4 ms·

I don't have any evidence one way or the other. I did not accuse anyone of anything. At this point everything is hearsay. The fact is that the finder of the iP

• nailer 16y ago
  In most places, if the owner doesn't collect it, the item does indeed belong to you.
  • 37prime 16y ago
    The "owner" of the phone, which the finder of the phone knows the name of, where it was found etc, was actively looking for the phone. The words of the finder was published by none other than Gizmodo, who definitely has everything to gain if the statements were true. That's conflict of interest. To cite some others who had found this specific California Law: California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Now, where was the name dropping by Gizmodo came from? The finder of the phone claimed that the phoned was "remotely bricked" the day after. Certainly someone knew who the phone was assigned to. Those are the facts.
    • nailer 16y ago
      Gizmodo identified the owner of the phone. The finder knew some items, but not enough. By the time the owner contacted the finder, it was in Gizmodo's hands (which I believe was a few days after the finder contacted apple).