Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The 4G iPhone's Finder Reportedly Located

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the tell-no-one dept.

Crime 404

CNET is reporting that investigators have interviewed the person who found the unreleased Apple iPhone and began all the trouble. Wired reports that last week people "identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype." "'Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,' the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn't let them in. ... News of Apple's lost iPhone prototype hit the Web like a bombshell, but it was apparently an open secret for weeks amongst the finder's roommates and neighbors, where the device was shown around mostly as a curiosity. ... 'There was no effort to keep it secret,' the source said. 'There were a bunch of people who knew.' ... Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 offering access to the device, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money."

cancel ×

404 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nothing to see here, move along. (3, Funny)

You'reJustSlashFlock (1708024) | more than 3 years ago | (#32006376)

Only Microsoft is evil. Google and Apple are forces for good.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along. (-1, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007060)

you're appropriately downmodded. Dont' lump apple in with google. Apple doesn't do anything good. Even google is not completely good, but they tend to do lots of good things. Substantially more than apple or MS.

Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (4, Insightful)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 3 years ago | (#32006378)

This guy shopped around stolen property to find the highest bidder after making a feeble attempt to "return" it. I don't have much sympathy for whatever happens to the guy.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (4, Insightful)

MWoody (222806) | more than 3 years ago | (#32006422)

Agreed. Apparently, this guy thought when people say they're selling speakers that "fell off the back of a truck," it was a valid legal argument.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006740)

Only idiots would buy speakers that "fell off the back of a truck", though I did once buy a truck that detached itself from speakers.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (5, Interesting)

quenda (644621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007316)

The guy is an idiot. Instead of stealing the phone, he could have just taken lots of photos, including the insides.
He could then promptly return it to Apple, and openly auction off the photos. Apple would still scream blue murder and harass him with search warrants, but he would not be a criminal.

Heck, according to US government precedent, you could have sent it back in pieces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko [wikipedia.org]

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (3, Insightful)

magsol (1406749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32006424)

Apple is going to crucify the bloke.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006968)

How so? Sure he may get done for selling stolen property but apparently the money was for exclusivity, so who knows, everything is pretty circumstantial and really what would Apple get out of this? Maybe a bit of money, but even that's unlikely since he is a student, what would be the point of pursuing it?

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007058)

How about making the next guy think twice before selling an Apple prototype for a couple grand?

I bet that's worth quite a bit of money to Apple.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007082)

I doubt it, this is the first time there has been a breach of this kind and even if the device hadn't been sold to gizmodo it's pretty fair to assume it would've fallen into the hands of the media on it's way back to apple anyway, or the student would have documented it before returning it and there's nothing apple can do to stop that.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0, Troll)

trum4n (982031) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007064)

They are Apple. What's the point of ANYTHING they do? IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (3, Insightful)

binarybum (468664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007174)

I bet. They must be sooo angry about all this mysterious free hype and viral press coverage.

    Conspiracy theory or not, leaving a partially crippled prototype of a near release ready product in a silicon valley bar and letting the internet take care of the rest comes across as good business one way or another.

I think apple and ATT are going to pull through this mess, I think their investors are going to do just fine regardless of what happens to this young journalist.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (5, Insightful)

dxprog (898953) | more than 3 years ago | (#32006430)

I guess Wired was a little smarter than Gizmodo.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

calzones (890942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006556)

It looks like Wired and several other periodicals may end up getting brought into court on this case to provide testimony.

This is turning into a big story for the media.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006802)

Yeah, Wired won't pay you to give them somebody else's property, but they'll gladly accept it for free.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006548)

He was only selling lost property. Nothing more, nothing less. People do this all the time. Why the hell do so many people think he did something evil?

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006564)

Well, in California selling lost property is equivalent to selling stolen property under certain conditions, mostly depending on whether the person who found it made reasonable efforts to return it to the owner first.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32006632)

Because Apple don't like what he did. If Apple don't like what somebody did, then that person must be hunted by a mob of flaming torch wielding acolytes and burned at the iStake.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007378)

LMAO iStake! LOL

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (5, Insightful)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006698)

He was only selling lost property. Nothing more, nothing less. People do this all the time. Why the hell do so many people think he did something evil?

