12 ms·

Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

257 points by sgman 16y ago

nailer 16y ago
...illegally (worth putting in the headline methinks). Surely Apple's counsel knows US law. I don't think they're that dumb, but it surprises me they're that unethical. Then again, Gizmodo are creeps too - maybe they're suited for each other.
- TotlolRon 16y ago
  yes sir!
- hoop 16y ago
  We may see Apple challenge the precedence in CA that bloggers should be treated as journalists under the law.
- raganwald 16y ago
  > Surely Apple's counsel knows US law Was this a typo? The search was conducted by police, not Apple. This is a criminal matter, not a civil one.
  - nailer 16y ago
    It clearly wasn't a typo. I'm well aware the search was conducted by police. I did not suggest otherwise. I am saying that Apple asked the police to raid the property.
    - zts 16y ago
      So the police are working for Apple now? Clear evidence that their quest for world domination has gone too far.
      - nailer 16y ago
        No, like all humans, they're self interested. They just want to be seen to do a good job protecting one of the states biggest earning and most well known companies in a high profile case. I personally also pay more attention and go beyond the call for higher profile projects. That doesn't mean I'm involved in some kind of conspiracy.
        zts 16y ago
        It's one thing to suggest that the police will pay greater attention to high profile cases (with which I'd agree), and quite another thing to imply that the raid happened because Apple requested it. Beyond that, could you point out the source of your assertion that Apple requested this? I missed it in the article, and that's the conspiracy you've raised.
        nailer 16y ago
        If I were Apple, I'd ask the police to get the phone back from Jason Chen, hire my own people to get his address, and let the police do what they will, knowing that likely means a raid. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.
        gjm11 16y ago
        1. Apple already had the phone; Gizmodo sent it back to them. 2. "If I were Apple, I would have done X" does not in any way imply "Apple did X".
        nailer 16y ago
        1. Interesting. So what was the purpose of the raid? 2. Agreed. There may be a remote chance the police just read the internet and really, really care about apple. But I doubt it.
        infinite8s 16y ago
tvon 16y ago
Seems kind of... excessive. Granted, I guess if you want to see someone's email correspondence, this is the only way to do it.
- dschobel 16y ago
  They could subpoena the hosting company if it's web/hosted email (ala Gmail).
danudey 16y ago
While I've argued in several places that Gizmodo should face the penalty for what they've done (buying stolen property, then taunting Apple with it), this doesn't seem like the right way to go. As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism, and I would argue that, regardless of the quality of Gawker's work, Jason Chen counts as a journalist. I can only hope the court agrees. I want to see Gizmodo get penalized for this, but if the choice is between that and ignoring the rights of journalists, it's not worth it.
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism Except that's not a carte blanche shield. If a computer used for journalism was also used to store, say, records of a drug-running ring, would that computer be inviolable? Or seizable, with a warrant, as evidence in the commission of a crime?
  - kfury 16y ago
    This is the crux of the issue. The warrant wasn't issued to determine the source of a trade secrets leak. It was used to procure evidence for the buying and selling of stolen goods. Trade secrets are a civil matter. The fact that the police sought a warrant implies that they're pursuing the criminal case regardless of Gizmodo's publication. IOW: Running a blog or being a journalist doesn't protect your computers from being impounded when you break the law and happen to also blog about doing so.
    - eli 16y ago
      Theft of trade secrets is a criminal matter, actually. Google "Economic Espionage Act of 1996." It may well violate similar CA laws.
    - ubernostrum 16y ago
      The amusing bit is that we all see, and probably laugh at, so many stories of people posting evidence of their crimes on Facebook or YouTube and then being surprised when they're caught. Gizmodo basically did exactly the same thing, but on a far larger scale.
dschobel 16y ago
So much for the 'clever marketing ploy' theory.
- sp332 16y ago
  No such thing as bad publicity. Imagine gizmodo's ad revenues for today!
  - eli 16y ago
    No doubt. But I think dschobel meant the theory that Apple planted this phone to be found.
    - DrSprout 16y ago
      I wouldn't put it past Steve Jobs' Apple.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Imagine them being included in calculations of penal fines, while you're at it. If a conviction ensues the value of Gawker's increased traffic and ad revenue will surely be scrutinized to determine the extent of their economic benefit.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      If I benefit from covering this, will I have to give the money back? What about the New York Times? What about Apple?
      - anigbrowl 16y ago
        No, because you are commenting on something that was already public knowledge. There's nothing to suggest that the innards of the phone were discoverable by the public until Gizmodo threw up ~20 pictures of them.
        16y ago
hoop 16y ago
This will be very interesting to watch unfold. According to Gizmodo's letter to the Detective, they seem to feel that there is a legal precedence set for treating bloggers as journalists under the law in CA state. Both companies are based out of CA. But then again, so is the EFF; I wonder if we will see them step in. Gizmodo definitely saw this coming. If the pre-written legal defense doesn't give it away, they very publicly bought stolen property and (very likely) profited by doing so.
- goatforce5 16y ago
  That law seems to be written to say "journalists are allowed to protect their sources". Which is not the same as saying "journalists are allowed to commit crimes in order the get a story".
  - eli 16y ago
    Five bucks says there's a post on Gizmodo referencing the Pentagon Papers in the next 12 hours. I don't agree with what Gizmodo did, but I definitely support strong shield laws for online journalists. I really hope they don't end becoming poster children for a free online press.
    - goatforce5 16y ago
      Pentagon Papers was in the public interest. Tech specs of a new gadget probably isn't.
      - eli 16y ago
        Oh, I completely, totally agree. But don't think that will stop the grandstanding and martyrdom.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jamesbressi 16y ago
Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple... When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf? I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere between $1000 to $5000, there was identification of the person and there was nothing remotely as swift or stern taken here to recover.
- city41 16y ago
  My house got broken into a few years ago, they took everything I owned except furniture and one tv. I later found my anime collection for sale at a local used dvd store (complete with my name written inside the cases of all the DVDs). I talked with the owner, he had photocopied the guy's drivers license who came in with them. Despite this, and my continually pinging the police, nothing ever happened. He got away with it scott free. I guess you need to be a multi billion dollar corporation to get justice in this country. EDIT: And just want to add, lesson learned. I didn't have renter's insurance at the time, dumb mistake. I'm now always fully insured, and so should you be :)
  - pohl 16y ago
    The treatment of your case was underkill.
  - tvon 16y ago
    I think it's more that you need to get a lot of publicity to get justice in this country. edit: scratch that, publicity only works because it has the potential to bring more powerful groups to your aid.
  - BRadmin 16y ago
    What happened to the DVDs?
    - city41 16y ago
markbao 16y ago
I wish the best of luck to Jason for getting his stuff back. Forensics/law enforcement is notorious for not returning your stuff in a timely manner (think years) without a lawsuit. Hope he has an offsite backup.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Just to stick up for the Forensics guys - it's not usually our fault unless there is actually evidence on there. Turn around times (at least in the UK) for actually processing evidence is less than a month. It's the police/prosecutors that cause all the hold ups.
  - markbao 16y ago
    Sorry—definitely didn't mean to frame you guys. Definitely aware of that, which is why I mentioned law enforcement in general. The whole thing kind of makes sense (holding equipment to make sure no potential evidence is released without a final decision)—but it's still frustrating and it doesn't seem like there's a good solution that makes it easier for both parties.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Heh, no worries :) in many cases illegitimate delays are simply due to incompetence, so it's good to complain then. Turn around is pretty good; we serve a mid to large police force in the UK (around 5000 computer investigations a year). Average return time for evidence where no charges were brought last year was about 2 1/2 months. Complaints over delays were in the 10's.
      - markbao 16y ago
        WOW. That is really impressive. Serious kudos for efficiency. It's weird to think that at any given moment, you're subject to a search and seizure (or any other kind of law enforcement ...enforcing) which will interrupt your life for sometime around one month to (in most cases) a year or so. Really kind of makes you want to hustle and get to work when you're not being served a warrant :P
bsiemon 16y ago
Section 1070 California Evidence Code protects sources of information from discovery by the state. It does not protect evidence related to the commission of a crime. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1070 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&#...
- nailer 16y ago
  What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.
  - rufo 16y ago
    Why didn't he do something reasonable, like turn it into the bartender or the police?
    - qq66 16y ago
      His legal obligation was to return it to the bartender, but calling Apple to return it is hardly "unreasonable."
      - zweben 16y ago
        Given that the people he spoke to wouldn't even be aware of the existence of the lost prototype, I don't think you could call that an honest attempt to return the phone at all. Even sending an email to sjobs@apple.com would've been more likely to get the phone back to Apple.
        nailer 16y ago
        You're right, sjobs@ would have been better, but whoever received the call at Apple and didn't route it to the right people (or whoever ignored it for a week) seriously let the company down.
        16y ago
ErrantX 16y ago
Well I'm a bit surprised. I thought the police would casually investigate just for form and then move on (and let Apple pursue it in the civil courts if they wanted).
fjabre 16y ago
Why do people automatically assume this has anything to do with journalism? What if it's about one company illegally obtaining the trade secrets of another and then releasing that trade secret to a global media? The whole thing smelled fishy to begin with. I honestly can't say what I believe. However, if this was some kind of setup and they find evidence that Gizmodo intended to steal that prototype then that would definitely explain the police raid.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Gawker's COO is arguing on that basis (http://gizmodo.com/5524843/ http://gizmodo.com/5524843/)
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Reading that warrant makes me not regret the full-disk encryption on every computer in my house. It makes the computer slower, but it removes any incentive to remove the device from my home. (And it removes the ability of my own computer to incriminate me.)
    - evgen 16y ago
      It does not remove the ability of law enforcement to serve a search warrant and carry your computers out the door, nor does it remove the ability of a judge to plant you in a jail cell until you cough up the passwords. What it does do in create an incentive for anyone who does serve a search warrant upon you to look very, very closely at the contents of the drive once you do provide the password -- if you thought the inconvenience of full-disk encryption was this important then they are likely to think that they will find some child porn or tax evasion documents buried in there somewhere.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        nor does it remove the ability of a judge to plant you in a jail cell until you cough up the passwords It's true, encryption doesn't remove this ability. The reality is that the Constitution never provides this ability in the first place, and specifically prevents the government from passing any law that would provide this ability. Refusing to testify against yourself (without a grant of immunity, anyway) is not a crime, it's your right.
grellas 16y ago
An important New Jersey appellate court decision, interpreting New Jersey law, just came down ruling that bloggers are not journalists and are not entitled to the protection afforded by the shield laws. (See the write-up here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_Reporter_Shield_for_Mere_Blogger_NJ_Appeals_Court_Says http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_R...). Regardless of the legality of this particular search, this confirms that the authorities are likely looking at this as a felony investigation, with all that this signifies for Gizmodo. Should Gizmodo be worried? Without question. With the REACT unit on the case (which specializes in these types of tech-related crimes), and with a potential violation of the Espionage Act of 1996 being provable and punishable by as much as a $5 million fine and up to 10 years in prison (see my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289741 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289741), they are no doubt taking this very seriously at this point. Of course, I cannot help sympathizing with Mr. Chen - what a horrible trauma to go through. A very ugly scene for him and his family.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  I feel for his wife. But I have to wonder whether Jason Chen is the guy who chose to wreck Powell's life to cram one more factoid into a big story, and what just consequences from that would look like.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    Is there any evidence whatsoever that Gray Powell's life is "wrecked"? He still has a job and if he were fired he'd get a new job really quickly. He's now the most well known iPhone engineer and only known sin was something that could happen to anyone and I have a hard time believing would close future career doors. In reality it will probably help him get interviews in the future.
