Apple on steering commitee of task force that raided Gizmodo

[Dominus Atheos]

Warning, infodump:

As some of you have no doubt heard the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT), a task force made up of several California local, state and federal law enforcement agencies founded for the purpose of combating "new types of crime directly tied to [California's] increasingly computer-oriented economy and widespread use of the Internet," raided Jason Chen's home/office and seized all of his computers which they say are part of an investigation into that lost iPhone 4g prototype. Jason Chen is a reporter for Gizmodo, which purchased the lost prototype and analyzed it then posted a report on their website that details everything they discovered about it. When the story broke, Apple was fucking pissed off about it, and threatened legal action against them.

Gizmodo returned the phone to Apple but in the process made the mistake of telling Apple Jason Chen's address:

Here's Jason Chen, who has the iPhone. And here's his address. You two should coordinate a time.

[Blah Blah Blah Address]

Happy to have you pick this thing up. Was burning a hole in our pockets. Just so you know, we didn't know this was stolen [as they might have claimed. meaning, real and truly from Apple. It was found, and to be of unproven origin] when we bought it. Now that we definitely know it's not some knockoff, and it really is Apple's, I'm happy to see it returned to its rightful owner.

Chen then returned it:

Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, who wrote the first blog entry describing the iPhone prototype, said in an email to The Wall Street Journal that he returned the phone to Apple last night.

That story was posted on the 20th. Then on the 23rd the REACT taskforce broke down the door of Chen's house (which is also his office since he works for an online news company). I have never heard of the police getting together a search warrant and raiding a house over a misdemeanor (which is what purchasing stolen property is) after the victim already got the property back in just 3 days; although I would like Kamikaze Sith to weigh in on this point.

After that was reported yesterday, other reporters started investigating REACT and discovered that Apple is on their "steering committee" which is reportedly a group of tech companies that server serves as liaisons for the tech industry. If you read that link, you'll also see that members of the steering committee get to request the taskforce investigate whatever they want:

Valley REACTs to Craigslist counterfeits

Two leading software makers have asked a Silicon Valley high-tech crime task force to help prevent an estimated $50 billion in pirated products from flooding markets, and they’re specifically targeting Craigslist sellers.

San Jose-based Adobe Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. in recent months asked the Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, a consortium of local, state and federal law enforcement agencies headquartered in Santa Clara, to investigate pirated software being manufactured and sold through the online classified site.

...

Microsoft and Adobe are members of REACT’s steering committee, a group of 25 companies that includes Apple Inc., Symantec Corp., KLA-Tencor Inc., Applied Materials Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc., and acts as a liaison between industry and law enforcement.

The District Attorney assigned to this case even said that Apple was the one who requested the investigation:

But that didn't stop Apple from calling authorities to report that "there had been a theft," according to Stephen Wagstaffe, the chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County.

And as if that wasn't enough, nearly everybody agrees that the search warrant was illegal:

And

The federal Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from seizing materials from journalists and others who possess material for the purpose of communicating to the public. The government cannot seize material from the journalist even if it’s investigating whether the person who possesses the material committed a crime.

Instead, investigators need to obtain a subpoena, which would allow the reporter or media outlet to challenge the request and segregate information that is not relevant to the investigation.

“Congress was contemplating a situation where someone might claim that the journalist was committing a crime [in order to seize materials from them],” Granick says.

California state law also provides protections to prevent journalists from being forced to disclose sources or unpublished information related to their work.

Even the police conducting the raid said it "might be a misunderstanding" after being shown a letter from Gizmodo's legal dept that Chen had printed out in advance that said the same things as the image posted above.

All of this looks very, very dirty; I'm going to be watching this story closely to see what happens.

[General Zod]

Lost prototype? Everywhere else I've read says Apple claimed it as stolen before it was eventually returned. That said I can't say I'm terribly sympathetic to Gizmodo here considering how they obtained the prototype. Anyone with more than two braincells to rub together should have realized that the device they were being offered probably wasn't obtained legally considering how secretive Apple is.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Can anyone say "conflict of interest" here?

Perhaps this VALLEY team should have a new rule that anyone on the committee with any possible conflict of interest must not be allowed to agitate for any action in any case in which they have said conflict?


I hope Gizmodo roasts Apple's chestnuts over this one. Takes 'em for a real ride in court.