So if someone finds your wallet at a bar, you're ok with them selling it? After all, in your view, it's only "lost property" and people "do this all the time" ... be careful what you wish for.

The correct, and easiest, course of action would have been for the person who "found it" to immediately hand it over to the barkeep.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32006748)

maybe he was curious!

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (2, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007090)

last i read, he tried to contact apple to return it and they denied it was theirs.

That fact alone is probably going to be the key to what legal actions get taken where. (hope he recorded the call or something of the like)

If the actual owner of the item denies it's theirs, that makes it impossible to return to the owner, which would seem to satisfy the requirements before taking ownership of lost property?

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (3, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007234)

That fact alone is probably going to be the key to what legal actions get taken where. (hope he recorded the call or something of the like)

The law even specifically states you do not have to even attempt to return it to the owner. There are provisions for protecting you if you are in posession of the stolen property WHILE trying to return it to the owner, but the only requirement is turning the property into the police.

Gizmodo is NOT the police, so he didn't obide by the law.

Hint: Returning it to the owner is not part of what makes it legal or not.

If the actual owner of the item denies it's theirs, that makes it impossible to return to the owner, which would seem to satisfy the requirements before taking ownership of lost property?

He tried returning it to Apple, but it is not Apples phone anyway, it's Gray Powell's phone.

So not only did you show he did not even try to return it to the owner, but instead tried to return it to the company that made the product, but on top of that, neither of those two actions make what he did legal or illegal.

Not giving it to the police is what made it illegal.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

assemblyronin (1719578) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007364)

He tried returning it to Apple, but it is not Apples phone anyway, it's Gray Powell's phone.

So much this. A *lot* of people aren't getting this fact through their skulls.

If people found a Nokia cell-phone on the bar counter-top where the a guy was just drinking, would they call up Nokia to try and return it? This is what's absurd about the whole, "Oh he tried to return it to Apple" argument. It just doesn't hold water.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

radish (98371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007422)

He tried returning it to Apple, but it is not Apples phone anyway, it's Gray Powell's phone.

No, it's Apple's phone. When companies allow (or ask) people to test pre-release units for them they do not become property of the tester - particularly when the tester in question is an employee. I regularly beta test hardware for several companies and it's always very clear that I don't own it (otherwise I could simply sell it to Gizmodo myself), but usually on completion of the testing they will give me one of the final product as compensation.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007328)

He claims (or rather Gizmodo claimed) that he called Apple's tech support line, which is staffed by people who don't work for Apple directly, and in call centres nowhere near the headquarters. They're not going to know about a prototype, and would either assume it was a prank call, or say they cannot help him, but to call Apple directly.

Apple's PR number is listed on their site right next to the tech support one, and that one actually *is* staffed by Apple employees in the HQ in California.

Either way, his next step should have been handing it to the police and signing an affidavit stating when and where he found the property (California law) if he didn't know who to return it to (and seriously, come on - do you buy the idea that he would believe Apple wouldn't want their prototype back if he had bothered to try to get through to someone actually at Apple HQ, for example, their PR department rather than their tech support). If no one claims it after a certain time, he can then keep it (and sell it on).

He could also have walked around the corner to Apple's HQ and said "hey guys, is this your lost iPhone prototype?"

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007334)

People keep posting that, but I just find it so disingenuous.

  • What part of Apple did he call? Tech support? That would be worthless. The Giz article said he couldn't send them a picture of the thing. Why not? Surely he had his own camera phone. If he sent a pic with the stickers on the back, I think he would have gotten a real response.
  • He could have returned it to the bar, which would have solved everything. He could have at least told the bartender and given his number so the guy who lost it could get in contact with him.
  • He could have given it to the police
  • He knew the name of the Apple engineer. He could have called him, or looked him up. He could have found the guy's Facebook as Giz did. If he made a friend request that said "I have your iPhone", don't you think the guy would have responded?
  • Why not take it to an Apple store? They'd be able to figure out if it was a cheap knockoff pretty fast (as Giz claims everyone first thought). Either way the manager of the store would know someone to contact at Apple to get it checked out.
  • He could have gone to Apple HQ. It was only 20 miles away. As soon as he discovered it wasn't a normal 3GS and had part number stickers on the back, he could have easily walked into 1 Infinite Loop and turned it in.

