6 ms·

Lost iPhone prototype spurs police probe

67 points by anderzole 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
CWuestefeld 17y ago
Sheesh. What is it with all these stories? You'd think that leaking information about a new iPhone was the most important thing to happen this week. It's not.
- neonfunk 17y ago
  Why, it's a bizarre tale of sordid intrigue, of course!
  - gloob 17y ago
    If all such tales were this normal, mundane, and boring, the world would be an impressively dull place.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Commenting on stories you're not interested in is a waste of your own time.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Reading comments about how writing comments is a waste of time is a waste of time. Writing comments about reading comments about how writing comments is a waste of time. And now you have to read a comment about writing a comment about reading a comment about writing a comment about reading a comment. I think.
neonfunk 17y ago
In terms of appearances, the DA pursuing criminal charges is the best possible outcome for Apple. They get the satisfaction of seeing Giz and/or the "thief" scrutinized for their actions without risking the fallout of aggressively pursuing them with a civil suit. Substantively, I admit not understanding the legal intricacies.
- grellas 17y ago
  This does not look good for Gizmodo, and I can say this even as someone who does not practice criminal law. Why? 1. The REACT unit is a dedicated unit established to fight tech-related crimes, and I would not take it lightly to know that they were investigating my conduct. 2. California's stolen property laws would appear to apply here and may well have been violated. 3. The much more serious federal Espionage Act of 1996 appears on its face potentially to apply as well - "Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for . . . interstate . . . commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly . . . steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information . . . shall . . . be fined under this title [i.e., up to $5 million] or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." 4. The "intent" element, normally hard to prove for criminal purposes, is strongly bolstered by facts admitted by Gizmodo (payment for the item, intent to get hands on Apple trade secrets, holding the property for an extended period) and is countered only by what appears to be the merest pretext of an excuse (supposed doubt about the genuineness of the item). Maybe the first amendment will shield Gizmodo, or maybe the D.A., after investigation, will drop the matter, or maybe it is a stunt and Apple ultimately will not press charges, but if I were Gizmodo I would be concerned where this might lead.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    I just don't think trade secrets are relevant in this case. It stops being a trade secret when you leave it in a bar. If the Apple employee was not authorized to bring it to a bar, that could be a problem for him. But since Gizmodo made no effort to induce anyone to expose Apple's trade secrets, it's very unlikely that they will be held accountable for doing so. They bought a stolen phone that happened to be a good news story. It's just an unfortunate set of events, not a crime. Now, the "stolen goods", OTOH, could get them in trouble, but that applies to any phone ever left in a bar. I bet if I lost my phone in the bar, no computer crimes unit would be investigating. I'd probably just be laughed at. Apple's phone should be no more special, under the law, than mine. The difficulty there, however, will be proving that the phone is worth $400. If I pay you $10,000 for your toenail clippings, that doesn't make them worth $10,000. That makes me an idiot. My estimate is that no charges will come of this. I also assume the guy at Apple won't be on the "testing our super-secret prototypes" team anymore.
jrockway 17y ago
Why is this a "computer crime"? What details would be different if this was a used box of condoms instead of an iPhone prototype?
- IdeaHamster 17y ago
  From TFA: REACT, which stands for Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, and was established in 1997 with a goal of working closely with Bay Area technology companies. I don't see anything about a "computer crime", only mention of a department established for working with Bay Area technology companies working with a Bay Area technology company.
- sophacles 17y ago
  Were they prototype condoms that are not publicly available? If so not much other than the condoms don't hold electronic data (assuming they aren't super revolutionary). So things that could be illegal here: 1. The product may have been taken without permission off apple property. 2. The device could have sensitive "trade secret" data on it. The person who lost the device is certainly under NDA, therefore the information on the device did not lose this status. 3. The device being a prototype may actually constitute trade secret worthy status. In both 2 and 3 paying for the device could constitute industrial espionage for commercial purposes, depending on the circumstances. 4. Just because the person who sold it to Gizmodo claims to have found it in a bar does not mean he did not steal it himself, with or without collusion from the apple guy. There are many more potential crimes in this scenario. As for what warrants it being investigated by the computer crimes folks: it is a high tech device and most of the players involved are high tech folks. It stands to reason they may have texted, emailed, twittered etc in the course of making the deal(s). The computer crimes folks are most likely to be able to trace that stuff down.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    It stands to reason they may have texted, emailed, twittered etc in the course of making the deal(s). Wouldn't this be true of any crime?

