5 ms·
From the end of the article: "... the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen's property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for t
by sjsivak 16y ago
From the end of the article: "... the task force should freeze their investigation, return Chen's property, and reconsider whether going after journalists for trying to break news about one of the Valley's most secretive (and profitable) companies is a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars."
If someone purchased stolen property, why does it matter who it came from? In my eyes, the analyst loses a lot of credibility with this final statement. Feels childish.
- johSho7w 16y agoThis same old tripe again. Did Gizmodo return the phone to Apple immediately when Apple finally admitted it was theirs? Did Gizmodo demand payment from Apple in return for the phone? Did Gizmodo ever dispute Apple's claim to the phone? It doesn't really seem reasonable to me that anyone at Gizmodo ever thought they were "buying" the device.
- wvenable 16y agoPurchasing stolen property should be a much smaller investigation -- police do it all the time. While they shouldn't do nothing, this is a significantly more expensive reaction.
- swombat 16y agoIf someone purchased the stolen Mona Lisa the police would be down on them like a ton of bricks. It's all a matter of relative value. This iPhone prototype was worth a lot more than the parts inside (which was obvious to Gizmodo since they paid upwards of $5000 for it).
- vitobcn 16y agoI get the stolen Mona Lisa and relative value analogy, but Gizmodo offered to return the 'stolen' property to their rightful owner! Didn't they send Apple something like, "We believe we found a prototype phone which might be yours. If so, let us know and we'll be glad to give it back." I certainly hope all thieves were like that...
- anigbrowl 16y agoI don't think they'd be having any trouble if they had done that before dissecting it, publishing what they found, outing the engineer, and publicly demanding Apple submit a request for the return of their own property.
- wvenable 16y agoApparently, the original finder contacted Apple to return the device before selling it to Gizmodo.
- anigbrowl 16y agoRight. Whoever heard of a journalist making their own phone calls? Everyone knows that rule 1 of journalism is that you just sit around and hope interesting stories will find their way to you. Rule 2 is that you never, ever attempt to confirm any information that does come your way.
- ubernostrum 16y agoApparently, the original finder contacted Apple to return the device before selling it to Gizmodo. Well, no. The law gives him the option of: 1) finding the owner and returning it, or 2) turning it in to the police. What the guy actually did, it seems, was poke around in the phone, find out the name, Facebook details, etc. of the person who'd lost it, and then... called an Apple customer-support line to tell them a vague story about finding something that might or might not legitimately be an iPhone. Even if we accept that as a bona-fide attempt to return it to the owner, the only other option the law gives him is turning it in to the police. From that point forward, anything he did which was not "turn it in to the police" qualifies as theft; the relevant bit of California law has been quoted so many times in so many threads that there's really no argument left on that point. And since "sell it to a tabloid for $$$" is not "turn it in to the police", well, you can kinda see how we end up at criminal investigations and search warrants.