Apple on steering commitee of task force that raided Gizmodo

[General Zod]

You could take it as a concession, or you could actually think about the point instead of trying to score points.

You're the one who claimed they were receiving unequal treatment. Put up or shut up.

The fact that the man in question had his house raided after their property was returned.

In other words, you don't actually know what the proper legal channels are beyond some vague gut instinct.

[Vendetta]

I'd prefer it if they used the proper legal channels, instead of subverting the criminal justice system.

These are the proper legal channels in California.

I mean fucking newsflash man, the justice system in America is structured, top to bottom, to serve the interests of corporations and unions, in roughly that order.

It's no good just waking up and having a cry about it now, they've got you hog tied already.

[ThomasP]

You could take it as a concession, or you could actually think about the point instead of trying to score points.

You're the one who claimed they were receiving unequal treatment. Put up or shut up.

I've already covered this. It's two posts back. If you want to take it as a concession of the point, by all means. I can't conclusively dispute the point.

That doesn't mean it's not at least worth consideration, versus a venue to score e-points. If that's what matters to you here, then yes, you win.

In other words, you don't actually know what the proper legal channels are beyond some vague gut instinct.

When your company is on the steering committee of a task force that then proceeds to raid the house of a journalist on the pretense of a theft statute, that's a real conflict of interest.

Can you tell me when that became proper legal channels? Or is that some vague gut instinct of yours?

[General Zod]

I've already covered this. It's two posts back. If you want to take it as a concession of the point, by all means. I can't conclusively dispute the point.

That doesn't mean it's not at least worth consideration, versus a venue to score e-points. If that's what matters to you here, then yes, you win.

If you want people to give it consideration, then how about showing some evidence? Oh right, you don't have any.

When your company is on the steering committee of a task force that then proceeds to raid the house of a journalist on the pretense of a theft statute, that's a real conflict of interest.

Can you tell me when that became proper legal channels? Or is that some vague gut instinct of yours?

I'm not sure I'm seeing this so-called conflict of interest here. Frankly your entire argument sounds like a half-baked understanding of everything that's going on.

[ThomasP]

If you want people to give it consideration, then how about showing some evidence? Oh right, you don't have any.

No, I don't have anything conclusive.

Your smartass nonsense aside, it's not hard to see the simple fact that cops don't go raiding the homes of people accused of small-time theft, nor is it hard to see that this was purely instigated due to Apple's influence and it had nothing at all to do with retrieving stolen property.

But this is such an outlier of a case that impossible to prove that point to a degree that will satisfy the demand for concrete evidence, in that I can't prove that police don't generally tend to do this under their day to day enforcement of this theft statute.

EDIT: The mere fact that this story has made the headlines it's made would almost seem compelling enough, given that it's so unusual that it demanded that kind of attention. You'd think that if this kind of home raid were a common aspect of enforcing the theft laws, it wouldn't garner so much attention, no?

I'm not sure I'm seeing this so-called conflict of interest here. Frankly your entire argument sounds like a half-baked understanding of everything that's going on.

Okay.

[General Zod]

No, I don't have anything conclusive.

Your smartass nonsense aside, it's not hard to see the simple fact that cops don't go raiding the homes of people accused of small-time theft, nor is it hard to see that this was purely instigated due to Apple's influence and it had nothing at all to do with retrieving stolen property.

But this is such an outlier of a case that impossible to prove that point to a degree that will satisfy the demand for concrete evidence, in that I can't prove that police don't generally tend to do this under their day to day enforcement of this theft statute.

Except this isn't exactly small time theft, and the fact that you keep trying to pretend it's small time is hilariously dishonest. Even if this were a generic iPhone it would still be worth $300 or more, which still puts it under felony territory.

[ThomasP]

Except this isn't exactly small time theft, and the fact that you keep trying to pretend it's small time is hilariously dishonest. Even if this were a generic iPhone it would still be worth $300 or more, which still puts it under felony territory.

And again we're getting into the preferential treatment category.

The police don't generally prioritize nor act on property crimes to this degree. This issue came about purely because of Apple's pressure and as you noted, the fact that this was Apple's IP that was in question. Which was the entire (original) point.

[General Zod]

And again we're getting into the preferential treatment category.

How does treating a $300 theft as a felony count as "preferential treatment"? If something's value is over a certain amount and it's stolen, then it's a felony no matter who it's stolen from.

The police don't generally prioritize nor act on property crimes to this degree.

Again, evidence?

Oh look. Police arrest some laptop thieves after the victim identifies them and gives the cops their location.

This issue came about purely because of Apple's pressure and as you noted, the fact that this was Apple's IP that was in question. Which was the entire (original) point.