67 points by anderzole 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

Sheesh. What is it with all these stories? You'd think that leaking information about a new iPhone was the most important thing to happen this week. It's not.

neonfunk 17y ago
Why, it's a bizarre tale of sordid intrigue, of course!
- gloob 17y ago
  If all such tales were this normal, mundane, and boring, the world would be an impressively dull place.
GHFigs 17y ago
Commenting on stories you're not interested in is a waste of your own time.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Reading comments about how writing comments is a waste of time is a waste of time. Writing comments about reading comments about how writing comments is a waste of time. And now you have to read a comment about writing a comment about reading a comment about writing a comment about reading a comment. I think.

neonfunk 17y ago

In terms of appearances, the DA pursuing criminal charges is the best possible outcome for Apple. They get the satisfaction of seeing Giz and/or the "thief" scrutinized for their actions without risking the fallout of aggressively pursuing them with a civil suit. Substantively, I admit not understanding the legal intricacies.

grellas 17y ago
This does not look good for Gizmodo, and I can say this even as someone who does not practice criminal law. Why? 1. The REACT unit is a dedicated unit established to fight tech-related crimes, and I would not take it lightly to know that they were investigating my conduct. 2. California's stolen property laws would appear to apply here and may well have been violated. 3. The much more serious federal Espionage Act of 1996 appears on its face potentially to apply as well - "Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for . . . interstate . . . commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly . . . steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information . . . shall . . . be fined under this title [i.e., up to $5 million] or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." 4. The "intent" element, normally hard to prove for criminal purposes, is strongly bolstered by facts admitted by Gizmodo (payment for the item, intent to get hands on Apple trade secrets, holding the property for an extended period) and is countered only by what appears to be the merest pretext of an excuse (supposed doubt about the genuineness of the item). Maybe the first amendment will shield Gizmodo, or maybe the D.A., after investigation, will drop the matter, or maybe it is a stunt and Apple ultimately will not press charges, but if I were Gizmodo I would be concerned where this might lead.
- jrockway 17y ago
  I just don't think trade secrets are relevant in this case. It stops being a trade secret when you leave it in a bar. If the Apple employee was not authorized to bring it to a bar, that could be a problem for him. But since Gizmodo made no effort to induce anyone to expose Apple's trade secrets, it's very unlikely that they will be held accountable for doing so. They bought a stolen phone that happened to be a good news story. It's just an unfortunate set of events, not a crime. Now, the "stolen goods", OTOH, could get them in trouble, but that applies to any phone ever left in a bar. I bet if I lost my phone in the bar, no computer crimes unit would be investigating. I'd probably just be laughed at. Apple's phone should be no more special, under the law, than mine. The difficulty there, however, will be proving that the phone is worth $400. If I pay you $10,000 for your toenail clippings, that doesn't make them worth $10,000. That makes me an idiot. My estimate is that no charges will come of this. I also assume the guy at Apple won't be on the "testing our super-secret prototypes" team anymore.

jrockway 17y ago

Why is this a "computer crime"? What details would be different if this was a used box of condoms instead of an iPhone prototype?

IdeaHamster 17y ago
From TFA: REACT, which stands for Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, and was established in 1997 with a goal of working closely with Bay Area technology companies. I don't see anything about a "computer crime", only mention of a department established for working with Bay Area technology companies working with a Bay Area technology company.
sophacles 17y ago
Were they prototype condoms that are not publicly available? If so not much other than the condoms don't hold electronic data (assuming they aren't super revolutionary). So things that could be illegal here: 1. The product may have been taken without permission off apple property. 2. The device could have sensitive "trade secret" data on it. The person who lost the device is certainly under NDA, therefore the information on the device did not lose this status. 3. The device being a prototype may actually constitute trade secret worthy status. In both 2 and 3 paying for the device could constitute industrial espionage for commercial purposes, depending on the circumstances. 4. Just because the person who sold it to Gizmodo claims to have found it in a bar does not mean he did not steal it himself, with or without collusion from the apple guy. There are many more potential crimes in this scenario. As for what warrants it being investigated by the computer crimes folks: it is a high tech device and most of the players involved are high tech folks. It stands to reason they may have texted, emailed, twittered etc in the course of making the deal(s). The computer crimes folks are most likely to be able to trace that stuff down.
- jrockway 17y ago
  It stands to reason they may have texted, emailed, twittered etc in the course of making the deal(s). Wouldn't this be true of any crime?