You Do Not fuck with members of the press, whether it's Walter Cronkite reporting on watergate or a tech rag reporting on a piece of hardware that fell into their possession.

[Dominus Atheos]

Lost prototype? Everywhere else I've read says Apple claimed it as stolen before it was eventually returned.

As usual you are fucking retarded. Apple is saying that, but no one else is. Unless someone robbed the guy who had it or broke into his house, it would be pretty hard for the phone to be "stolen". The much, much more likely explanation is that it was left by a guy celebrating his 27th birthday at a bar only a few miles from Apple's headquarters.

[Vendetta]

Lost prototype? Everywhere else I've read says Apple claimed it as stolen before it was eventually returned.

As usual you are fucking retarded. Apple is saying that, but no one else is. Unless someone robbed the guy who had it or broke into his house, it would be pretty hard for the phone to be "stolen". The much, much more likely explanation is that it was left by a guy celebrating his 27th birthday at a bar only a few miles from Apple's headquarters.

IIRC, under California law picking up abandoned items which do not belong to you can be treated as theft.

[General Zod]

Lost prototype? Everywhere else I've read says Apple claimed it as stolen before it was eventually returned.

As usual you are fucking retarded. Apple is saying that, but no one else is. Unless someone robbed the guy who had it or broke into his house, it would be pretty hard for the phone to be "stolen". The much, much more likely explanation is that it was left by a guy celebrating his 27th birthday at a bar only a few miles from Apple's headquarters.

So how was the guy able to just walk off with a prototype? High tech companies are generally very protective of these sorts of things, even for their engineers. Incidentally, how come Gizmodo didn't contact Apple directly for confirmation as soon as they acquired it? They held onto it for a few weeks after paying $5,000 for it.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Lost prototype? Everywhere else I've read says Apple claimed it as stolen before it was eventually returned.

As usual you are fucking retarded. Apple is saying that, but no one else is. Unless someone robbed the guy who had it or broke into his house, it would be pretty hard for the phone to be "stolen". The much, much more likely explanation is that it was left by a guy celebrating his 27th birthday at a bar only a few miles from Apple's headquarters.

So how was the guy able to just walk off with a prototype? High tech companies are generally very protective of these sorts of things, even for their engineers. Incidentally, how come Gizmodo didn't contact Apple directly for confirmation as soon as they acquired it? They held onto it for a few weeks after paying $5,000 for it.

For the same reason the Associated Press doesn't immediately contact the Pentagon for confirmation the moment a leaked document falls into their hands, obviously.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So how was the guy able to just walk off with a prototype? High tech companies are generally very protective of these sorts of things, even for their engineers. Incidentally, how come Gizmodo didn't contact Apple directly for confirmation as soon as they acquired it? They held onto it for a few weeks after paying $5,000 for it.

Before Apple releases a new product to market, they have employees 'field test' them. The engineer who left his phone at the bar was one such person.

[Vendetta]

So how was the guy able to just walk off with a prototype? High tech companies are generally very protective of these sorts of things, even for their engineers. Incidentally, how come Gizmodo didn't contact Apple directly for confirmation as soon as they acquired it? They held onto it for a few weeks after paying $5,000 for it.

It's also worth noting that that $5000 is important, that's the threshold at which purchasing stolen goods crosses from misdemeanour to felony in California.

[Dominus Atheos]

Lost prototype? Everywhere else I've read says Apple claimed it as stolen before it was eventually returned.

As usual you are fucking retarded. Apple is saying that, but no one else is. Unless someone robbed the guy who had it or broke into his house, it would be pretty hard for the phone to be "stolen". The much, much more likely explanation is that it was left by a guy celebrating his 27th birthday at a bar only a few miles from Apple's headquarters.

So how was the guy able to just walk off with a prototype? High tech companies are generally very protective of these sorts of things, even for their engineers. Incidentally, how come Gizmodo didn't contact Apple directly for confirmation as soon as they acquired it? They held onto it for a few weeks after paying $5,000 for it.

Holy shit you are so fucking retarded I don't know how you are able to type on a keyboard.

The employee was celebrating his 27th birthday at a bar, and then forgot it in his drunken stupor. That's the story everybody has been reporting.

[The Original Nex]

It is my understanding that it was left at the bar by an Apple employee. Picked up by an individual who was able to access the phone's social media which identified the owner, and the individual then proceeded to sell the phone (which was now stolen property) to Gizmodo. Gizmodo claims it didn't know that it was the iPhone prototype until AFTER is made the purchase, and that they are therefore not liable for purchasing stolen property. They still published the scoop though...

[General Zod]

Holy shit you are so fucking retarded I don't know how you are able to type on a keyboard.

Yes yes, you enjoy histrionics. Whatever. Are you done bleating yet?

The employee was celebrating his 27th birthday at a bar, and then forgot it in his drunken stupor. That's the story everybody has been reporting.

As Vendetta already mentioned, selling abandoned items can be treated as theft in California. Which just means that it's not the engineer who's necessarily going to be liable for charges.

[Vendetta]

It is my understanding that it was left at the bar by an Apple employee. Picked up by an individual who was able to access the phone's social media which identified the owner, and the individual then proceeded to sell the phone (which was now stolen property) to Gizmodo. Gizmodo claims it didn't know that it was the iPhone prototype until AFTER is made the purchase, and that they are therefore not liable for purchasing stolen property. They still published the scoop though...

Although they'll have a hard time selling the idea that they didn't know what it was after paying five grand for it. Last I looked, ordinary iphones weren't that expensive.

Anyway, my expectation is that Gizmodo will take the hit for this, get a slap on the wrist fine, and laugh all the way to the bank with the ad revenue that breaking the story on the next generation iPhone gets them.

[Simplicius]

sound and fury, signifying nothing

Hey, maybe you'd like to make an argument for why a tech blog writing about a consumer gadget that it illegally received, potentially breaching trade secrets protections in the process, warrants the same strenuous defense as a journalist exposing government or corporate misdeeds in breach of the public trust. Or maybe you'd rather make a broader argument about the degree of illegal conduct that may be handwaved away, as long as it was committed by a person or agent of the press.

Or you could just beat your chest and make a bit of noise, as you usually do. I guess it's less strenuous.

Turning to the actual issue and accompanying infodump, here's how it might look to someone who isn't Dominus Atheos:

Apple engineer loses prototype in a bar. Someone picks it up, decides to shop it around. Engadget published photos it was given, but allegedly wouldn't buy the phone for $10,000, suggesting they know what it is. Gizmodo buys it for $5000. Gizmodo disassembles the phone, publishes, flaunts it on Good Morning America. Gizmodo offers to return it to Apple only after demanding Apple make an official request to return it, a full week later.

Fun commentary:

Gizmodo’s response to Apple’s legal request stated in part: “Happy to have you pick this thing up. Was burning a hole in our pockets. Just so you know, we didn’t know this was stolen when we bought it.”

But curiously, Apple’s legal request made no mention of the iPhone being stolen, which makes Gizmodo’s verbiage all the more suspicious. Especially when you consider that Gizmodo’s parent company, Gawker, has in the past offered a $100,000 bounty for a stolen pre-release iPad.

Then we have the investigation by police, the raid, and cue DA's paranoia and ShadowMoron's cheerleading.

Now for some fun info: The phone is most probably stolen goods under California law. Section 485 requires a "reasonable and just effort" to return found property. However, the person who 'found' the phone in the bar apparently didn't contact the bar's owner to return the phone, or turn it in to police as civil law requires - all this during the three weeks the phone was in his possession. This being the case, Gizmodo trafficked in stolen goods by buying the phone, and they can't really deny that thanks to the way they flaunted their coup.

Furthermore, California law further provides that

Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following:

(1)Steals, takes, carries away, or uses without authorization, a trade secret.

So more hot water for Gizmodo there.

Lastly, while the raid raised questions about whether journalism shield laws applied, and the investigation was duly suspended because of this, it is not clear that Gizmodo and Chen are automatically protected.

California law does not prevent "newspersons from testifying about criminal activity in which they have participated or which they have observed," the court ruled in a 1975 case involving the Fresno Bee.

Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who teaches First Amendment law, says that court decision--the case is called Rosato v. Superior Court (PDF)--means that California's state shield law "wouldn't apply to subpoenas or searches for evidence of such criminal activity."