It just sounds like he didn't make any real effort. Even ignoring the California "take it to the police" forfeiture law, it just doesn't sound like an ethical thing to do. If he took that to Apple headquarters, my guess is he could have received an award. He might have gotten a tour of Apple, some money, a chance to meet The Great Steve, a promise of a free iPhone 4G on launch day (or many be a free iPad). He couldn't have been a small hero.

I would even accept selling pictures of the thing to Giz (or someone else) and then turning it back in. At least he turned it back in.

Instead, he went for a payday. Then Giz got it and took 3 weeks to decide it was real and notify Apple, after cracking it open and posting all sorts of stuff about it. Then they named the poor guy who lost it and posted pics of his Facebook profile, which seems like rubbing salt in a wound.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006750)

Even IF the seller had gone to every effort to find and return the item to it's owner and failed*, it would only become his legal possession after 90 days. Selling something you don't own without the permission of the owner is an act of theft. What part are you not understanding?

* (Not that he did go to any reasonable effort at all. There were plenty of avenues to return the phone to Apple or the engineer or the police, all but perhaps one of which were not taken.)

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0)

defaria (741527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006934)

The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that. The asshole lost it.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (3, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007056)

The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that. The asshole lost it.

No you don't have to do that. Mind you if it's more than a few hundred bucks you have to give it to the cops for 90 days so they can run an ad in the paper looking for the owner, or they'll arrest you for theft. But no, you don't have to do it. They also don't have to let you out of a small cell after you're convicted of grand theft either.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007076)

The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that.

Wrong.

California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. 2080.3.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/lost-and-found-california-law-and-next-generation-iphone [citmedialaw.org]

The asshole lost it.

Well given his job title, I'd say he's a very intelligent engineer, not an ignorant jerk like yourself.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007330)

California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property."

But Section 2080 of the Civil Code is not the Penal Code. He can't be jailed for violating Section 2080, only sued; and since Apple got their prototype back, that's unlikely, because they won't be able to show damages; the main obligation of a depositary (detailed in CCC 1822-1828) is to give the item back.

California Penal Code 485 requires only "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him".

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007270)

The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that. The asshole lost it.

California law states you are incorrect.

There is no such thing as 'lost' property to the law. If it is lost, the law calls that stolen.

There is also an entire checklist of things one can do to avoid 'being in possession of stolen property' while he had possession of the lost phone, and did not do them.

Sure some people say he might have tried returning it to Apple, but the laws don't list trying to return it as a condition of the lost property to not be considered stolen. So who cares?

I understand you don't WANT the law to say that, but god damn man, you are arguing that gravity does not exist or that the sun never shines or pick your own plainly-obvious-it-is-happening-and-true example.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007400)

There is no such thing as 'lost' property to the law. If it is lost, the law calls that stolen.

It most certainly does not. California Penal Code 485 states in full:

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.

Right there in black and white, "lost property". No theft occurs until certain things happen, and even then not unless other things aren't done first.

CPC 496 covers receipt of stolen property... but if no theft occurred, the property couldn't have been stolen.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006822)

"Finders keepers, losers weepers" is not an adequate foundation for a civilized legal architecture.

Socrates said that, or Confucius or someone like that. Chuck Norris, maybe.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (5, Funny)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006850)

Why the hell do so many people think he did something evil?

It made Steven Jobs angry. So naturally all his flying monkeys are going to swirl around with fury. Also, this is apple.slashdot.org not the real Slashdot, so this stuff is to be expected.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007406)

It doesn't get really evil until the monkeys come flying out of his butt.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0, Redundant)

hemlock00 (1499033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006672)

At least he made an attempt (or claims that he did). By law, he's not required to do that. What's more American than trying to make a quick buck?

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006792)

At least he made an attempt (or claims that he did). By law, he's not required to do that.

Actually he *IS* required to do it, by California state law. (And he would be in plenty of other places around the world too.)

What's more American than trying to make a quick buck?

I'm not sure equating theft with American values is particularly helpful.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (2, Interesting)

defaria (741527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006964)

It's a sad day when we impose such obligations by law (that's if we do - you made no citation). Theft requires the intent to deprive somebody of their possession. No such intent can be proven here since the dude merely found something *AND* made an attempt to return it. He is under no obligation to return it and shouldn't be.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007140)

I've cited the evidence that you are wrong as an answer to another thread.

Remember he only has the obligation because he picked the item up. If he couldn't be bothered locating the owner and returning the item, he should have left it where it was or handed it the the barman.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

hemlock00 (1499033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007182)

Hi, I'm reality, thought I should introduce myself.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007124)

Yes Judge, I tried to call the owner as soon I was sober again, but unfortunately the phone was blocked so I couldn't access the address book to find out who might own it. It also doesn't have a name engraved on it.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006726)

Finders jailed losers win.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (-1, Troll)

Berkyjay (1225604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006766)

F that. Apple F'd up and now they are trying to save face by harassing this guy and Gizmodo. The fact is that he made an attempt to return the phone but was turned away. It's not his fault that Apples idiot customer service had no clue as to what to do.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0, Redundant)

defaria (741527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006898)

I disagree. What exact law did this guy break? I'm assuming the story as reported it truthful in that he found the phone and didn't steal the phone. The answer is no law was broken. If you can prove he actually stole it then you got a case.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

bsane (148894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006994)

RTFA- or maybe any of the last dozen or so:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485 [findlaw.com]

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.

Thats not radical or unique to CA- and its common fucking sense.

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007142)

didn't he say he tried to call apple and they denied it was theirs?

If that's the case, wouldn't it make that entire snippet of code irrelevant?

Makes me wonder what the legal status of an object is if it's abandoned in the public, and the owner denies being the owner? Doesn't it then at that instant become nobody's property, and "finders keepers"?

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

bsane (148894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007194)

IANAL so I don't know how it'll all shake out, but-

The 'finder' certainly knew one thing about its ownership: it wasn't his.

He sold it for $5000.

Upstream is CA code for found items worth more than $250, and he certainly didn't follow them.

Bottom line- if you don't want to be responsible for what the last guy left sitting on the stool- don't take it!

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007272)

Let this be a lesson to our resident fecophile troll! You should not take what someone else left sitting in the stool, even if that person IS the saviour Barack H. Obama!

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007324)

He called one of what 10,000+ apple employees and asked if they lost a phone. What did he do call the local apple retail store? WHO at Apple did he talk to.

I dare you pick up the phone right now and call any major corporation and try talking to them about returning stolen property. Unless you knew who lost the phone and called him at his home would you stand any chance of actually returning it.

I can practically guarantee the guy never called the apple employee, and never once tried to find him in the phone book.

so what kind of moron are you that you don't know such a basic fact of reality?

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007048)

Is it stolen if you lose it?

Re:Sold Stolen Property to Highest Bidder (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007304)

so, because you have no sympathy, you are ok with a private corporation sending 'representatives' to search his house ? so, you would be ok with waking up a morning and suddenly finding 'representatives' of a private corporation 'asking permission' to search YOUR home ?

with this mindset, you may find yourself trying to justify people getting beaten with baseball bats when they tried to jailbreak an iphone in 4-5 years in future.

Knock Knock (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32006380)

Who is it?
Not a land shark [wikipedia.org]
Who?
Oh, for Christ sake, it's Steve F'ing Jobs. Give me my phone back or I'll send the Steve Balmer Chair Delivery Service to wreck the place!

Re:Knock Knock (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007074)

OMG LMFAO I wish I still had mod points. The Land Shark reference is classic (golden years of SNL when they were funny).

This story is terribly incomplete (1, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#32006456)

So someone came to the door, but the roommate didn't let them in.

And then what happened?

This whole story reeks of a PR stunt. The story is so intricate in detail, but scratch the surface and there are more questions than answers.

But I guess we're talking about it, and that's what really matters.

Re:This story is terribly incomplete (3, Insightful)

dlochinski (1542339) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006538)

Sounds like Apple is loving this hype and attention for the iPhone

Obligatory YouTube Link... (5, Insightful)

wbren (682133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006496)

Re:Obligatory YouTube Link... (5, Insightful)

Cowclops (630818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006834)

This isn't a troll. It is a law school professor explaining why that interacting with the police can lead to trouble for you down the road, even if you're innocent, and even if you say only things that would point towards you being innocent. Cops have absolutely no requirement to quote you in context, and out-of-context quotes can make a completely innocent statement sound strange. Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

The cop's followup to the law school professor's talk is less interesting, but the very least it validates most of what the law school professor said.

So, indeed, do not talk to cops when you can avoid doing so.

IANAL, but I did watch the video in its entirety and you should at least watch the first half too.

funny headline (5, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006514)

I thought for a minute that Apple had ported the Finder to the iPhone OS and someone had a screenshot or something.

Re:funny headline (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006872)

That was my first impression as well. And it would be a perfect fit, as the Finder is from the old single tasking MacOS. You know, the one that Apples' developers made themselves, not the new one they bought from outside the company.

Re:funny headline (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006924)

Ah, you mean the OS that Steve Jobs' company made, not the one made by Steve Jobs' company!

Re:funny headline (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007372)

Mmmhmm, because OS X is literally byte for byte identical to NextStep.

No sir, no work done on that.

You'll also note that there are a fair few Next employees at Apple at the moment, including the CEO - maybe you've heard of him?

No, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32006540)

Another article about this? Really?

If I recall correctly, the last one was about the police getting involved.
So it would stand to reason that they would, oh I don't know, question the people involved?

Could slashdot stop advertising for Apple already?

Sympathy? (2)

Selpher (1795798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006712)

You know, the attitude surrounding Gizmodo and the people involved in this is trying to make Apple look like the bad guy. But if anyone has read Gizmodo's comments this past week or so, it's easy to see that the damage has already been done. The site has lost a lot of reputation among people, and Gizmodo's handling of this has been pretty disgraceful. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/04/26/2048228/Police-Seize-Computers-From-Gizmodo-Editor?from=rss [slashdot.org] The phrasing in this article by Gawker was just way too pretentious. They deserve repentance.

Far more interesting (2, Interesting)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006716)

Far more interesting than the fact that they've tracked down the finder of the phone:

Police broke into and searched Gizmodo journalist Jason Chen's home, seizing basically every piece of technology in his home, under an apparently illegal warrant:

Check it out [gizmodo.com] .

Re:Far more interesting (0, Troll)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006780)

Police broke into and searched Gizmodo journalist Jason Chen's home, seizing basically every piece of technology in his home, under an apparently illegal warrant:

The real question is... will Gizmodo still suck Apple's cock after this event?

Re:Far more interesting (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006896)

I'm sure they're still infested with Stockholm Syndrome, like most of the more rabid Apple enthusiasts.

Carry on!

Re:Far more interesting (2, Informative)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006876)

apparently illegal warrant

Yes, let's trust the legal opinion of the lawyer who apparently thought it was a great idea for a newspaper to buy stolen property and announce it all over the internet.

Re:Far more interesting (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006878)

They took a box of business cards, too (first item in the inventory). I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Re:Far more interesting (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007232)

Perhaps the "finder" had one of he business cards in his possession. It would provide evidence to connect the two of them.

Re:Far more interesting (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006894)

Police broke into and searched Gizmodo journalist Jason Chen's home, seizing basically every piece of technology in his home, under an apparently illegal warrant:

Um... yeah. Because apparently someone working for Gizmodo committed a felony.

Re:Far more interesting (0, Flamebait)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006962)

So, by your judgment, it follows that an illegal act occurred, so anything the police want to do in response is acceptable, legal or not?

Yes. We know. Apple. Praise Steve.

Re:Far more interesting (2, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007014)

did a judge not sign off on the warrant? This is a felony THEFT case, not a journalistic source case. Chen has no standing. The police had a warrant signed by a judge in good standing. Until that warrant is JUDGED illegal by another judge in good standing , the warrant is legal and the police acted accordingly.

Re:Far more interesting (3, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006922)

...under an apparently illegal warrant...

Well sure, if you believe gizmodo's claims and their somewhat stretched interpretation of the journalist protection laws.

Re:Far more interesting (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007352)

What causes you to say it was an illegal warrant?

The state started a criminal trial (Keep in mind no one has to ask them to do this, they do it on their own. Even if you specifically DON'T want them pressing criminal charges against someone that did a crime to you, they can NOT stop the charges at your request)

The thing to do between when charges are brought, and no evidence is in hand, is to get a warrant to search for said evidence.

100% of the conditions for a warrant are in place and OK.

So where is the issue? Nothing else has even happened yet for the order of events to be messed up!
Warrants are step 2.. charges being pressed are step 1, and if you think that hasn't happened yet, then you are very very behind the facts on this story.

I'm ignoring the link to the criminals website, and I will equally ignore any links directly to Apple on the subject for a similar reason. Both have been instructed by lawyers what to say, and what that is is NOT the truth.

The perfect publicity campaign (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32006742)

Am I the only person who thinks that this is the best thing ever to happen to an Apple product? Apple could not possibly have got a better grass roots 'buzz' publicity campaign going, even if Steve Jobs himself hired actors to pretend to be college students and then stage-managed the 'loss and leak' of a new upcoming product to Gizmodo.

Re:The perfect publicity campaign (1)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007038)

You're not the only person who has been thinking that, but your company is surely getting thinner every day.

Gizmodo warrant? (2, Interesting)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006770)

I wonder if they found him using the Gizmodo journalist's computer, which according to the EFF, was an illegal warrant. If it is found to be an illegal warrant, I wonder how it would affect this case? Not that I feel sorry for the guy, he sold stolen property, he's a criminal (pending the jury finding him guilty). The only thing I'm questioning is the legality of the authorities' methods of finding him. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/gizmodo-search-warrant-illegal [eff.org]

Re:Gizmodo warrant? (2, Informative)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006954)

The EFF fights for the right cause but is not automatically right. Just being a journalist does not mean you're allowed to deal with stolen goods.

By the way, the Gawker/Gizmodo guys obviously don't think they're journalists themselves:

"We don’t seek to do good,” says Denton, wearing a purplish shirt, jeans and a beard that resembles a three-day growth. “We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention." [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Gizmodo warrant? (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006998)

which according to the EFF, was an illegal warrant.

The take away from that is that you can't trust the opinion of the EFF. They're so wrong, it shows them to be incompetent. Journalists have no protection from the law if they are under investigation for a felony. The felony being purchasing stolen goods.

Re:Gizmodo warrant? (1)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007192)

I'm no lawyer, but lets assume that EFF is right and the warrant is invalid. Wouldn't this only protect Gizmodo and not the iPhone seller? Gizmodo could get damages or something if the warrant was invalid, but any evidence found against the seller can still be used in court.

Either way, they probably have other sources who can verify the identity of the seller.

Re:Gizmodo warrant? - Nope (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007366)

I wonder if they found him using the Gizmodo journalist's computer, which according to the EFF, was an illegal warrant.

The answer to your question is "no". Read this quote form the DA in the San Jose Business Journal:

“I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,” he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.'

Re:Gizmodo warrant? (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007394)

The police have not searched the contents of any seized computers. Now, since they can interview the person who found the phone, they can determine the actual circumstances behind its disappearance. The police, by finding this guy, may now have a legal outlet to search the computers they seized because they may have found probable cause.

<rant>
Not totally related to parent, butI know it is very popular right now to say, "Apple = bad, Google/open source = good," right now on slashdot. This is really getting insane. As a pillar of the open source movement, the EFF has a lot of sway here. However, most everything they release is heavily politicized and slanted. They do that consistently. Most people seem to assume Apple is guilty of something since their commercial views don't align with certain ideologies.
If someone feels the above needs a [citation needed] tag, please go to another information source on the Internet. It's not like you have to go outside. Go RTFA from multiple sources to get the best overall view of the situation. I know, I must be new here, but honestly there is a huge problem with "complaining, complaining, complaining!" about apple on slashdot right now, and it's seriously turning me, and many others, off.

Fanboys who I have just offended may now mod me into oblivion.
</rant>

Imagine (1)

Alexvthooft (1798010) | more than 4 years ago | (#32006836)

Imagine just knocking on someone's door and going Apple Security, we're here to search the premises and and take with us all the goodies you have lying around *maniacal laughter*

Gizmodo should make it expensive.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32006866)

If Apple pursues this Gizmodo should do discovery on Apple's emails to confirm it wasn't a publicity stunt.

The most annoying thing about this whole thing is the free press Apple is getting out of it. Fuck them.

Re:Gizmodo should make it expensive.. (2)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007084)

If Apple pursues this Gizmodo should do discovery on Apple's emails to confirm it wasn't a publicity stunt.

The most annoying thing about this whole thing is the free press Apple is getting out of it. Fuck them.

I don't know if I like Apple but I do surely know now that I don't like Gizmodo. Or people selling stuff found in a bar without asking the bartender about the owner.

Re:Gizmodo should make it expensive.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007120)

Apple had $40 billion in cash in January. I'm fairly sure getting into a legal battle with the intent of driving up legal costs would not go well for Gizmodo.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2010/01/almost_40_billi.html

Apple wouldn't do a stunt like this (1)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007204)

Apple have nothing to gain by leaking the iPhone 4.0, they wouldn't attempt viral marketing like this.

When the iPhone 4.0 is launched at its conference and Steve Jobs proudly declares they have "innovated" by inventing Video Phone Calls, Optical Zoom and multi-tasking to receive a standing ovation, that's all the viral marketing they need.

Someone jumping the gun on them only ruins that shock and awe ceremony.

Great news! (0, Redundant)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007046)

It's really wonderful that they've found evidence of the Finder added to the 4G iPhone OS. Strange that Steve didn't announce it as a feature of iPhone OS 4.0.

Now we'll be able to manage our files and folders at last! ... ..

(Pssst. it's a joke, I'm not THAT stupid)

Re:Great news! (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007414)

Please no Finder on iPhone! My god, you guys on slashdot complain about its shoddy software already. It doesn't need the added burden of the Finder!

(also, Apple, please rewrite Finder - it's a pain in the ass)

They know all along where the phone was (1)

Coert (1710558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007066)

They knew where the phone was when they bricked it using the "Find my iPhone" feature. Makes you wonder why did not ring the doorbell earlier.

Re:They know all along where the phone was (2, Informative)

joh (27088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007122)

They knew where the phone was when they bricked it using the "Find my iPhone" feature. Makes you wonder why did not ring the doorbell earlier.

Finding doesn't work with 4.0 beta yet (but bricking works).

modk 3own (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007134)

mechanics. So I'm the same operation

So this is STILL not evil on the side of Apple ? (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32007274)

last story, there were people who were defending apple and maintained that no linkage of evil could be established about the prosecution regarding the iphone dismantlers. it turns out that 'representatives' of apple went out to a private citizen's quarters, and intending to search the premises.

so, a private corporation sends 'representatives' to search people's homes ... will there be anyone that would come up and defend this, i wonder ...

Could have been worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007348)

He could have sold it to the Chinese and they could have a 100,000 units hitting the stores next week.

Careless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32007390)

If you don't want pre-released hardware to get lost - don't let employees take the hardware off campus.

Nothing to see here - please move along.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>