I'm not exactly sure you're using the same definition of pressure as everyone else. I doubt Apple was pulling arms to get it back or did anything much more than "Hey you guys, we wanna press charges against this guy. Here's our proof." If you'd bothered reading the link I posted earlier, the DA's office actually made a point of taking into consideration whether or not this kind of response was warranted.

[ThomasP]

And again we're getting into the preferential treatment category.

How does treating a $300 theft as a felony count as "preferential treatment"? If something's value is over a certain amount and it's stolen, then it's a felony no matter who it's stolen from.

The police don't generally prioritize nor act on property crimes to this degree.

Again, evidence?

[/quote]
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/ ... ily36.html

So far, nobody has been charged with a crime.

“We’re still not saying it’s a crime,” said San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.”

Wagstaffe said that an outside counsel for Apple, along with Apple engineer Powell, called the District Attorney’s office on Wednesday or Thursday of last week to report a theft had occurred and they wanted it investigated. The District Attorney’s office then referred them to the Rapid Enforcement and Allied Computer Team, or REACT, a multi-jurisdictional, high-tech crime task force that operates under the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office.
REACT then sought out the warrant that was served on the home of Gizmodo writer Jason Chen, seizing several computers, a server and external hard drives, as well as copies of Chen’s paystubs and his American Express bill. The warrant was served on April 23 while Chen and his wife were out of the house, leading investigators to break down his door and conduct the search.

It later gave the iPhone to Apple Inc. after the company demanded its return.

The raid wasn't conducted to retrieve stolen property. In fact nobody even knows this was a criminal action yet.

It was conducted on the say-so of Apple, with the intent of finding evidence after the fact. That's purely Apple's call, and what should have remained a civil matter (the bit about their trade secrets) has now spilled over into a criminal investigation because...Apple said so.

The preferential treatment part comes in because the law is being intentionally used to keep Apple's IP in check. Legal, sure, by the letter of the law. Right? Not really.

I'm not exactly sure you're using the same definition of pressure as everyone else. I doubt Apple was pulling arms to get it back or did anything much more than "Hey you guys, we wanna press charges against this guy. Here's our proof." If you'd bothered reading the link I posted earlier, the DA's office actually made a point of taking into consideration whether or not this kind of response was warranted.

See above. The stolen phone was never the matter in question. They've got that back and it was given back to them before this raid ever happened.

The point in question is that this wasn't sufficient; Apple piled on the troops after the fact. This isn't even about the theft, though that's the pretext.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So far, nobody has been charged with a crime.

“We’re still not saying it’s a crime,” said San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.”

You do know that we have this little clause known as "Innocent until proven guilty." Just because the police weren't yet calling it a crime doesn't mean that a crime wasn't committed. It just means that the police were still investigating to determine who should be arrested and charged with what crime.

Wagstaffe said that an outside counsel for Apple, along with Apple engineer Powell, called the District Attorney’s office on Wednesday or Thursday of last week to report a theft had occurred and they wanted it investigated. The District Attorney’s office then referred them to the Rapid Enforcement and Allied Computer Team, or REACT, a multi-jurisdictional, high-tech crime task force that operates under the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office.
REACT then sought out the warrant that was served on the home of Gizmodo writer Jason Chen, seizing several computers, a server and external hard drives, as well as copies of Chen’s paystubs and his American Express bill. The warrant was served on April 23 while Chen and his wife were out of the house, leading investigators to break down his door and conduct the search.

It later gave the iPhone to Apple Inc. after the company demanded its return.

The raid wasn't conducted to retrieve stolen property. In fact nobody even knows this was a criminal action yet.[/quote]
Of course it wasn't conducted to retrieve the stolen property. It was likely conducted to collect, and prevent Gizmodo from tampering with, the possible evidence that crimes had been committed.

It was conducted on the say-so of Apple, with the intent of finding evidence after the fact. That's purely Apple's call, and what should have remained a civil matter (the bit about their trade secrets) has now spilled over into a criminal investigation because...Apple said so.

They are well within their rights to press charges, you jackass. Put it this way . . . say you had a smartphone and you left it at a bar after a night of drunken debauchery. Some barfly picks it up, and instead of contacting you or turning it in to the police, fences it at the local disreputable pawn shop for more booze money. Now, let's say that the pawn shop owner examines your phone and publishes your address book and the pictures of your girlfriend in positions her mother wouldn't approve of on the internet. After that, he calls you to say that he has your phone and he . . . <snicker> . . . didn't know it was stolen. Are you going to say you have no right to recompense in this case? Are you going to say that it wasn't theft when someone stole your phone after you accidentally left it at the bar and then used it for their own profit at your expense? Like Apple, you'd be well within your rights to press criminal charges, or file suit in civil court.

[ThomasP]

Points conceded.

In retrospect and on further research, it would appear I overreacted and was arguing from an incorrect position.