Translated: If Gizmodo editors are, in fact, a target of a criminal probe into the possession or purchase of stolen property, the search warrant served on editor Jason Chen on Friday appears valid

Now, I found this all out in the past hour or two of reading, but I'd say it undermines DA's hyperventilating pretty seriously. It's plain that Gizmodo isn't some poor press agent whose First Amendment protections are being ripped away by a cruel corporation, and in fact a reasonably solid case can be made that Gizomdo is in the wrong and is legitimately subject to legal action.

[General Zod]

>edit< Meh, feel free to delete this. I didn't see that Simp had posted the same Cnet link in his post.

[Dominus Atheos]

sound and fury, signifying nothing

Hey, maybe you'd like to make an argument for why a tech blog writing about a consumer gadget that it illegally received, potentially breaching trade secrets protections in the process, warrants the same strenuous defense as a journalist exposing government or corporate misdeeds in breach of the public trust.

Gizmodo isn't a blog you jackass. It's a real company with editors and, obviously, a legal department.

Turning to the actual issue and accompanying infodump, here's how it might look to someone who isn't Dominus Atheos:

Apple engineer loses prototype in a bar. Someone picks it up, decides to shop it around. Engadget published photos it was given, but allegedly wouldn't buy the phone for $10,000, suggesting they know what it is. Gizmodo buys it for $5000. Gizmodo disassembles the phone, publishes, flaunts it on Good Morning America. Gizmodo offers to return it to Apple only after demanding Apple make an official request to return it, a full week later.

...

Yes, that's exactly what Gizmodo said happened. Congratulations, you are just smart enough to state reported facts as if you made brilliant deduction that single-handedly disproves everything everyone else has been saying. This must be a very proud day for you.

Fun commentary:

Gizmodo’s response to Apple’s legal request stated in part: “Happy to have you pick this thing up. Was burning a hole in our pockets. Just so you know, we didn’t know this was stolen when we bought it.”

But curiously, Apple’s legal request made no mention of the iPhone being stolen, which makes Gizmodo’s verbiage all the more suspicious. Especially when you consider that Gizmodo’s parent company, Gawker, has in the past offered a $100,000 bounty for a stolen pre-release iPad.

Apple's legal request made no mention of it, but several other sites did including this one.

Then we have the investigation by police, the raid, and cue DA's paranoia and ShadowMoron's cheerleading.

Now for some fun info: The phone is most probably stolen goods under California law. Section 485 requires a "reasonable and just effort" to return found property.

However, the person who 'found' the phone in the bar apparently didn't contact the bar's owner to return the phone, or turn it in to police as civil law requires - all this during the three weeks the phone was in his possession.

You're lying. The law you linked doesn't say anything about being required to turn it into the police. The only reason you are able to make that claim is because you dishonestly quoted only part of the law.

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.

This being the case, Gizmodo trafficked in stolen goods by buying the phone, and they can't really deny that thanks to the way they flaunted their coup.

Furthermore, California law further provides that

Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following:

(1)Steals, takes, carries away, or uses without authorization, a trade secret.

So more hot water for Gizmodo there.

Only if what the finder did counts as theft and the State can prove that Gizmodo knew it was stolen. Since Gizmodo states they were told that the finder first called Apple to try to return it. I'm skeptical of the finders claim, but the finder lying doesn't revoke Gizmodo's shield in any way.

Lastly, while the raid raised questions about whether journalism shield laws applied, and the investigation was duly suspended because of this, it is not clear that Gizmodo and Chen are automatically protected.

California law does not prevent "newspersons from testifying about criminal activity in which they have participated or which they have observed," the court ruled in a 1975 case involving the Fresno Bee.

Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who teaches First Amendment law, says that court decision--the case is called Rosato v. Superior Court (PDF)--means that California's state shield law "wouldn't apply to subpoenas or searches for evidence of such criminal activity."

Translated: If Gizmodo editors are, in fact, a target of a criminal probe into the possession or purchase of stolen property, the search warrant served on editor Jason Chen on Friday appears valid

Now, I found this all out in the past hour or two of reading, but I'd say it undermines DA's hyperventilating pretty seriously. It's plain that Gizmodo isn't some poor press agent whose First Amendment protections are being ripped away by a cruel corporation, and in fact a reasonably solid case can be made that Gizomdo is in the wrong and is legitimately subject to legal action.

