3 ms·

Your intuition regarding California Law is wrong. "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the tr

by vtail 16y ago

Your intuition regarding California Law is wrong. "One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft." CAL. PEN. CODE § 485

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- vtail 16y ago
  > I believe in doing the right thing as much as the next person but where do we draw the line with expecting too much ethical behavior from people? I personally believe that law is applicable in this case. If you find someone's phone in the bar, returning it to the bartender is a natural and simple choice, at least in my world. Selling the phone to the highest bidder was clearly wrong. Even if taking the phone was impulsive decision, holding an "auction" was a well calculated move.
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    Gizmodo did not buy the phone. They paid for the chance to look it over before turning it over to Apple, which they did once Apple told them it was Apple property.
    - Anechoic 16y ago
      "Just so you know, we didn’t know this was stolen when we bought it." http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-iphone-back http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-i...
johSho7w 16y ago
> without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him See, the problem is that according to the law you quoted simply picking up and taking the lost phone home is itself not equivalent to theft. You must prove that no "reasonable and just efforts" were made. That paragraph doesn't even say all reasonable and just efforts or even that the most reasonable and just efforts (such as returning it to the beer garden) must be made. Only that some reasonable and just effort must be made. It doesn't even define success as a test for determining if an effort was reasonable and just. Calling and contacting Apple when you realize you have a prototype that has been deactivated remotely so you cannot identify the user is reasonable. The law does not support the blanket assertion that all lost property is stolen. It's just more nuanced than you want to believe. Sorry your absolutism doesn't jive with reality. You seem to think that language is there to protect owners of lost property. In reality it's there to protect finders of lost property i.e. business owners so that they can dispose of abandoned junk.

by vtail 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

vtail 16y ago
> I believe in doing the right thing as much as the next person but where do we draw the line with expecting too much ethical behavior from people? I personally believe that law is applicable in this case. If you find someone's phone in the bar, returning it to the bartender is a natural and simple choice, at least in my world. Selling the phone to the highest bidder was clearly wrong. Even if taking the phone was impulsive decision, holding an "auction" was a well calculated move.
- DrSprout 16y ago
  Gizmodo did not buy the phone. They paid for the chance to look it over before turning it over to Apple, which they did once Apple told them it was Apple property.
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    "Just so you know, we didn’t know this was stolen when we bought it." http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-iphone-back http://gizmodo.com/5520479/a-letter-apple-wants-its-secret-i...

johSho7w 16y ago

> without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him See, the problem is that according to the law you quoted simply picking up and taking the lost phone home is itself not equivalent to theft. You must prove that no "reasonable and just efforts" were made. That paragraph doesn't even say all reasonable and just efforts or even that the most reasonable and just efforts (such as returning it to the beer garden) must be made. Only that some reasonable and just effort must be made. It doesn't even define success as a test for determining if an effort was reasonable and just. Calling and contacting Apple when you realize you have a prototype that has been deactivated remotely so you cannot identify the user is reasonable. The law does not support the blanket assertion that all lost property is stolen. It's just more nuanced than you want to believe. Sorry your absolutism doesn't jive with reality. You seem to think that language is there to protect owners of lost property. In reality it's there to protect finders of lost property i.e. business owners so that they can dispose of abandoned junk.