a lot of posts to tell anyone that it's incorrectly placed and should be moved. Post counts don't mean anything btw
 
asuwookie said:
I don't mean to be a jerk...but if I wanted to read about the Iphone I would be on the Iphone blogs. Can a mod. move this discussion to the appropriate area or are we going to continue to give Apple publicity in the middle of discussions about the Incredible?
Click to expand...

hi, sorry. The only reason I posted this here, was there was some speculation in the last week, that Apple in fact purposely leaked the iPhone 4g to counter all the publicity the HTC (Droid) Incredible was receiving, and as a way to "muffle" or downplay the Incredible (which has been touted by more than one source as the iPhone killer ;) ). That's the only reason I thought it was semi-related to the Incredible forums, but I'm sorry I know a lot of people don't even want to hear the word iPhone.

It still isn't clear if this was a clever marketing technique used by Apple that backfired, or in fact, as impossible as it may sound, that a "drunk engineer" really did leave it in a bar and lose one of the most sought after pieces of electronics this year several months before its release.
 
Flaring Afro said:
It's not stolen. It was FOUND. Therefore, the person who left it is the true owner but the person who found it has rights to it only under the true rightful owner (if the rightful owner asks for it he must give it back). If the rightful owner is not known (he didn't see the person leave it), he could do what he wants with it until the owner comes to him. So he sold it.

The editor did nothing illegal because it was not a stolen item, but a LOST one, I think.

Wow, my business law class came in handy.
Click to expand...


Its been stated in many articles.. You cannot sell something that does not belong to you in california. Gizmodo's editor bought it, knowing fully well that it was not owned by the seller. Thats how they were able to get a search warrant.
 
jwm2 said:
Oh lol forgive me the guy with 27 posts says the guy with 19 posts is correct. My bad :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Perhaps if posted only when you had something more to say instead of everytime you had a thought you would only have 27 posts

zanza said:
hi, sorry. The only reason I posted this here, was there was some speculation in the last week, that Apple in fact purposely leaked the iPhone 4g to counter all the publicity the HTC (Droid) Incredible was receiving, and as a way to "muffle" or downplay the Incredible (which has been touted by more than one source as the iPhone killer ;) ). That's the only reason I thought it was semi-related to the Incredible forums, but I'm sorry I know a lot of people don't even want to hear the word iPhone.
Click to expand...

Yeah I kinda figured that too...totally cool with me...not that I'm really anyone to say anything but I guess I did start it. IF that speculation is correct ...which I think it very well may be....then just discussing that in an android forum in the incredible thread is doing just that was just my point.
 
Flaring Afro said:
It's not stolen. It was FOUND. Therefore, the person who left it is the true owner but the person who found it has rights to it only under the true rightful owner (if the rightful owner asks for it he must give it back). If the rightful owner is not known (he didn't see the person leave it), he could do what he wants with it until the owner comes to him. So he sold it.

The editor did nothing illegal because it was not a stolen item, but a LOST one, I think.

Wow, my business law class came in handy.
Click to expand...

Fail... If you knowingly purchase stolen property you break the law, they knew the "prototype" belonged to Apple. Why do you think the police are investigating?

2mq7z8k.jpg
 
mobimop said:
Fail... If you knowingly purchase stolen property you break the law, they knew the "prototype" belonged to Apple. Why do you think the police are investigating?

2mq7z8k.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure gizmondo is going to give horrible reviews for the iphone 4g. 5-10 years, I don't think so, they have no proof of him buying stolen goods, all Mr. chen said to apple is that he found it.
 
jwm2 said:
Regardless they went about it the wrong way. They could have called jason and asked him to return it to the local PD, they didn't need to raid his home/place of business and take everything electronic in his residence. If he refused to return the item by an agreed upon amount of time then they would have a different situation at hand. Its just one more example of a large corp. using the federal government to do the dirty work for their own profitability. Its another case of a judge who didn't know what he was signing, signing off and letting the feds do whatever they please. If i had signed away my home and someone came and took my home, can i plead the same ignorance? Hell no, but a judge who knows nothing about electronic laws will sign away someone elses livlihood without fear of retribution. This country has problems, and this is a prime example of one of those problems.
Click to expand...

It exploded on the news because Gizmodo was selling its story to news agencies. They were sitting on the iPhone 4g waiting for a new agency to bite before they'd even write about the phone on their blog. Gizmodo used the iPhone 4g as a huge publicity stunt so that they could get more traffic to their website. Everything related to this prototype iPhone has been very sketchy.
 
"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."