Congratulations, you found one source to dispute my two sources on the matter. Once again, this must be a very proud day for you. But I'll see your one and raise you one. The New York Times, motherfucker:

Legal experts said there was little doubt that bloggers qualified. “Of all places, California is probably the most clear that what Gizmodo does and what Jason Chen does is journalism,” said Sam Bayard, a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

He said the case could hinge on whether there is an exception in the law involving a journalist committing a crime, “in this case receipt of stolen property.” He said “this seems unlikely based on the plain language of the statute.”

So that's 3 sources for my argument, one for yours. I'll save you the embarrassment and just assume you concede so you don't have to actually say it.

[General Zod]

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/ ... /1/s2080.1

(a)If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the property was saved, the affidavit shall state:

(1)From what and how it was saved.

(2)Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.

(3)That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of any part of the property.

(b)The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the property.

Also. http://politechbot.com/docs/people.v.boinus.042710.txt

[1] Although guilty knowledge of the fact that the property was stolen
is an essential fact to be proved in a prosecution for receiving
stolen property, such knowledge need not be that actual and positive
knowledge which is acquired from personal observation of the
fact. (People v. Boyden, 116 Cal.App.2d 278, 287 [253 P.2d 773].) It
is not necessary that the defendant be told directly that the property
was stolen. (People v. DeVaughn, 136 Cal.App. 746, 751 [29 P.2d 914].)
Knowledge may be circumstantial and deductive. (People v. [153
Cal.App.2d 622] Bycel, 133 Cal.App.2d 596, 599 [284 P.2d 927]; People
v. Hartridge, 134 Cal.App.2d 659, 665 [286 P.2d 72].) [2] Among the
elements from which knowledge may be inferred are that the property
was obtained from a person of questionable character (People
v. Stollmack, 18 Cal.App.2d 471, 477 [64 P.2d 162]), and the failure
of the accused to satisfactorily explain his possession. (People
v. Juehling, 10 Cal.App.2d 527, 531 [52 P.2d 520].) [3] Possession of
stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the
possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference
that the property was received with knowledge it had been
stolen. (People v. Malouf, 135 Cal.App. 2d 697, 707 [287 P.2d 834].)
It is enough if, considering all the evidence, which may be
circumstantial, an inference of guilt may be found. (People
v. Goodall, 104 Cal.App.2d 242, 247 [231 P.2d 119].)

[ThomasP]

I have to say I find this to be a disturbing precedent, no matter how well it may be founded in the letter of the law. I don't like the idea of corporate interests using the police as their private enforcement troops.

Kicking in the guy's door and confiscating his property is a bit over the top for simple theft, and I'll be damned if I'll ever support this kind of reaction for the sake of intellectual property.

[Simplicius]

Gizmodo isn't a blog you jackass. It's a real company with editors and, obviously, a legal department.

So? That wasn't my point, which should be obvious if you noticed that I made the comparison based on the content and purpose of reportage.

Yes, that's exactly what Gizmodo said happened. Congratulations, you are just smart enough to state reported facts as if you made brilliant deduction that single-handedly disproves everything everyone else has been saying. This must be a very proud day for you.

You're offended that I included the backstory that you omitted...why, exactly? God forbid someone not too familiar with the story be able to make a judgment based on more than the abridged and editorialized viewpoint you provided.

Apple's legal request made no mention of it, but several other sites did including this one.

What does that have to do with Gizmodo apparently laying down some ass cover to Apple, who would be the source of any legal action against them? Don't tell me you're not familiar with the old "Murdered? Who said he was murdered, Mr. Smith?" lines from old detective movies.

You're lying. The law you linked doesn't say anything about being required to turn it into the police. The only reason you are able to make that claim is because you dishonestly quoted only part of the law.

Try reading through the rest of my links.

If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.

