6 ms·
Apple Investigators Posed as Police in New Lost iPhone Prototype Search?
- pinko 15y agoI'm a big fan of Apple tech, but if this turns out to be true, I hope they throw the book at Apple.
- antr 15y ago100% agree
- sliverstorm 15y agoPersonally, I hope the book is thrown by someone impersonating a judge.
- cbs 15y agoJust like Patent Trolling, Apple seems to have taken the "OK If we do it" approach to Impersonating An Officer.
- divtxt 15y agoThis comment reminded me to check Gruber. Sure enough: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/02/iphone-5 http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/02/iphone-5 Translation from Gruber-speak: > Nice reporting by Peter Jamison at SF Weekly Let's think positive things about people. > Cook’s first crisis at the helm? Let's think of this as a management challenge for post-Jobs Apple. (and not as Apple breaking the law) > UPDATE: SF police now confirm they were involved. The police were there so obviously nothing illegal happened! Move along, nothing to see... ---- Can't wait to read Gruber's full editorial if this story blows up. :) edits: wording, formatting
- CurtHagenlocher 15y agoI'm calling it first: "This would never have happened under Jobs". If true, of course.
- crenshaw 15y agoCalderón got in touch with us yesterday in an effort to clarify who, exactly, had searched his home on an evening in July. This did happen under Jobs -- if true.
- ktsmith 15y agoJobs has been on medical leave since January and Tim Cook has been acting as CEO since then. Jobs just stepped aside completely in August by resigning.
- crenshaw 15y agoHe was still involved in the company, and for example, launched Lion in June. I find it hard to believe that Steve Jobs didn't know about another phone being lost. That's not the type of thing the acting CEO keeps from the CEO for fear of bothering him.
- ktsmith 15y agoSure, if any of this is true it's very likely that Jobs was kept aware of the situation or even advised on how to proceed. At the end of the day this happened under Cook because Cook was the acting CEO. edit: I don't know of a better way to describe Cooks role during this period as he was responsible for daily operations while Jobs retained the title of CEO. Acting CEO may not be the correct description.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jmreid 15y agoNot according to this PR on Jan 17, 2011: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/17Apple-Media-Advisory.html http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/17Apple-Media-Adviso... "At my request, the board of directors has granted me a medical leave of absence so I can focus on my health. I will continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for the company."
- cryptoz 15y agoWhat's going on with Apple and shady legal dealings recently? It appears they are faking evidence in European courts; that should be a criminal offense. It appears they are impersonating police officers - that IS a criminal offense. Is the media I'm reading biased? Is this all actually happening? What turned Apple into a crime or near-crime committing business? This is all very weird.
- dmethvin 15y agoAnthony Colon worked for the San Jose Police Department for 26 years and retired in 2010 to take a job with Apple doing security. So I wonder if he'll argue that he told Calderon something to the effect of "I'm (mumble)was with the police" and was simply misunderstood? I don't think it will work. Also, although it doesn't excuse their behavior, Calderon was crazy for letting them search without a warrant.
- starpilot 15y agoThe fact that Colon deleted his LinkedIn profile very recently is a huge red flag.
- eykanal 15y agoI think the likelihood of this story being even close to 100% true is very remote. Yes, Apple likes to keep their secrets closely guarded. Yes, they go to extreme legal lengths, including intimidating the press (and early-access developers), takedown notices to blogs, and all other sorts of tight-lipped requirements on their employees. This claim, however, this is so far beyond the normal realm of large company behavior that it's absurd. It's most likely that a good portion of what was reported is inaccurate.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- darksaga 15y agoAnybody else feel like both of these stories (this one and the one from last year regarding the iphone 4) were planted? My BS meter is going off like crazy.
- pavel_lishin 15y agoThe fact that the victim doesn't appear to have talked to the police is a bad sign.
- ktsmith 15y agoNot really, if he honestly thought that the people that came to his door were police officers he would initially have had no reason to reach out to the police. Even after it's brought to his attention by the reporter, he might still think he doesn't need to call the police since the reporter has talked to them. It might occur to you or I to call the police and file a compliant or ask for an investigation but someone that has been threatened or isn't familiar with their rights might not. He did let six people with "some kind of badges" and no warrant search his property after all. That could mean he felt threatened (he said they made threatening comments) or simply didn't know what his rights were in that scenario. From my reading of the sf weekly blog I didn't realize that the police weren't investigating until I read the third update as the other posts all sounded like the SFPD was already doing an investigation. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/lost_iphone_5_apple.php http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/lost_iphone_5_ap...
- beej71 15y agoKnow how to recognize an Apple officer! Is there a blue glow pulsing from the officer's eyes in time with your breathing? When questioned about his identity, does the officer inflate and spin a beachball before answering? Does the officer have rounded corners? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you might be speaking with a member of the Apple Police Force. Beware!
- jwcooper 15y agoBefore we all jump over Apple, this could just be one guy going somewhat 'rogue', and forgetting he's a retired police officer, and not an Apple Investigator in the private sector. If what is written is true, this investigator likely has a lot of explaining to do. The conspiracist in me thinks the SF police dept worked with him, but didn't want it on the record for some reason, and will just shuffle the investigation under the rug.
- jm4 15y agoThe article specifically says that 6 people are alleged to have shown up with badges, claiming to be with the police. So it can't be explained away as one old nutjob reliving the glory days of busting down doors and roughing up perps. That said, we do need more information. The entire basis for this story is one person's account and the actual police saying they had nothing to do with it. The only corroborating evidence is a phone number that the "police" left that belongs to an Apple employee. The again, who knows how he actually got the number. It's too early to jump all over Apple based on so little evidence, but the whole thing sounds pretty shady. If it does turn out they did this they need to suffer.
- jwcooper 15y agoGood points, not sure why I disregarded the 6 other people at the door. Although, it is a bit odd that after all this, he (Calderon) still hasn't reached out to the SFPD, as indicated in the SF Weekly's latest updates.
- ktsmith 15y agoHe may have simply thought he didn't need to do anything since the police are obviously aware of the situation.
- starpilot 15y agoOh geez. The "few bad apples" defense. The iPhone 5 is such a white-hot priority at Apple, I'd be surprised if this investigation somehow did not shoot up like lightning through the chain of command.
- uptown 15y agoIs there any proof substantiating this guy's claim that a search even happened?
- 51Cards 15y agoHe gave the (former) police officer's name and phone number to the newspaper... so he got it somehow?
- killion 15y agoYeah, thats the sticky part about this. Because the story has changed and it's corroborated I'm inclined not to believe it. But having that guys info is odd, although he was on LinkedIn.
- killion 15y agoDoesn't it seem like the guy who claims this happened could be lying? His story did change once the SFPD said it wasn't them.
- arn 15y agoI think his story is still consistent. He said SFPD came to his house. SF Weekly said, they actually didn't. So he said, well, people who said they were SFPD came to my house, and here's their number. It's the number of an Apple security person.
- killion 15y agoIn the SF Weekly article they have him contacting them after the SFPD denied involvement.
- jm4 15y agoSure, he could be lying. There is very little to substantiate his account. But there is nothing in the article about his story changing once the SFPD said it wasn't them.
- jemfinch 15y agoWhy in the world would you voluntarily allow police or purported police to search your apartment?
- philwelch 15y agoBecause they wear uniforms and carry guns, and don't make it seem like you have a choice.
- tdfx 15y agoVery true. Most people don't understand how to properly resist police intimidation until they've already been victimized from it.
- epochwolf 15y ago> Most people don't understand how to properly resist police intimidation Got any links on how to do this?
- ambler0 15y agohttp://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial... http://flexyourrights.org/ http://flexyourrights.org/
- X-Istence 15y agoFirst words out of your mouth when they want to search the premises or even ask you any questions is: "I'd like to speak with my lawyer first". and second, if those aren't the first, or you don't have an on-call lawyer, it is easier to start with: "May I please see a search warrant?"
- rdl 15y agoAlso key: while you're talking with them, don't invite them inside. Talk to them outside, and if you do decide to talk with them to answer questions (ideally, with a lawyer), do it at a neutral location outside your home/office.
- lawnchair_larry 15y agoIt's more troubling that he is a retired police officer. I'm sure he never did anything shady or in violation of people's rights, or threaten/intimidate immigrants during his previous 25 years on the force. Surely that behavior only started a few months ago when he joined Apple
- sliverstorm 15y agoWell, as for the 'posing as police', If you spent your life on the force, after you retire it might sometimes be difficult to refrain from "impersonating an officer".
- fuzzythinker 15y agoWhy is a possibly false rumor that has nothing to do with hacking & startups on the front page the whole day? EDIT: If you agree with me, down vote on the story instead of upvoting this. Otherwise, I would have just done the opposite of my intention.
- terrapinbear 15y agoHow does one get to walk around with the next iPhone prototype in a bar in the first place?
- tvon 15y agofrom http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_apple_police.php http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_apple_p... > San Francisco Police Department spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield now tells SF Weekly that "three or four" SFPD officers accompanied two Apple security officials in an unusual search of a Bernal Heights man's home. The SFPD says they were there.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]