28rdu9u.gif
 
jwm2 said:
It looks like the feds and apple are barking up the wrong tree. The media fall out from this tomorrow is going to make apple wish they had never picked the fight in the first place. This is going to put a black eye on apple and the feds and all raids of this type from here on out. Most of them aren't quite so publicized, but you can bet your bottom dollar that this one will be. The media coverage on the device and gizmodo was amazing, never have i seen an item/product or anything get so much attention from the world, national and local media. Right now steve jobs is checking into the local hospital with an ultzer, if not he will be by the end of the day tomorrow. I should send jason chen an email, i actually have a working relationship with him and he's helped my company in the past. I just don't know exactly what i'd say about something like this and i'm sure he's got enough email at the moment, heh.
Click to expand...

Not really the publicity is amazing for Apple. Just think about it were discussing this in a Verizon HTC Incredible forum....! No such thing as bad publicity especially when Apple has the law on it's side.
 
jwm2 said:
Regardless they went about it the wrong way. They could have called jason and asked him to return it to the local PD, they didn't need to raid his home/place of business and take everything electronic in his residence. If he refused to return the item by an agreed upon amount of time then they would have a different situation at hand. Its just one more example of a large corp. using the federal government to do the dirty work for their own profitability. Its another case of a judge who didn't know what he was signing, signing off and letting the feds do whatever they please. If i had signed away my home and someone came and took my home, can i plead the same ignorance? Hell no, but a judge who knows nothing about electronic laws will sign away someone elses livlihood without fear of retribution. This country has problems, and this is a prime example of one of those problems.
Click to expand...

They already returned the iPhone, they raided the home to confiscate evidence of the alleged illegal transaction not obtain the iPhone. I'm sorry but your talking out your ass about the judge and electronic laws, ignorance must be bliss for you.
 
mobimop said:
Fail... If you knowingly purchase stolen property you break the law, they knew the "prototype" belonged to Apple. Why do you think the police are investigating?
Click to expand...

No, it is NOT stolen. They did not break in and grab the phone nor grab it out of the guys hand. There is a difference between finding something and stealing it. :rolleyes:

Also, the article said that them taking the computers etc was found to not be legal. Apple probably was pushing the police or the judge that granted the warrant.
 
Flaring Afro said:
No, it is NOT stolen. They did not break in and grab the phone nor grab it out of the guys hand. There is a difference between finding something and stealing it. :rolleyes:

Also, the article said that them taking the computers etc was found to not be legal. Apple probably was pushing the police or the judge that granted the warrant.
Click to expand...

You don't have be in the act of breaking in and stealing items to possess stolen property. Are you for real? If you came across a brand new Rolex on the street, watched on TV that someone lost a box of Rolex watches and you sold the watch you would be selling stolen property.... Just because you find it doesn't give you title to it.. Sheesh I guess every car I see on the street I'm entitled too since I just found it sitting here....

If you knowingly possess property that you know isn't yours and you know who the owner is guess what? It's considered stolen property...

They had a warrant from a judge to confiscate computers, etc for evidence gathering, if they didn't get a warrant then it would be illegal search and seizure. If a judge writs a warrant it's legal period...
 
mobimop said:
You don't have be in the act of breaking in and stealing items to possess stolen property. Are you for real? If you came across a brand new Rolex on the street, watched on TV that someone lost a box of Rolex watches and you sold the watch you would be selling stolen property.... Just because you find it doesn't give you title to it.. Sheesh I guess every car I see on the street I'm entitled too since I just found it sitting here....

If you knowingly possess property that you know isn't yours and you know who the owner is guess what? It's considered stolen property...

They had a warrant from a judge to confiscate computers, etc for evidence gathering, if they didn't get a warrant then it would be illegal search and seizure. If a judge writs a warrant it's legal period...
Click to expand...

Again, it still technically isn't stolen. It was found. Stolen means it was purposefully taken, not left. A car isn't left in the same way. You don't keep your cell phone in a bar, you do not purposefully leave it there. Take a law class.

Also to the warrant, quoted from the link above.

They did so using a warrant by Judge of Superior Court of San Mateo. According to Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media LLC, the search warrant to remove these computers was invalid under section 1524(g) of the California Penal Code.
Click to expand...

Do you think the police and judges do everything 100% right all the time? No.
 
Surely the fact they returned it willingly makes the situation different to theft? For example: you find something, you write about it in your blog, you send it back to the rightful owner, no-one is harmed.
The only harm in this situation is the whole "Apple secrecy" thing which, to be honest, is their fault it was even broken. Plus, the whole episode (before this new story) has stirred up enough publicity for them so I don't know what they're complaining about...
 
Flaring Afro - finders keepers losers weepers doesn't apply. The phone was not his property and Giz knew it, why do you think other blogs such as Engadget didn't purchase the iPhone? Because they are smart enough to know the law. They received/purchased stolen goods, whether it was found in a bar or physically taken doesn't make any difference under California law. I think the raid was way over the top and somewhat unjustified but that doesn't change the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom