iPhone 4

[[AK]Clay]

They called Apple after they bought the device, took it apart and ran the story.

You guys need to get your facts straight, both about what happened and what constitutes theft in California. I know it's vogue to paint Apple as the no-fun gestapo these days, but they're the victims in this case. When you report a crime, the police get involved. When you are a party to a crime, you risk having the police show up at your door in a bad mood. None of this is a shock.

I like this quote from Jason Calacanis:

"You see a silver Mercedes parked in front of your house. There are keys in it. You get in the car and see that it has a bunch of new features that the standard Mercedes you drive lacks. Oh, and it belongs to someone named Dieter Zetsche. You take the car and drive it home, then call automotive magazines and offer to sell this prototype you found, and know the owner of, for 10x the street value of the car (say, $1M). What are you now? Yes, a criminal! Whether the item is worth $600 or $60,000 is not relevant."

The media thing is irrelevant. This isn't about protecting sources - this is about knowingly purchasing (aka fencing) stolen goods.

That's not a very compelling analogy. A pocket electronic device abandoned in a public bar is nothing like an automobile parked outside with the keys still in it. No one could reasonably expect a person's behavior towards the two settings to be similar. As to stolen goods, not stolen if Apple denies ownership. The guy who found the phone did contact Apple, he did something. Should he also have contacted the individual (Powell)? You bet! But legal obligation to do so is deniable - he contacted Apple who are the true owners. In any event, not Gizmodo's problem. And they did call Powell.

The timeline is pretty consistent with everything I heard. So before admonishing folks for not having their facts straight, what facts aren't straight? And no, if you're planning on going there, I don't consider hiding behind "it was the police, not us, who broke down the door" to be valid. That whole event is so wrong on so many levels it's just creepy.

I'm sure they have good lawyers - and they're going to need them. Because I bet there are plenty of sharks hoping to make their name pro-bono on Gizmodo's behalf on this mess. In the end, this will blow over - but Apple looks like a bunch of jackasses right now.

[[AK]Hylander]

Just as an FYI - They had an EFF Lawyer on PCMag After Hours podcast discussing the issue. You at least get one sides legal viewpoint on the issue.

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect....h.04.28.10.mp3

[[AK]Squidly]

Gizmodo, EFF, and Jon Stewart are not the sources you should rely on for the truth of this story. The finder had the name of the owner, but didn't attempt to contact him. He in fact never called Apple. A friend offered to call Applecare, but didn't (Source: Wired)

Someone behaved like douchebags here, but it wasn't Apple. It was the ass who found the phone and kept it - later selling it, and Gizmodo for purchasing an item of questionable provenance as well as publicizing the name of the engineer.

Worth reading.
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/gi...ototype_iphone

Also worth noting that Gizmodo's account of what happened contradicts the story of the finder.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/iphone-finder/

There's a lot of CYA going on right now.

[[AK]Clay]

My sympathy's for the "finder" are more tempered. And his legal council needs to learn to stop showboating and STFU, because he's making statements that already are painting his client into knowing he did wrong. The guy's story is too convenient IMHO. A mysterious person finds the phone, hands it to our "finder", and then leaves. A "friend" is the one who calls Apple to return the phone. All stories that wash the "finder" and making it harder to prove/disprove his story. Not really inconsistent with Gizmodo's recalling of the tale though.

[[AK]Squidly]

I don't think a reasonable person can take anything Gizmodo says on this topic seriously any more.

[[AK]The Beast]

FWIW, I'd want there to be stricter rules for my phone than for my car. Yeah, my car might cost more, but it's insured, and there's nothing in there other than my name, address, phone #, and registration number, all of which are public data or the next thing to it. My phone contains much more compromising data, plus the ability to impersonate me via text to anyone that I have saved as a contact. If it's a smartphone, it's even moreso. If it's an iPhone, it's even moreso moreso.

[[AK]Hylander]

I have an app on my Droid (and I'm sure there is an equivalent for the iPhone, BB, and others) that if I lose my phone, I can simply log onto the website and lock it down remotely. I can then trace the location via the GPS even while the phone is completely locked up. It also backs up phone on a regular basis.

But to the point - My opinion on the matter is this (based on the info I've read on several different sites)

The person who found the phone really didn't make what I would consider a 'due diligence' effort to located the lawful owner.

I do not have a problem with Gizmodo paying the $5,000 for the phone in theory, they openly admit their "checkbook journalism". (Whether you consider that journalism or not is an entirely different debate) However, it's still unclear just how much they knew about the situation before they purchased the phone. We're they told he contacted Apple? Or did they know he didn't make a solid effort? Regardless, I believe they are protected under the law in terms of not being subject to a 'raid'.

I do believe the person who found the phone is probably the most 'guilty' party in this situation.

I believe the "raid" on the Gizmodo Editors home was uncalled for, and most likely illegal based on the protections in the law for journalists and reporters in the Privacy Protection Act which shields them, even if the subject is under investigation for illegal activities.

I don't think that Apple has done anything wrong here. They aren't the ones who raided the house and even if they were called - do you really believe that anyone working in their call center or tech support centers who supposedly took the call would have the knowledge or resources to address that call in any way that would be reasonable considering the circumstances? No way.