The finder's options for making a good faith effort to return the phone are not too obscure. He could have not picked up the phone in the first place, knowing it wasn't his. Barring that, he could have left it with the bartender in case the Apple engineer tried to find it via that bar (he did). Barring that, he could have tried to contact the engineer himself, since the engineer's Facebook profile was accessed on the phone (obviously, since Gizmodo was able to out him for no apparent reason). Barring that, he could have contacted Apple. Since the guy obviously knew he had something out of the ordinary (otherwise he wouldn't have tries to sell it to tech blogs for 4 or 5 figures), it would make sense to try and get in touch with someone in the know - hell apparently shooting Steve Jobs an email would have been feasible. Instead, the guy called a customer service rep, when there is no reason to expect a CS rep to have the least idea about top-secret prototype phones. Barring that, he should have turned the phone in to police in accordance with civil law.

Of all those options, the finder only did one, and in the most half-assed way imaginable. That doesn't place him too far in the clear, especially considering the case references here:

The only mental state mentioned in Penal Code section 485 is the perpetrator’s “knowledge.” The crime is defined in terms of two acts, one omission, and one mental state. The perpetrator commits this offense if he or she (1) finds lost property (an act), (2) appropriates it (an act), (3) fails to make “reasonable and just efforts” to find the owner and restore the property to the owner (an omission), and (4) does so with knowledge of the true owner or means of inquiry as to the true owner (a mental state). Nowhere in the statutory definition of the offense is there any suggestion that the perpetrator must harbor any additional specific intent.

The finder is on shaky ground...

Only if what the finder did counts as theft and the State can prove that Gizmodo knew it was stolen. Since Gizmodo states they were told that the finder first called Apple to try to return it. I'm skeptical of the finders claim, but the finder lying doesn't revoke Gizmodo's shield in any way.

...and as for Gizmodo, well, the fact that they posted all those things I handily outlined earlier gives an idea of the breadth of their knowledge about the phone's origin (i.e. they knew how it was found, who exactly the finder "tried" to return it to, what the phone was, who its nominal and actual owners were, etc.). The attitude of their posts might be enough to defeat their token ass-covering were a case to come of this, since "good faith" weighs in the Code 405 definition of theft. There is also the matter of trade secrets, inappropriate/unauthorized use of which has its own legal definition of theft under California law as I posted previously. A case against them should not be ruled out, and this is a separate matter from their journalistic shield...

So that's 3 sources for my argument, one for yours. I'll save you the embarrassment and just assume you concede so you don't have to actually say it.

...which, your fun little source pissing contest aside, is not inevitably going to prevent law enforcement from viewing information from the raid because the DA is still evaluating that. It may, it may not - but not "everyone" thinks that it will, your own editorializing aside.

One last bit I can't help but to mention:

But that didn't stop Apple from calling authorities to report that "there had been a theft," according to Stephen Wagstaffe, the chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County.

Property owner contacts police to report his property was stolen! Oh no! Corporate takeover of law enforcement private army of jackbooted thugs oh noooooooo!

[Keevan_Colton]

Property owner contacts police to report his property was stolen! Oh no! Corporate takeover of law enforcement private army of jackbooted thugs oh noooooooo!

And confiscate the computers and materials of a journalist involved in a story they objected to the publishing of.

Have you considered that a company using the police to help punish those that violate its trade secrets might be a bad thing? Trade secrets much like the rest of intellectual property law is a civil matter and rightly so, which begs the question, what would the reaction be if the fellow with the iPhone got drunk and sold it thinking it would be funny, then reported it stolen to save his own ass with his bosses for violating his contract... Hm?

[General Zod]

And confiscate the computers and materials of a journalist involved in a story they objected to the publishing of.

The stories are already all over the internet. . .so exactly what are they blocking?

Trade secrets much like the rest of intellectual property law is a civil matter and rightly so, which begs the question, what would the reaction be if the fellow with the iPhone got drunk and sold it thinking it would be funny, then reported it stolen to save his own ass with his bosses for violating his contract... Hm?

I'd say that would be impossible, unless Gizmodo was complicit with the engineer in covering his ass, which would probably make things worse for them.

http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lo ... ext-iphone

The person who eventually ended up with the lost iPhone was sitting next to Powell. He was drinking with a friend too. He noticed Powell on the stool next to him but didn't think twice about him at the time. Not until Powell had already left the bar, and a random really drunk guy—who'd been sitting on the other side of Powell—returned from the bathroom to his own stool.

The Random Really Drunk Guy pointed at the iPhone sitting on the stool, the precious prototype left by the young Apple engineer.

"Hey man, is that your iPhone?" asked Random Really Drunk Guy.

