Galaxy Tab Banned in Europe

[kjk]

Originally Posted by =X=

I see your torpedo and raise you a bomb!
=X=

lol, reminds me of that Gizmodo "stolen" iPhone 4 case-Apple is going to have to prove somehow that early leaks of the design affected iPhone sales, either the then current 3GS sales, or the then coming iPhone 4.

16 months later? The iPhone 4 is the best selling smartphone in the US. The 2nd best selling smartphone? The iPhone 3GS. Good luck with that argument.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by kjk

lol, reminds me of that Gizmodo "stolen" iPhone 4 case-Apple is going to have to prove somehow that early leaks of the design affected iPhone sales, either the then current 3GS sales, or the then coming iPhone 4.
16 months later? The iPhone 4 is the best selling smartphone in the US. The 2nd best selling smartphone? The iPhone 3GS. Good luck with that argument.

Well a year later Gizmo reports dejavu this time Apple's employees impersonate the police. link

On a serious note Apple's greed amazes me they are a billion dollar company and they are suing everyone over patten that are questionable at best, and suing for chicken scratch. Even Microsoft in their heyday wasn't that bad.

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by =X=

Well a year later Gizmo reports dejavu this time Apple's employees impersonate the police. link

As the update to that article points out, there were real police officers there.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

As the update to that article points out, there were real police officers there.

I haven't read the article before the update. But this seems worse:

Update: The San Francisco police department has changed its story. It now says some officers did accompany Apple investigators to Calderón's home. They did not enter the home, and Calderón was under the impression that the apparent Apple investigators who did enter his home were part of the SFPD.

I would say that the fact that the police brought Apple investigators to the guy's door is really bad. They had no right to enter his house, and he obviously only let them in because he thought that they were police officers.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I haven't read the article before the update. But this seems worse:

I would say that the fact that the police brought Apple investigators to the guy's door is really bad. They had no right to enter his house, and he obviously only let them in because he thought that they were police officers.

I see a lawsuit on the way.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Dylrob

As the update to that article points out, there were real police officers there.

I'm pretty sure the police can't legally bring someone to tag along on a house hunt without a lot of appropriate paperwork. I'm also pretty sure that they can't just flash a badge and let the home-owner assume that everyone there is a police officer.

Then again, I'm well aware that a lot of American rights have been whittled down over the past decade, so maybe they can legally do that.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I haven't read the article before the update. But this seems worse:

I would say that the fact that the police brought Apple investigators to the guy's door is really bad. They had no right to enter his house, and he obviously only let them in because he thought that they were police officers.

Why do you think it's bad? If someone stole my car, and I could use a GPS device to tell police where I thought it was, I don't see why police shouldn't take me to look for my car.

I'm not sure why the guy let the investigators look around, but police have no more right to enter the guy's house than anyone else. *Possibly* he let them look around because he thought that if he didn't they would get a search warrant and conduct a more thorough and inconvenient search. (And/or he knew that they wouldn't find anything).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Why do you think it's bad? If someone stole my car, and I could use a GPS device to tell police where I thought it was, I don't see why police shouldn't take me to look for my car.

Because people get emotional and do stupid things, and don't wait around for silly things like evidence. This is why you go to the police: they are trained.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I'm pretty sure the police can't legally bring someone to tag along on a house hunt without a lot of appropriate paperwork. I'm also pretty sure that they can't just flash a badge and let the home-owner assume that everyone there is a police officer.

Then again, I'm well aware that a lot of American rights have been whittled down over the past decade, so maybe they can legally do that.

Actually they can get away with a lot as long as they get the consent of the interrogated. And to do that they use a lot of intimidation factors and bully tactics.
In this case they've interrogated the guy about his immigration status in addition to threatening the guy.

In my experience it's usually the innocent people that get their rights violated while the guilty know the system and gets the full protection.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by =X=

In my experience it's usually the innocent people that get their rights violated while the guilty know the system and gets the full protection.

The guilty have the advantage of having the time to prepare.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Because people get emotional and do stupid things, and don't wait around for silly things like evidence. This is why you go to the police: they are trained.

Not only that, but if you show up in tow with the police and you get hurt, there's a LOT of paperwork to deal with afterward. The police could be sued for bring a civilian along, etc.

There are a LOT of good reasons why the police don't bring Joe Average along.

Also, can I call Analogy Police? This place is becoming bad-analogy-central. The Apple employee did NOT have a GPS device attached to the missing phone that led them to this guy's house. If he HAD, a warrant would have been no problem to obtain.

[5thWiggle]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

The Apple employee did NOT have a GPS device attached to the missing phone that led them to this guy's house.

I wonder if they were using Apple's Find My iPhone service instead?

[anamardoll]

Amusing, but doubtful.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

The Apple employee did NOT have a GPS device attached to the missing phone that led them to this guy's house. If he HAD, a warrant would have been no problem to obtain.

He did, actually - from the SF Weekly story: "A Bernal Heights man says that six officials claiming to be San Francisco Police officers questioned him and searched his family’s home in July for a lost iPhone 5 prototype they asserted had been traced to the residence using GPS technology."

All current iPhones have that functionality, too.

To get a search warrant, you need probable cause that you will find evidence connected with the commission of a crime. The GPS track should, IMO, provide probable cause that the iPhone is in the house...but I'm not sure what evidence there is that the iPhone was actually stolen. (There may be some; I just haven't read what it was). You can't get a search warrant to search for an item that isn't connected with a crime, so that may be why they held back.

Additionally, while the story indicates that the phone was tracked to that house, it doesn't indicate whether the phone was still broadcasting its location when they arrived - the program doesn't work (I believe) if the phone is actually turned off.

Here's a link to an interesting story about tracking stolen phones: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/...72295325979600

The coolest bit is where the deputy tracks the location and finds 3 men sitting under a tree, and then the owner (in another state), triggers an alert that causes the stolen phone to beep in one of the guy's pockets.

[anamardoll]

Wait, that doesn't make any sense. You say you can't get a search warrant to search for an item that isn't connected with a crime -- would not the theft of the iPhone be a crime? (If I understand the story, this isn't just an iPhone, it's a prototype for their next line and therefore extremely valuable to the corporation.) And if Apple didn't file it as a crime, why would the police show up? And if they DID have a GPS trace, why didn't they show up with a warrant instead of showing up and questioning him about his immigration status?

If there actually was a unique GPS trace, this should have been a simple warrant and search situation. A warrant and search would have been better -- they wouldn't have needed permission, and they could have done a more thorough search. (Considering that they searched the house with permission and didn't find anything, this would be pertinent.)

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...weekly-updated

According to this article:

1. The police accompanied the Apple employees to the man's house, and questioned him, but stayed outside while the Apple employees searched the man's house. The police officers were not involved in the search -- which I actually consider to be highly suspicious.

2. The police didn't file a report, due to Apple's request that a report not be filed.

IANAL, and gods know if this is legal. But it stinks to me. I would NOT be okay with police officers showing civilians to my door and hassling me about my immigration status until I agree to let them in my house and search my belongings.

And I don't see anything about GPS in the SF Weekly article I could find:

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...ple_police.php

Where's your link? Looks like this may not be the only one they wrote. However, if the only mention of GPS is from the Apple detective trying to talk his way into the house, there's no reason to believe that's not a lie. Detectives do that from time to time.

At the least, the incident is sure to raise questions about the propriety of multiple SFPD officers helping private detectives conduct a search -- which was never properly recorded, per standard police operating procedure -- of somebody's home. "Apple came to us saying that they were looking for a lost item, and some plainclothes officers responded out to the house with them," [Lt.] Dangerfield said.