[General Zod]

Update: People can stop hyperventillating now.

The person who found and sold an Apple iPhone prototype says he regrets not doing more to return the device to its owner, according to a statement provided by his attorney Thursday in response to queries from Wired.com.

Brian J. Hogan, a 21-year-old resident of Redwood City, California, says although he was paid by tech site Gizmodo, he believed the payment was for allowing the site exclusive access to review the phone. Gizmodo emphasized to him “that there was nothing wrong in sharing the phone with the tech press,” according to his attorney Jeffrey Bornstein.

Wired.com identified Hogan as the finder of the prototype by following clues on social network sites, and then confirmed his identity with a source involved in the iPhone find.

Hogan has been interviewed by law enforcement investigators but has not been charged with a crime. His attorney says he is willing to cooperate with authorities.

It’s generally considered theft under California law if one “finds lost property under circumstances that give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner” and yet appropriates the property for his own use “without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him.”

The person who found the phone “is very definitely one of the people who is being looked at as a suspect in theft,” San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe told Wired.com Wednesday. “Assuming there’s ultimately a crime here. That’s what we’re still gauging, is this a crime, is it a theft?”

On April 19, Gizmodo, which is owned by Gawker Media, published a bombshell story about the iPhone prototype, which had apparently been left at the Gourmet Haus Staudt in Redwood City. It was left behind by an Apple engineer named Gray Powell.

According to the statement from his lawyer, Hogan was in the bar with friends when another patron handed him the phone after finding it on a nearby stool. The patron asked Hogan if the phone belonged to him, and then left the bar. Hogan asked others sitting nearby if the phone belonged to them, and when no one claimed it, he and his friends left the bar with the device.

“Brian opened the phone onto a Facebook page but then the phone shut down,” attorney Bornstein writes. “From that time on, the phone was inoperable the entire time Brian had it.”

Hogan didn’t know what he had until he removed a fake cover from the device and realized it must be a prototype of Apple’s upcoming next-generation iPhone, according to Gizmodo’s account of the find.

A friend of Hogan’s then offered to call Apple Care on Hogan’s behalf, according to Hogan’s lawyer. That apparently was the extent of Hogan’s efforts to return the phone.

After the friend’s purported efforts to return the phone failed, several journalists were offered a look at the device. Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 — not from Hogan — offering access to the iPhone, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money. Gizmodo then paid $5,000 in cash for it.

The owners of the bar told reporters that Hogan didn’t notify anyone who worked at the bar about the phone. They also said Powell returned several times after losing the phone to see if anyone had found it and turned it in. Powell and Apple’s outside counsel contacted the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office last week to report the phone stolen, according to reports.

“He regrets his mistake in not doing more to return the phone,” says Bornstein’s statement. “Even though he did obtain some compensation from Gizmodo, Brian thought that it was so that they could review the phone.”

Shortly after Gizmodo published its story, people identifying themselves as representatives of Apple appeared at Hogan’s home seeking permission to search the premises, according to a source involved with the iPhone find. A roommate turned them away.

Records show a Redwood City address for Hogan about a mile from the bar where he found the phone. Nobody was at home when Wired.com knocked on the door earlier this week. Hogan previously lived in Santa Barbara, where he attended Santa Barbara City College as recently as 2008, according to his Facebook profile, which was deleted last week.

His attorney says he recently transferred schools and will resume his college education in the fall. He has been working part time at a church-run community center giving swimming lessons to children and volunteered at a Chinese orphanage last year while he was enrolled in a study-abroad program.

“He also volunteers to assist his aunt and sister with fundraising for their work to provide medical care to orphans in Kenya,” his attorney says. “Brian is the kind of young man that any parent would be proud to have as their son.”

In addition to Hogan, investigators have targeted Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, who received and reported on the phone. Last Friday, officers from California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team raided Chen’s Fremont, California, home and seized computers and other equipment.

Gawker Media and others have said the search warrant violated state and federal shield laws protecting journalists from searches and seizures without a subpoena. The San Mateo County district attorney’s office said this week that investigators will not examine the seized materials until the legality of the warrant has been resolved.

Hogan’s attorney, Jeffrey Bornstein, is a former federal prosecutor, who is now a partner at the San Francisco law firm K & L Gates. As a defense attorney, Bornstein notably represented the captain who steered a container ship into the San Francisco Bay Bridge in 2007.

In an interview at his office Thursday afternoon, the lawyer said Hogan’s family has relocated to an undisclosed location in anticipation of a media frenzy. “This thing has gotten completely, completely out of control,” said Bornstein, referring to the public interest in the story.

“He made a mistake,” Bornstein added. “He should have just immediately turned that phone in.”

Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/0 ... z0mYEvjLYr