    - zephyrfalcon 16y ago
      "he'd get a new job really quickly" You think? (recruiter reads resume) "Oh, yeah, you're the guy who lost the iPhone prototype! I can't wait to hire you!" :-)
tokenadult 16y ago
"Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists." I see grellas has also posted a reply on this point, with a legal citation. Most definitions of "journalist" boil down to a definition something like "a reporter who writes for an editor," (a definition, as noted by the journalist who proposed it, that excludes Matt Drudge and most other bloggers). I wouldn't expect the typical blogger to be regarded as a journalist, legally, because the typical blogger doesn't maintain the standards of professional journalism. (Note: I was a minor-league journalist, a reporter for a trade magazine, years ago. Big-league journalism is MUCH harder than blogging, by at least two orders of magnitude, and much more constitutionally important.)
- nailer 16y ago
  Interesting. What about if Gawker has a house style guide, pays a comprable word rate, requests particular markup in copy for boxouts or artwork, docks pay for late copy, and asks you kindly not to be too aggressive about the big advertisers?
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    If the Gawker reporters write for editors (I don't know whether or not that is how Gawker is organized), then they are journalists by the definition I have read. I like your list of questions about other activities that might distinguish a journalistic organization from other organizations.
drewcrawford 16y ago
Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something somebody can pin on you if they want to. Seriously. Go tick the checkbox.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Alternatively, don't buy stolen property and then publicly announce that you've done so. Once you've committed a crime though, definitely be smart about asserting your civil rights, using encryption, etc. And even if you haven't committed a crime, assert your civil rights and use encryption. But probably the #1 thing you can do to not get harassed by police is to obey the law.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Unfortunately, everyone is guilty of violating some law at some time. So it's best to ensure that your computer is not going to be testifying against you, especially when that is just one checkbox away. You can always decrypt your drive when asked. But you can't encrypt it after the police take your computer.
- slackerIII 16y ago
  What is your plan for when the judge tells you to supply the decryption key?
  - donw 16y ago
    You supply it, of course. But having the drive encrypted buys you time. The cops have to take the machines into evidence, nominally send them out to the lab for processing, and only then do they run into your encryption key. They then need to go back to the judge, and get a court order to compel you to supply your encryption key. By which time you've gotten a lawyer, and can fight back.
itiztv 16y ago
confiscation of server is still beyond me
- zefhous 16y ago
  Why's that? You don't think that they would be interested in having records of email correspondence? It's not unreasonable that people running a site like gizmodo would run their own mail servers to increase privacy. Even if it wasn't a mail server (probably wasn't I'd think), there could easily be evidence on it.
ck2 16y ago
This can only happen to protect corporate rights (just try getting that kind of police response for your own problems). I bet the police waited until they saw him leave the house. Good luck if you think that hardware is coming back to you this decade, even if charges are dropped, or if you think you'll get the door paid for.
ahoyhere 16y ago
I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong. It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade secrets, or hey, ethics -- then they deserve what they get, legally speaking. Anybody who thinks about it for a minute would realize that buying a prototype device that "got found at a bar" ("fell off the back of a truck"), made by a company with notoriously tight seals, and a huge legal team, and then explaining to the world that you bought it off some dude… well, that's gonna have consequences. If bloggers aspire to be journalists, they're going to have to learn to have those second thoughts. And learn that "checkbook journalism" just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods.
- tmsh 16y ago
  I agree with you. But, although I haven't studied this event all that carefully, there is a difference between corporate espionage or some sort of malicious attempt at blatantly undermining Apple -- and the way Gizmodo presented their story, afaik. Gizmodo almost seemed to poke fun at the weird circumstances of the prototype being left behind (the photos of the bar and all that). Did they reveal any trade secrets about Apple (the phone being turned off remotely and all)? Maybe, perhaps they're at fault for that. But making fun of a company, satire, should be protected by journalistic rights. Should, for instance, the Daily Show be prosecuted if they go after an interview and someone at the pentagon accidentally reveals classified information? It could be argued that Gizmodo knew the phone had 'fallen off the back of a truck' so to speak -- but their story seemed as much about the falling off of the back of the truck as the item itself. At what point is there some (perhaps small) burden of responsibility on the people who messed up and lost the prototype? It doesn't seem like complete justice that suddenly Apple gets to come down hard with laws that aren't exactly clearly adjudicated yet. I mean if there were precedent -- if it were clearly known that anytime you come across a prototype, you run the risk of being prosecuted for not returning it to the company immediately, then OK, Gizmodo would be at fault. Maybe there is and I just don't know. I get the sense that Apple has decided not to fault Gary Powell because that would be sort of a ridiculous move (see Steve Wozniak's thoughts at gizmodo). But that doesn't necessarily give them the right to take out their frustrations on Gizmodo. An engineer made a mistake. If anything, it's added publicity. Move on.
protomyth 16y ago
This series of events is why "real" news outlets have legal council. You can, thankfully for society, get away with a lot of stuff as a journalist, but some things are illegal. Particularly, when we are talking about commerce and not politics / public safety.
- rufo 16y ago
  One fact I find interesting: Engadget was offered the device as well, but was advised by their counsel (in no uncertain terms) to not acquire the prototype.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
douglasputnam 16y ago
Wow, what's really excessive and shocking is that a Gawker employee has the stones to claim he's a journalist.
raganwald 16y ago
Everyone is debating the whole "Good Faith" thing again. Here's a suggestion: Ask how it is "Good Faith" to "find" something in a bar? This isn't your house, your place of work, or a public space, it's somebody else's property (a phone) inside somebody else's property (a bar). Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Long before we get to the question of how hard the so-called finder tried to return the phone to Apple, I think that wrongdoing occurred the moment he left the bar with the phone in his pocket.
- nailer 16y ago
  > Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Since you're a good person who wants to call the owner and give it back the next morning before someone less scrupulous steals it? What do you want them to do, leave it there? Give it to the bar staff who you don't know? Give it to the cops who'll simply tell you to contact the owner yourself?
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Pick up phone. Wave to bartender. Done. Or pick up phone, drop at police station, done. Or pick up phone, use Safari to place notice on craigslist, done. Once I exit the property with the phone, I've done wrong. The onus is now on me to follow through and get it back to the owner, not take a half-hearted effort to get through to Apple on the phone before selling it to someone else who is also not the owner. p.s. I see you've replied to my points in your message. This makes the thread of conversation hard to follow. Yes, give it to bar staff you don't know. It's not your phone, it's not your bar. It's not up to you to sit in judgment over them and find them wanting, especially when you end up selling the phone for your own gain. Likewise, try giving it to the police and see what they say. That would be a lot more convincing than not doing so and selling the phone later.
    - nailer 16y ago
      > It's not up to you to sit in judgment over them and find them wanting Actually, I'm allowed to judge anyone, even if I don't employ them. So are you. We make judgements about others all the time. I trust I will do what I judge to be the right thing 100% of the time. I trust a stranger less so. This is logical. Suggesting otherwise reminds me of one of those 'don't judge my OSS app unless you wrote it' arguments. Human beings don't need permission to make decisions.
pavs 16y ago
They received the best traffic in Gizmodo's history, but at what cost? http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm7gizmodous&r=33 http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm7gizmodous&r=3... They will probably milk more traffic from this new iteration to this drama. Whats the worst possible scenario for Gawker? Will they get fined or will the editor go to jail?
ccarpenterg 16y ago
Perhaps this is related to an industrial espionage issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Espionage_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Espionage_Act_of_199...
terrellm 16y ago
I got a kick out of this: "These are Jason Chen's computers" http://topherchris.com/post/551530253 http://topherchris.com/post/551530253
ryanisinallofus 16y ago
Let's all be honest. If this was anyone other than Apple you would all be up in arms about this.
- icey 16y ago
  I think if Gizmodo hadn't decided to publish the engineer's information more people would be up in arms about this.
  - ryanisinallofus 16y ago
    I agree. If they just would have blocked the guy's name out they would look better in the public's eye.
istari 16y ago
The police should now post the contents of Chen's hard drive online. After all, they did find it.
- wmf 16y ago
  No, they should sell the contents of his hard drive to the highest bidder. After all, I hear police departments tend to be underfunded.
TallGuyShort 16y ago
Does anyone know to which email he is referring in his account? Is it perhaps an email about the section in the penal code?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
blahbeeblahbee 16y ago
IF you tweet, can you use the same legal argument as being protected under "Free Speach and Journalisim?" Therfore giving you legal immunity regardless of the content that you are tweeting? Illegal drug use, felony activities etc? Or blind ignorance of common ethics and civil code? Would be an interesting outcome and an explosion of online journalisim if this proves to be the case... Don't you think?
mr1900 16y ago
I wonder if the police would search a house if it was an iphone of a normal citizen.
jsz0 16y ago
What Gizmodo did might have been illegal but I have no real problem with it. I feel like Gizmodo made a calculated risk breaking the letter of the law. I can't say I haven't done the same thing involving copyright law, drug law, speeding, etc. Ultimately I read the story and looked at the photographs so it would be a bit silly to get upset at Gizmodo over it.
jajabe 16y ago
Shield laws protect journalists/sources. In an ideal world, we'd be cheering for a good guy. In this case, the TMZ of tech is in the crosshairs. Not going to do any armchair lawyering, but I sure can't wait for the other side (not the whitewashed Gizmodo story) of the story to come out. Sadly, the conditions for Godwin's law are rapidly being met on this situation. sigh
jajabe 16y ago
Shield laws protect journalists/sources. In an ideal world, we'd be cheering for a good guy. In this case, the TMZ of tech is in the crosshairs. Not going to do any armchair lawyering, but I sure can't wait for the other side (not the whitewashed Gizmodo story) of the story to come out. Sadly, the conditions for Godwin's law are rapidly being met on this situation. sigh
Sukotto 16y ago
Legal issues aside, I would have been cool with it if they'd taken their scoop then made an attempt to return the phone. Instead they kept it and screwed over the poor guy who lost it. Funny how I have no sympathy for them whatsoever now.
martythemaniak 16y ago
Did Microsoft ever sink so low as to legally attack a publication out of petty vindictiveness?
delackner 16y ago
I am particularly fascinated by the gleefully accepting rationalizations that some people are offering in support of gizmodo, in support of the theft of physical goods, and the buying of such stolen goods. This is the first physical object I can think of where people seem to be applying the same hand wavy feel-good-ism that people use to justify their own software piracy. This is not just copying bits people.
metamemetics 16y ago
A surprisingly easy way to get a phone back is to text-message that phone and say, "If you find this phone, please call this Number: XXXXXXX Thanks!". It's worked for me twice, I don't know how many people do this simple step after loosing a phone.
- catch23 16y ago
  How many unreleased iPhones have you lost and gotten returned using this method? I think the person who found the lost phone knew exactly who it belonged to, but decided to resell it for $5000 instead of returning it.
  - metamemetics 16y ago
    I thought the finder contacted a random apple support employee. The finder should be commended for even taking the effort to look up an apple support phone number if he actually did. The person who lost it should have plastered a lot of nice text messages to the phone with a number to call to return it from a friends phone immediately after noticing it gone. Say how you really need the phone numbers on it. A very low-tech solution that almost always works, you'd be surprised at the good-will of phone finders if they are presented with a super-easy way to return it that takes little effort on their part.
    - catch23 16y ago
      I understand that you're trying to push your point, but I feel it's a bit pointless trying to defend someone who knowingly sold stolen goods for $5k. The finder did not contact Apple, the bar where it was found, or the original owner. I can't see how someone can justify themselves by attempting to "contact" Apple, then turning around and selling it to the highest media outlet buyer.
ck2 16y ago
Apple serves on the steering committee of REACT, a special task force involved with the investigation. This explains mostly how if we left a cellphone in a bar, why we could not get the police to even take a report, let alone raid the house of the person who bought it from someone who found it, but Apple can.

257 points by sgman 16y ago

...illegally (worth putting in the headline methinks). Surely Apple's counsel knows US law. I don't think they're that dumb, but it surprises me they're that unethical. Then again, Gizmodo are creeps too - maybe they're suited for each other.

TotlolRon 16y ago
yes sir!
hoop 16y ago
We may see Apple challenge the precedence in CA that bloggers should be treated as journalists under the law.
raganwald 16y ago
> Surely Apple's counsel knows US law Was this a typo? The search was conducted by police, not Apple. This is a criminal matter, not a civil one.
- nailer 16y ago
  It clearly wasn't a typo. I'm well aware the search was conducted by police. I did not suggest otherwise. I am saying that Apple asked the police to raid the property.
  - zts 16y ago
    So the police are working for Apple now? Clear evidence that their quest for world domination has gone too far.
    - nailer 16y ago
      No, like all humans, they're self interested. They just want to be seen to do a good job protecting one of the states biggest earning and most well known companies in a high profile case. I personally also pay more attention and go beyond the call for higher profile projects. That doesn't mean I'm involved in some kind of conspiracy.
      - zts 16y ago
        It's one thing to suggest that the police will pay greater attention to high profile cases (with which I'd agree), and quite another thing to imply that the raid happened because Apple requested it. Beyond that, could you point out the source of your assertion that Apple requested this? I missed it in the article, and that's the conspiracy you've raised.
        nailer 16y ago
        If I were Apple, I'd ask the police to get the phone back from Jason Chen, hire my own people to get his address, and let the police do what they will, knowing that likely means a raid. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.
        gjm11 16y ago
        1. Apple already had the phone; Gizmodo sent it back to them. 2. "If I were Apple, I would have done X" does not in any way imply "Apple did X".
        nailer 16y ago
        1. Interesting. So what was the purpose of the raid? 2. Agreed. There may be a remote chance the police just read the internet and really, really care about apple. But I doubt it.
        infinite8s 16y ago

tvon 16y ago

Seems kind of... excessive. Granted, I guess if you want to see someone's email correspondence, this is the only way to do it.

dschobel 16y ago
They could subpoena the hosting company if it's web/hosted email (ala Gmail).

danudey 16y ago

While I've argued in several places that Gizmodo should face the penalty for what they've done (buying stolen property, then taunting Apple with it), this doesn't seem like the right way to go. As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism, and I would argue that, regardless of the quality of Gawker's work, Jason Chen counts as a journalist. I can only hope the court agrees. I want to see Gizmodo get penalized for this, but if the choice is between that and ignoring the rights of journalists, it's not worth it.

ubernostrum 16y ago
As Derbyshire points out, it's illegal to seize computers used for journalism Except that's not a carte blanche shield. If a computer used for journalism was also used to store, say, records of a drug-running ring, would that computer be inviolable? Or seizable, with a warrant, as evidence in the commission of a crime?
- kfury 16y ago
  This is the crux of the issue. The warrant wasn't issued to determine the source of a trade secrets leak. It was used to procure evidence for the buying and selling of stolen goods. Trade secrets are a civil matter. The fact that the police sought a warrant implies that they're pursuing the criminal case regardless of Gizmodo's publication. IOW: Running a blog or being a journalist doesn't protect your computers from being impounded when you break the law and happen to also blog about doing so.
  - eli 16y ago
    Theft of trade secrets is a criminal matter, actually. Google "Economic Espionage Act of 1996." It may well violate similar CA laws.
  - ubernostrum 16y ago
    The amusing bit is that we all see, and probably laugh at, so many stories of people posting evidence of their crimes on Facebook or YouTube and then being surprised when they're caught. Gizmodo basically did exactly the same thing, but on a far larger scale.

dschobel 16y ago

So much for the 'clever marketing ploy' theory.

sp332 16y ago
No such thing as bad publicity. Imagine gizmodo's ad revenues for today!
- eli 16y ago
  No doubt. But I think dschobel meant the theory that Apple planted this phone to be found.
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    I wouldn't put it past Steve Jobs' Apple.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Imagine them being included in calculations of penal fines, while you're at it. If a conviction ensues the value of Gawker's increased traffic and ad revenue will surely be scrutinized to determine the extent of their economic benefit.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    If I benefit from covering this, will I have to give the money back? What about the New York Times? What about Apple?
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      No, because you are commenting on something that was already public knowledge. There's nothing to suggest that the innards of the phone were discoverable by the public until Gizmodo threw up ~20 pictures of them.
      - 16y ago

hoop 16y ago

This will be very interesting to watch unfold. According to Gizmodo's letter to the Detective, they seem to feel that there is a legal precedence set for treating bloggers as journalists under the law in CA state. Both companies are based out of CA. But then again, so is the EFF; I wonder if we will see them step in. Gizmodo definitely saw this coming. If the pre-written legal defense doesn't give it away, they very publicly bought stolen property and (very likely) profited by doing so.

goatforce5 16y ago
That law seems to be written to say "journalists are allowed to protect their sources". Which is not the same as saying "journalists are allowed to commit crimes in order the get a story".
- eli 16y ago
  Five bucks says there's a post on Gizmodo referencing the Pentagon Papers in the next 12 hours. I don't agree with what Gizmodo did, but I definitely support strong shield laws for online journalists. I really hope they don't end becoming poster children for a free online press.
  - goatforce5 16y ago
    Pentagon Papers was in the public interest. Tech specs of a new gadget probably isn't.
    - eli 16y ago
      Oh, I completely, totally agree. But don't think that will stop the grandstanding and martyrdom.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jamesbressi 16y ago

Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple... When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf? I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere between $1000 to $5000, there was identification of the person and there was nothing remotely as swift or stern taken here to recover.

city41 16y ago
My house got broken into a few years ago, they took everything I owned except furniture and one tv. I later found my anime collection for sale at a local used dvd store (complete with my name written inside the cases of all the DVDs). I talked with the owner, he had photocopied the guy's drivers license who came in with them. Despite this, and my continually pinging the police, nothing ever happened. He got away with it scott free. I guess you need to be a multi billion dollar corporation to get justice in this country. EDIT: And just want to add, lesson learned. I didn't have renter's insurance at the time, dumb mistake. I'm now always fully insured, and so should you be :)
- pohl 16y ago
  The treatment of your case was underkill.
- tvon 16y ago
  I think it's more that you need to get a lot of publicity to get justice in this country. edit: scratch that, publicity only works because it has the potential to bring more powerful groups to your aid.
- BRadmin 16y ago
  What happened to the DVDs?
  - city41 16y ago

markbao 16y ago

I wish the best of luck to Jason for getting his stuff back. Forensics/law enforcement is notorious for not returning your stuff in a timely manner (think years) without a lawsuit. Hope he has an offsite backup.

ErrantX 16y ago
Just to stick up for the Forensics guys - it's not usually our fault unless there is actually evidence on there. Turn around times (at least in the UK) for actually processing evidence is less than a month. It's the police/prosecutors that cause all the hold ups.
- markbao 16y ago
  Sorry—definitely didn't mean to frame you guys. Definitely aware of that, which is why I mentioned law enforcement in general. The whole thing kind of makes sense (holding equipment to make sure no potential evidence is released without a final decision)—but it's still frustrating and it doesn't seem like there's a good solution that makes it easier for both parties.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Heh, no worries :) in many cases illegitimate delays are simply due to incompetence, so it's good to complain then. Turn around is pretty good; we serve a mid to large police force in the UK (around 5000 computer investigations a year). Average return time for evidence where no charges were brought last year was about 2 1/2 months. Complaints over delays were in the 10's.
    - markbao 16y ago
      WOW. That is really impressive. Serious kudos for efficiency. It's weird to think that at any given moment, you're subject to a search and seizure (or any other kind of law enforcement ...enforcing) which will interrupt your life for sometime around one month to (in most cases) a year or so. Really kind of makes you want to hustle and get to work when you're not being served a warrant :P

bsiemon 16y ago

Section 1070 California Evidence Code protects sources of information from discovery by the state. It does not protect evidence related to the commission of a crime. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1070 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&#...

nailer 16y ago
What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.
- rufo 16y ago
  Why didn't he do something reasonable, like turn it into the bartender or the police?
  - qq66 16y ago
    His legal obligation was to return it to the bartender, but calling Apple to return it is hardly "unreasonable."
    - zweben 16y ago
      Given that the people he spoke to wouldn't even be aware of the existence of the lost prototype, I don't think you could call that an honest attempt to return the phone at all. Even sending an email to sjobs@apple.com would've been more likely to get the phone back to Apple.
      - nailer 16y ago
        You're right, sjobs@ would have been better, but whoever received the call at Apple and didn't route it to the right people (or whoever ignored it for a week) seriously let the company down.
        16y ago

ErrantX 16y ago

Well I'm a bit surprised. I thought the police would casually investigate just for form and then move on (and let Apple pursue it in the civil courts if they wanted).

fjabre 16y ago

Why do people automatically assume this has anything to do with journalism? What if it's about one company illegally obtaining the trade secrets of another and then releasing that trade secret to a global media? The whole thing smelled fishy to begin with. I honestly can't say what I believe. However, if this was some kind of setup and they find evidence that Gizmodo intended to steal that prototype then that would definitely explain the police raid.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Gawker's COO is arguing on that basis (http://gizmodo.com/5524843/ http://gizmodo.com/5524843/)
- jrockway 16y ago
  Reading that warrant makes me not regret the full-disk encryption on every computer in my house. It makes the computer slower, but it removes any incentive to remove the device from my home. (And it removes the ability of my own computer to incriminate me.)
  - evgen 16y ago
    It does not remove the ability of law enforcement to serve a search warrant and carry your computers out the door, nor does it remove the ability of a judge to plant you in a jail cell until you cough up the passwords. What it does do in create an incentive for anyone who does serve a search warrant upon you to look very, very closely at the contents of the drive once you do provide the password -- if you thought the inconvenience of full-disk encryption was this important then they are likely to think that they will find some child porn or tax evasion documents buried in there somewhere.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      nor does it remove the ability of a judge to plant you in a jail cell until you cough up the passwords It's true, encryption doesn't remove this ability. The reality is that the Constitution never provides this ability in the first place, and specifically prevents the government from passing any law that would provide this ability. Refusing to testify against yourself (without a grant of immunity, anyway) is not a crime, it's your right.

grellas 16y ago

An important New Jersey appellate court decision, interpreting New Jersey law, just came down ruling that bloggers are not journalists and are not entitled to the protection afforded by the shield laws. (See the write-up here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_Reporter_Shield_for_Mere_Blogger_NJ_Appeals_Court_Says http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202451742674&No_R...). Regardless of the legality of this particular search, this confirms that the authorities are likely looking at this as a felony investigation, with all that this signifies for Gizmodo. Should Gizmodo be worried? Without question. With the REACT unit on the case (which specializes in these types of tech-related crimes), and with a potential violation of the Espionage Act of 1996 being provable and punishable by as much as a $5 million fine and up to 10 years in prison (see my comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289741 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1289741), they are no doubt taking this very seriously at this point. Of course, I cannot help sympathizing with Mr. Chen - what a horrible trauma to go through. A very ugly scene for him and his family.

prodigal_erik 16y ago
I feel for his wife. But I have to wonder whether Jason Chen is the guy who chose to wreck Powell's life to cram one more factoid into a big story, and what just consequences from that would look like.
- jonknee 16y ago
  Is there any evidence whatsoever that Gray Powell's life is "wrecked"? He still has a job and if he were fired he'd get a new job really quickly. He's now the most well known iPhone engineer and only known sin was something that could happen to anyone and I have a hard time believing would close future career doors. In reality it will probably help him get interviews in the future.
  - zephyrfalcon 16y ago
    "he'd get a new job really quickly" You think? (recruiter reads resume) "Oh, yeah, you're the guy who lost the iPhone prototype! I can't wait to hire you!" :-)

tokenadult 16y ago

"Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists." I see grellas has also posted a reply on this point, with a legal citation. Most definitions of "journalist" boil down to a definition something like "a reporter who writes for an editor," (a definition, as noted by the journalist who proposed it, that excludes Matt Drudge and most other bloggers). I wouldn't expect the typical blogger to be regarded as a journalist, legally, because the typical blogger doesn't maintain the standards of professional journalism. (Note: I was a minor-league journalist, a reporter for a trade magazine, years ago. Big-league journalism is MUCH harder than blogging, by at least two orders of magnitude, and much more constitutionally important.)

nailer 16y ago
Interesting. What about if Gawker has a house style guide, pays a comprable word rate, requests particular markup in copy for boxouts or artwork, docks pay for late copy, and asks you kindly not to be too aggressive about the big advertisers?
- tokenadult 16y ago
  If the Gawker reporters write for editors (I don't know whether or not that is how Gawker is organized), then they are journalists by the definition I have read. I like your list of questions about other activities that might distinguish a journalistic organization from other organizations.

drewcrawford 16y ago

Let this possibly be a lesson. Use encryption. If you're on a mac, go, right now, and tick the FileVault checkbox. Windows users go download TrueCrypt and turn on whole-disc encryption. The law in this country is so complicated that, increasingly, it doesn't matter if you've broken the law or not. I don't side with Gawker. But I do know that if you have years of browsing history lying around, surely there's something somebody can pin on you if they want to. Seriously. Go tick the checkbox.

philwelch 16y ago
Alternatively, don't buy stolen property and then publicly announce that you've done so. Once you've committed a crime though, definitely be smart about asserting your civil rights, using encryption, etc. And even if you haven't committed a crime, assert your civil rights and use encryption. But probably the #1 thing you can do to not get harassed by police is to obey the law.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Unfortunately, everyone is guilty of violating some law at some time. So it's best to ensure that your computer is not going to be testifying against you, especially when that is just one checkbox away. You can always decrypt your drive when asked. But you can't encrypt it after the police take your computer.
slackerIII 16y ago
What is your plan for when the judge tells you to supply the decryption key?
- donw 16y ago
  You supply it, of course. But having the drive encrypted buys you time. The cops have to take the machines into evidence, nominally send them out to the lab for processing, and only then do they run into your encryption key. They then need to go back to the judge, and get a court order to compel you to supply your encryption key. By which time you've gotten a lawyer, and can fight back.

itiztv 16y ago

confiscation of server is still beyond me

zefhous 16y ago
Why's that? You don't think that they would be interested in having records of email correspondence? It's not unreasonable that people running a site like gizmodo would run their own mail servers to increase privacy. Even if it wasn't a mail server (probably wasn't I'd think), there could easily be evidence on it.

ck2 16y ago

This can only happen to protect corporate rights (just try getting that kind of police response for your own problems). I bet the police waited until they saw him leave the house. Good luck if you think that hardware is coming back to you this decade, even if charges are dropped, or if you think you'll get the door paid for.

ahoyhere 16y ago

I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong. It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade secrets, or hey, ethics -- then they deserve what they get, legally speaking. Anybody who thinks about it for a minute would realize that buying a prototype device that "got found at a bar" ("fell off the back of a truck"), made by a company with notoriously tight seals, and a huge legal team, and then explaining to the world that you bought it off some dude… well, that's gonna have consequences. If bloggers aspire to be journalists, they're going to have to learn to have those second thoughts. And learn that "checkbook journalism" just flat-out doesn't count. Even when they're paying people for interviews, instead of buying hot goods.

tmsh 16y ago
I agree with you. But, although I haven't studied this event all that carefully, there is a difference between corporate espionage or some sort of malicious attempt at blatantly undermining Apple -- and the way Gizmodo presented their story, afaik. Gizmodo almost seemed to poke fun at the weird circumstances of the prototype being left behind (the photos of the bar and all that). Did they reveal any trade secrets about Apple (the phone being turned off remotely and all)? Maybe, perhaps they're at fault for that. But making fun of a company, satire, should be protected by journalistic rights. Should, for instance, the Daily Show be prosecuted if they go after an interview and someone at the pentagon accidentally reveals classified information? It could be argued that Gizmodo knew the phone had 'fallen off the back of a truck' so to speak -- but their story seemed as much about the falling off of the back of the truck as the item itself. At what point is there some (perhaps small) burden of responsibility on the people who messed up and lost the prototype? It doesn't seem like complete justice that suddenly Apple gets to come down hard with laws that aren't exactly clearly adjudicated yet. I mean if there were precedent -- if it were clearly known that anytime you come across a prototype, you run the risk of being prosecuted for not returning it to the company immediately, then OK, Gizmodo would be at fault. Maybe there is and I just don't know. I get the sense that Apple has decided not to fault Gary Powell because that would be sort of a ridiculous move (see Steve Wozniak's thoughts at gizmodo). But that doesn't necessarily give them the right to take out their frustrations on Gizmodo. An engineer made a mistake. If anything, it's added publicity. Move on.

protomyth 16y ago

This series of events is why "real" news outlets have legal council. You can, thankfully for society, get away with a lot of stuff as a journalist, but some things are illegal. Particularly, when we are talking about commerce and not politics / public safety.

rufo 16y ago
One fact I find interesting: Engadget was offered the device as well, but was advised by their counsel (in no uncertain terms) to not acquire the prototype.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

douglasputnam 16y ago

Wow, what's really excessive and shocking is that a Gawker employee has the stones to claim he's a journalist.

raganwald 16y ago

Everyone is debating the whole "Good Faith" thing again. Here's a suggestion: Ask how it is "Good Faith" to "find" something in a bar? This isn't your house, your place of work, or a public space, it's somebody else's property (a phone) inside somebody else's property (a bar). Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Long before we get to the question of how hard the so-called finder tried to return the phone to Apple, I think that wrongdoing occurred the moment he left the bar with the phone in his pocket.

nailer 16y ago
> Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Since you're a good person who wants to call the owner and give it back the next morning before someone less scrupulous steals it? What do you want them to do, leave it there? Give it to the bar staff who you don't know? Give it to the cops who'll simply tell you to contact the owner yourself?
- raganwald 16y ago
  Pick up phone. Wave to bartender. Done. Or pick up phone, drop at police station, done. Or pick up phone, use Safari to place notice on craigslist, done. Once I exit the property with the phone, I've done wrong. The onus is now on me to follow through and get it back to the owner, not take a half-hearted effort to get through to Apple on the phone before selling it to someone else who is also not the owner. p.s. I see you've replied to my points in your message. This makes the thread of conversation hard to follow. Yes, give it to bar staff you don't know. It's not your phone, it's not your bar. It's not up to you to sit in judgment over them and find them wanting, especially when you end up selling the phone for your own gain. Likewise, try giving it to the police and see what they say. That would be a lot more convincing than not doing so and selling the phone later.
  - nailer 16y ago
    > It's not up to you to sit in judgment over them and find them wanting Actually, I'm allowed to judge anyone, even if I don't employ them. So are you. We make judgements about others all the time. I trust I will do what I judge to be the right thing 100% of the time. I trust a stranger less so. This is logical. Suggesting otherwise reminds me of one of those 'don't judge my OSS app unless you wrote it' arguments. Human beings don't need permission to make decisions.

pavs 16y ago

They received the best traffic in Gizmodo's history, but at what cost? http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm7gizmodous&r=33 http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm7gizmodous&r=3... They will probably milk more traffic from this new iteration to this drama. Whats the worst possible scenario for Gawker? Will they get fined or will the editor go to jail?

ccarpenterg 16y ago

Perhaps this is related to an industrial espionage issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Espionage_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Espionage_Act_of_199...

terrellm 16y ago

I got a kick out of this: "These are Jason Chen's computers" http://topherchris.com/post/551530253 http://topherchris.com/post/551530253

ryanisinallofus 16y ago

Let's all be honest. If this was anyone other than Apple you would all be up in arms about this.

icey 16y ago
I think if Gizmodo hadn't decided to publish the engineer's information more people would be up in arms about this.
- ryanisinallofus 16y ago
  I agree. If they just would have blocked the guy's name out they would look better in the public's eye.

istari 16y ago

The police should now post the contents of Chen's hard drive online. After all, they did find it.

wmf 16y ago
No, they should sell the contents of his hard drive to the highest bidder. After all, I hear police departments tend to be underfunded.

TallGuyShort 16y ago

Does anyone know to which email he is referring in his account? Is it perhaps an email about the section in the penal code?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

blahbeeblahbee 16y ago

IF you tweet, can you use the same legal argument as being protected under "Free Speach and Journalisim?" Therfore giving you legal immunity regardless of the content that you are tweeting? Illegal drug use, felony activities etc? Or blind ignorance of common ethics and civil code? Would be an interesting outcome and an explosion of online journalisim if this proves to be the case... Don't you think?

mr1900 16y ago

I wonder if the police would search a house if it was an iphone of a normal citizen.

jsz0 16y ago

What Gizmodo did might have been illegal but I have no real problem with it. I feel like Gizmodo made a calculated risk breaking the letter of the law. I can't say I haven't done the same thing involving copyright law, drug law, speeding, etc. Ultimately I read the story and looked at the photographs so it would be a bit silly to get upset at Gizmodo over it.

jajabe 16y ago

Shield laws protect journalists/sources. In an ideal world, we'd be cheering for a good guy. In this case, the TMZ of tech is in the crosshairs. Not going to do any armchair lawyering, but I sure can't wait for the other side (not the whitewashed Gizmodo story) of the story to come out. Sadly, the conditions for Godwin's law are rapidly being met on this situation. sigh

jajabe 16y ago

Sukotto 16y ago

Legal issues aside, I would have been cool with it if they'd taken their scoop then made an attempt to return the phone. Instead they kept it and screwed over the poor guy who lost it. Funny how I have no sympathy for them whatsoever now.

martythemaniak 16y ago

Did Microsoft ever sink so low as to legally attack a publication out of petty vindictiveness?

delackner 16y ago

I am particularly fascinated by the gleefully accepting rationalizations that some people are offering in support of gizmodo, in support of the theft of physical goods, and the buying of such stolen goods. This is the first physical object I can think of where people seem to be applying the same hand wavy feel-good-ism that people use to justify their own software piracy. This is not just copying bits people.

metamemetics 16y ago

A surprisingly easy way to get a phone back is to text-message that phone and say, "If you find this phone, please call this Number: XXXXXXX Thanks!". It's worked for me twice, I don't know how many people do this simple step after loosing a phone.

catch23 16y ago
How many unreleased iPhones have you lost and gotten returned using this method? I think the person who found the lost phone knew exactly who it belonged to, but decided to resell it for $5000 instead of returning it.
- metamemetics 16y ago
  I thought the finder contacted a random apple support employee. The finder should be commended for even taking the effort to look up an apple support phone number if he actually did. The person who lost it should have plastered a lot of nice text messages to the phone with a number to call to return it from a friends phone immediately after noticing it gone. Say how you really need the phone numbers on it. A very low-tech solution that almost always works, you'd be surprised at the good-will of phone finders if they are presented with a super-easy way to return it that takes little effort on their part.
  - catch23 16y ago
    I understand that you're trying to push your point, but I feel it's a bit pointless trying to defend someone who knowingly sold stolen goods for $5k. The finder did not contact Apple, the bar where it was found, or the original owner. I can't see how someone can justify themselves by attempting to "contact" Apple, then turning around and selling it to the highest media outlet buyer.

ck2 16y ago

Apple serves on the steering committee of REACT, a special task force involved with the investigation. This explains mostly how if we left a cellphone in a bar, why we could not get the police to even take a report, let alone raid the house of the person who bought it from someone who found it, but Apple can.