"Hmmm, what?" replied the person who ended up with the iPhone. "No, no, it isn't mine."

"Ooooh, I guess it's your friend's then," referring to a friend who at the time was in the bathroom. "Here, take it," said the Random Really Drunk Guy, handing it to him. "You don't want to lose it." After that, the Random Really Drunk Guy also left the bar.

The person who ended up with the iPhone asked around, but nobody claimed it. He thought about that young guy sitting next to him, so he and his friend stayed there for some time, waiting. Powell never came back.

During that time, he played with it. It seemed like a normal iPhone. "I thought it was just an iPhone 3GS," he told me in a telephone interview. "It just looked like one. I tried the camera, but it crashed three times." The iPhone didn't seem to have any special features, just two bar codes stuck on its back: 8800601pex1 and N90_DVT_GE4X_0493. Next to the volume keys there was another sticker: iPhone SWE-L200221. Apart from that, just six pages of applications. One of them was Facebook. And there, on the Facebook screen, was the Apple engineer, Gray Powell.

The Aftermath

Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash. At the time, we didn't know if it was the real thing or not. It didn't even get past the Apple logo screen. Once we saw it inside and out, however, there was no doubt about it. It was the real thing, so we started to work on documenting it before returning it to Apple. We had the phone, but we didn't know the owner. Later, we learnt about this story, but we didn't know for sure it was Powell's phone until today, when we contacted him via his phone.

Gray Powell: Hello?

John Herrman: Is this Gray?

G: Yeah.

J: Hi, this is John Herrman from Gizmodo.com.

G: Hey!

J: You work at Apple, right?

G: Um, I mean I can't really talk too much right now.

J: I understand. We have a device, and we think that maybe you misplaced it at a bar, and we would like to give it back.

G: Yeah, I forwarded your email [asking him if it was his iPhone], someone should be contacting you.

J: OK.

G: Can I send this phone number along?

J: [Contact information]

[Vendetta]

I have to say I find this to be a disturbing precedent, no matter how well it may be founded in the letter of the law. I don't like the idea of corporate interests using the police as their private enforcement troops.

If you'd been quivering over the "precedent" when the RIAA started marching people to the camps, then you might have had a point. Since then though it's been fairly clear that law enforcement can be made to dance to the tune of corporate interests.

[Simplicius]

And confiscate the computers and materials of a journalist involved in a story they objected to the publishing of.

Have you considered that a company using the police to help punish those that violate its trade secrets might be a bad thing? Trade secrets much like the rest of intellectual property law is a civil matter and rightly so, which begs the question, what would the reaction be if the fellow with the iPhone got drunk and sold it thinking it would be funny, then reported it stolen to save his own ass with his bosses for violating his contract... Hm?

1. As I already posted twice now, there is provision in California criminal law for treating misappropriation of trade secrets as theft. A third time:

(b)Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following:

(1)Steals, takes, carries away, or uses without authorization, a trade secret.

(2)Fraudulently appropriates any article representing a trade secret entrusted to him or her.

(3)Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret.

And, according to the last section:

(d)In a prosecution for a violation of this section, it shall be no defense that the person returned or intended to return the article.

So there's that.

2. What reason do you have for ascribing a punishment motive to the police for the raid? A search warrant was issued and served in the context of investigating whether a felony was committed. Unless you wholly reject the legitimacy of the warrant or the possibility that a felony was committed - which would be stupid for you to do since you know less than the legal and law enforcement people involved - there is no factual basis for concluding that this is some petty revenge on Apple's part.

Anti-police anti-corporate paranoia ahoy!

[Sarevok]

Have you considered the fact that when it comes to cases like this the law itself mightt be broken ? Last I checked California state law is not a scripture on one true ethical standards. The law saying something is permissible does not make it ok always.

[General Zod]

Have you considered the fact that when it comes to cases like this the law itself mightt be broken ? Last I checked California state law is not a scripture on one true ethical standards. The law saying something is permissible does not make it ok always.

I'm failing to see what's unethical about arresting reporters for committing a serious crime to get a story. Journalism shield laws are also considerably less protective than doctor-patient, client-attorney or priest-confessor privileges, contrary to the popular opinion in this thread. Incidentally, since this happened in California, guess which state's laws we're going to reference?