Well, Shut My Mouth

[kennyc]

There is a documentary called "The Corporation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

Here is part 1 (of 23)




I would urge anyone and everyone to watch it.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Perhaps it may not be "suprising" if it was in North Korea, but breaking down the front door of the home of a journalist in San Mateo, CA, may, and should, raise a few eyebrows.

Ajournalist who posted photos of a possibly by california law stolen item that they purchased for thousands of dollars!

may raise a few eyebrows but if tehy didnt investigate what would THAt say? its ok for a journalist to knowingly buy stolen(possibly according to the law in the state it happend) goods?

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

This DA will be lucky if he doesnt get hauled in front of the bar for using that warrant instead of going to a judge to get a subpoena.

Do they serve EVERY warrant with door breakage? That sounds excessive. Simply knocking on the door and showing the warrant would have sufficed. They werent looking for drugs, guns or bombs.

VERY standard practice, they believe there is evidence of a crime on the premises and a judge agrees so they go round and no one is in... tell you what kets have a system where the Police have to stand around hoping someone comes home! or maybe they could leave a note saying they called so the person has loads of time to destroy any evidence?

if this werent apple and an item that was stolen from you and you had evidence of who had had the item(eg photos and an article!) then you as the VICTIM would surely expect the police to take action?

[Worldwalker]

Is the situation necessarily binary? That is, are there no options other than "don't investigate" and "smash down the door and take his wife's computer"?

There was a time when the police would consider other options, like maybe talking to the guy. I'm old enough to remember the days when police didn't behave like an army of occupation.

[TGS]

[QUOTE=Phogg;888965]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Just a little after Reagan and Thatcher took office in their respective countries.

Thatcher - May 4 1979. I was there and I bear the scars still

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stustaff

...

if this werent apple and an item that was stolen from you and you had evidence of who had had the item(eg photos and an article!) then you as the VICTIM would surely expect the police to take action?

I don't think anything has been established with respect to theft. What I read said the phone was found in a bar. Doesn't sound like theft to me, unless proven otherwise.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't think anything has been established with respect to theft. What I read said the phone was found in a bar. Doesn't sound like theft to me, unless proven otherwise.

In california the law says a found item if kept is stolen! UNLESS a reasonable attempt is made to return it, the stated examples being inform the police, or the owner of the establishment it was found, he did neither they also knew whose it was and their employer! and that they had a facebook account.

they did not try to email via facebook or Apple they instead phoned a customer service line?! is that reasonable? not imo or that of many others.

Cali law also states an item is not owned by the finder until 90 days has passed! that also did not happen.

The 'finder' did not own the item according to the law of the state it was found in according to that same law it was a stolen item.

someone then bought the item(it was Giz that stated in the article that they had bought it for 5k$) knowing the person selling was not the rightful owner.

hence the police investigating a stolen item that was worth at LEAST 5k maybe considerably more! tehy broke a door down as for all they knew the guy was away for two weeks, they will also reimburse him for the damage caused.

I really dont see this as any sort of overeaction, and i would certainly not want the police to act any other way if it was my item that had been stolen.

[Riocaz]

It could be argued that giz bought it with the express intention of returning it.

Which they did.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Riocaz

It could be argued that giz bought it with the express intention of returning it.

Which they did.

Agreed after taking it apart and printing that info on the WWW. if someone had bought your lost phone for £50 then given it back to you for free im sure youd be very happy.!
but what if while they had it they published your private info from the device in teh public domain... I suggest you would be less happy!

[m-reader]

Couldn't resist. This screenshot just about sums the whole affair up.

[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Agreed after taking it apart and printing that info on the WWW. if someone had bought your lost phone for £50 then given it back to you for free im sure youd be very happy.!

Hmm my understanding of the timeline was:

Found in bar.
Guy tries to give it back (badly) fails.
Gizmodo buys it from him.
Giz contact Apple again and get told it's not real/theirs.
Giz then review it and open it up and say "well Apple say it's not real, but it sure as heck looks real"
Apple then says "Wait that is ours".
Giz gives it back.
Giz gets raided.

Originally Posted by stustaff

but what if while they had it they published your private info from the device in teh public domain... I suggest you would be less happy!

Yea the only person with a right to be annoyed is the apple employee they named.. However naming him has probably ensured he kept his job.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by m-reader

Couldn't resist. This screenshot just about sums the whole affair up.

[TGS]

It was a phone that got nicked for godssake - it wasn't state secrets (it really wasn't Jobsy, however important you think Apple is to the future of the world), it wasn't the key to the nuclear button, it wasn't anything that has any real importance - except commercially, and then only to Apple.

If it hadn't got nicked not a single baby would have been saved from dying of starvation, not a single millimeter of polar ice would have been saved from melting, not a single creature that will go extinct would have been prevented from going extinct. It is just a bloody phone isn't it - or did I miss something?

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by stustaff

In california the law says a found item if kept is stolen! UNLESS a reasonable attempt is made to return it, the stated examples being inform the police, or the owner of the establishment it was found, he did neither they also knew whose it was and their employer! and that they had a facebook account.

they did not try to email via facebook or Apple they instead phoned a customer service line?! is that reasonable? not imo or that of many others.

So the journalist got his door smashed in and computers confiscated, because you don't think the finder did reasonable effort?
It's not his job to search for owner full time, so I think it's pretty reasonable to call service desk to locate the owner of the phone. How for god sake will police know better who the phone belongs to or the bar owner, then the customer support? Situation is shady I admit, but calling it a crime.. you have to really not have a sense of proportion.
Are you really saying that anybody who ever found anything in CA and didn't turn it to police is a criminal and can be prosecuted? Is CA police is Lost and Found department filled with beach balls, cell phones and lighters?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Riocaz

Hmm my understanding of the timeline was:

Found in bar.
Guy tries to give it back (badly) fails.
Gizmodo buys it from him.
Giz contact Apple again and get told it's not real/theirs.
Giz then review it and open it up and say "well Apple say it's not real, but it sure as heck looks real"
Apple then says "Wait that is ours".
Giz gives it back.
Giz gets raided.

I hope they kept a record of the contact, because their defense might rest on that point--being told by the (former?) owner "that's not mine" is a strong argument against a later claim of theft.