7 ms·
Wired identifies iPhone 4G finder
- jws 16y agoThat set of facts doesn't look good for Brian J. Hogan. Once he suspected what it was he made no effort to return the device, but made a good deal of effort to sell it to a tech blog. Err... excuse me, his lawyer wants people to say share it with a tech blog.
- jrockway 16y agoThought experiment: if I lost my phone in a bar, would you think to return it to HTC?
- justinchen 16y agoI'd return it to the bar.
- sh1mmer 16y agoThat's not a very good experiment. HTC have a lot of phone models, Apple has exactly 3 which most tech savvy folks could identify readily.
- 37prime 16y agoIt still has "HTC" logo on it regardless of the models.
- sh1mmer 16y agoSure, but it's hard for a novice to recognise if this is an HTC model they don't recognise or a prototype. Since Apple only has 3 models identifying an Apple phone which is not one of those models is much easier and strongly suggests it's a prototype particularly since Apple is based near the bar in question. HTC isn't they are based in Taiwan (which most people on the street probably wouldn't know).
- rimantas 16y agoIf I lost my phone in a bar, would you think to sell it to Gizmodo?
- mrshoe 16y agoYour phone doesn't belong to HTC, it belongs to you. The prototype iPhone belongs to Apple.
- jrockway 16y agoHow would a "reasonable person" know the difference?
- jws 16y agoAfter I became aware that it was a highly secret prototype or before? Before I would leave word at the bar, on the theory you would backtrack. After I became aware it was a highly sought after prototype I'd extend that to the local police and I'd try to contact HTC but probably fail because they don't want Joe Consumer calling them.
- maxharris 16y agoBrian Hogan is in serious trouble, but it's trouble he put himself into. He damn well could have walked into an Apple store, or even Apple HQ (he lives in the area), and dropped the phone off there, rather than looking for some skeezy way to milk essentially stolen goods. So if he really did the things that are written about him, he belongs in jail. Remember that ignorance of the law is no excuse in legal contexts.
- look_lookatme 16y agoYou seriously, truly believe a person belongs in prison for selling something he found? I don't understand the blood lust some people around here have for this guy or gizmodo. Say what you will about ethics, this is certainly no reason to put a person in prison. What a bizarre perspective you have.
- davidmurphy 16y agoHow would you feel if I found keys to a your home and sold them to a local gossip blog to come take pictures? Maybe not the best example, but it conveys the idea...
- jrockway 16y agoHow would I feel if you found my phone and some people took pictures of it after all the data was erased? I'll tell you: I would feel nothing, because I would never ever find out.
- look_lookatme 16y agoPersonally, I don't think you should go to prison. If, say, this guy had conspired to break into Apple and steal this thing or stalked the engineer and thieved it outright, then there is a difference. I don't know and don't care if there isn't one by law, it's just not the same. I think this guy made a bone head decision. I think Gawker did too. I also think mistakes happen and that punishment should fit the crime. What do we know about this crime and the damage it did? It's hard to gauge, but I don't think it's so criminal that people belong in prison for it. This wasn't the nuclear launch codes.
- BRadmin 16y ago...he believed the payment was for allowing the site exclusive access to review the phone. The attorney keeps stressing this like it's the cornerstone of their defense. Are they trying to say that he was paid for access to review, not in exchange for the (stolen) iPhone itself?
- jrockway 16y agoA sticky point is the value of the phone. If he sold it for $5000, then he stole $5000. If he didn't sell it, but was paid $5000 by Gizmodo to not tell anyone else about it, then the value of the phone is in question. If the value of the phone is less than $400 (and if you add up the cost of each component, and take into account that it was remotely bricked, that is easy to argue), then there is no particularly severe crime involved. A slap on the wrist, at worst. If it's $5000, though, then jail time could become involved. This defense is also good for Gizmodo. It's not illegal to pay someone $5000 to not talk about something to the media. It's the basis for pretty much every employment contract in existence. Like most high-profile cases, this is not particularly clear-cut. He didn't walk into Apple headquarters, gun down a few guards under the watchful eye of a security camera, take the iPhone, and sell it to the highest bidder. That would be clear-cut "grand theft" (not to mention, murder). Instead, he found it lying around in a bar, asked everyone in the bar if it was theirs, was told no, the excitement and curiosity went to his head, and he ended up with $5000 for letting Gizmodo take some pictures of the thing. A crime? Maybe. But not obviously. (There is a lot of hate for this guy, but think about it. If you found a cool electronic gadget laying around in a bar, wouldn't you play with it? And when you found out it was a fucking top-secret prototype of one of the most secretive companies in existence, wouldn't you be a little excited? And when you're excited, do you always make the best decisions? If not, you don't belong on HN. Sure, the guy is a sleaze-bag for pocketing the five grand. But Apple is a sleaze-bag for paying slave children build the phones in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but it is helpful to treat both parties with the same scrutiny; at least when we are using words like "sleaze-bag".)
- wooster 16y ago"for paying slave children build the phones in the first place" Your posts would be a lot more convincing without the unsubstantiated defamation thrown in.
- smiler 16y agoShame the $5000 he made will now be eaten up in attorney fees
- davidmurphy 16y agoShame he took $5000 for the phone in the first place...
- tptacek 16y agoIt has to have sunk in by now that Apple can now bankrupt him at will. This was definitely one of the all-time stupidest capers.
- rykov 16y agoFrom the beginning, I thought Brian's and Gizmodo's best defense would be to say "We collaborated to try to find the owner through a large platform." How well that will work with "$5k for exclusive access" is questionable.
- gduffy 16y agoIf these guys had thought a little more about it, it would have gone like this: 1. Brian asks the techy guys at Gizmodo for their help in identifying and returning a strange phone to its rightful owner 2. Gizmodo hires Brian as a consultant on the project for $5000, pictures and notes are taken while identifying its owner and origin 3. Phone is shipped back to engineer/Apple within 24 hours 4. Gizmodo publishes a blog entry detailing the successful investigation and return of the phone :)