Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#171

Post by KirinDave »

nailer wrote: post #161
jrockway wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

37prime's argument is that this guy is lying to protect himself. But personally, I doubt the story is false. A drunk guy forgetting his phone is something that happens every day.

Since 37prime doesn't have any evidence to prove the finder was lying about repeatedly attempting to return the phone to Apple, I'd like to assume he's not. Lest, you know, someone make a similar accusation about either: - me - you - 37prime sometime in the future. This is one of the basis' upon which society works.

Yeah, that hypothesis seems a little fishy to me. 4 reasons:

1. He took money for the phone. You gotta know this is wrong.

2. He shopped around trying to dump the phone.

3. Unless the bar is keeping quiet, he didn't try to return it.

4. Apple seemed to reclaim it in a huge hurry once it got public on Gizmodo. That suggests they were taking its disclosure seriously. Did they think it WOULDN'T cause a huge uproar before it showed up on Gizmodo and then say, "Oh wait, the press _tells people about things!_ Duh, we should have seen this coming."

The story we've got so far has some pretty bizarre turns, and they really don't seem consistent with a bunch of unfortunate coincidences besetting good samaritans.

Fortunately, our opinion is meaningless. The whole point of these investigations is to determine wrongdoing.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#172

Post by zts »

nailer wrote: post #91
raganwald wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely Apple's counsel knows US law Was this a typo? The search was conducted by police, not Apple. This is a criminal matter, not a civil one.

It clearly wasn't a typo. I'm well aware the search was conducted by police. I did not suggest otherwise. I am saying that Apple asked the police to raid the property.

So the police are working for Apple now?

Clear evidence that their quest for world domination has gone too far.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#173

Post by nailer »

raganwald wrote: post #156
nailer wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since when do you leave a bar with something that doesn't belong to you unless it's somebody else's spouse? Since you're a good person who wants to call the owner and give it back the next morning before someone less scrupulous steals it? What do you want them to do, leave it there? Give it to the bar staff who you don't know? Give it to the cops who'll simply tell you to contact the owner yourself?

Pick up phone. Wave to bartender. Done. Or pick up phone, drop at police station, done. Or pick up phone, use Safari to place notice on craigslist, done. Once I exit the property with the phone, I've done wrong. The onus is now on me to follow through and get it back to the owner, not take a half-hearted effort to get through to Apple on the phone before selling it to someone else who is also not the owner. p.s. I se…

> It's not up to you to sit in judgment over them and find them wanting

Actually, I'm allowed to judge anyone, even if I don't employ them. So are you. We make judgements about others all the time.

I trust I will do what I judge to be the right thing 100% of the time. I trust a stranger less so. This is logical.

Suggesting otherwise reminds me of one of those 'don't judge my OSS app unless you wrote it' arguments.

Human beings don't need permission to make decisions.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#174

Post by tvon »

nailer wrote: post #121
37prime wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really know if this is a fact or just hearsay? I bet you don't.

The gent who found the phone said it. You can look up the quote easily online.

He said he tried to call Apple's main line, which kind of sounds like the worst possible way to go about it, in fact it sounds like an intentionally ineffective way to do something so you can say you tried to do it. It sounds like a lame excuse, in other words. There are a lot of ways it could have easily been returned with some level of assurance that it would find it's owner.

Besides, the guy sold the thing for $5k and apparently reached out to Gizmodo and Engadget, I find it hard to believe he ever actually tried to return it.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#175

Post by anigbrowl »

nailer wrote: post #159
ahoyhere wrote: post #63

I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong. It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade…

> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?

Arguably they are, under the Uniform trade Secrets Act (which is CA law):

"... (b) Misappropriation" means: ... (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: ... (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

In detail - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1286907

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#176

Post by angstrom »

nailer wrote: post #159
ahoyhere wrote: post #63

I'm glad. Around this whole thing, there seemed to be this aura of "teehee, it's ok, we're on the internet!" It seems like they don't believe they could have possibly done anything wrong. It's not that I can't imagine the glee they'd feel when they were offered the opportunity to buy the prototype. But since that glee was not followed up by any second thoughts -- for exmaple, about receiving stolen property, or trade…

> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?

I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Until they posted actual information they could've returned it to Apple and I'm sure Apple would've reimbursed them the $5K for the phone and possibly given them future preference for the good deed.

This is "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers" hiding behind freedom of press. It isn't by any means in the territory of whistle blowing. And you certainly don't have to steal in order to post an opinion. Suppose I find someone's credit card and I want to laugh at the silliness of the design on the card, do I really need to post pictures of the card along with the 16 digit number, expiration date, and security number before giving it back to them and hiding behind "Freedom of the Press"?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#177

Post by nailer »

angstrom wrote: post #176
nailer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?

I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple. Until they posted actual information they could've returned it to Apple and I'm sure Apple would've reimbursed them the $5K for the phone and possibly given them future preference for the good deed. This is "Finder's keepers, loser's weepers" hiding behind freedom of press. It isn't by any means in the territory of whistle blo…

> I find it pretty despicable they made no honest attempt to get the prototype back to Apple.

Apparently they did, and were ignored. Nobody has come up with anything that refutes this so far.

I look at it as: someone made an innocent mistake losing a phone, someone found a phone and called a company, Apple's bureaucracy fucked up and didn't respond as soon as it should have.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#178

Post by ptomato »

jrockway wrote: post #104
zweben wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not a very good one, clearly.

If there's one word that can't be used to describe this case, it's "clear". Nothing is clear yet, except that Apple is mad.

Except that Apple hasn't had anything to do with this case. Criminal, not civil.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#179

Post by slackerIII »

iamjustlooking wrote: post #119
slackerIII wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your plan for when the judge tells you to supply the decryption key?

Does the 5th amendment not apply in this situation?

Hm, you are probably right - I'm used to thinking about things from a civil suit perspective.

http://volokh.com/posts/1197670606.shtml

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#180

Post by nailer »

anigbrowl wrote: post #175
nailer wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trigger any thoughts about trade secrets What? I don't think not returning the device immediately when Apple asked for it was right, but Gizmodo aren't obligated to protect Apple's trade secrets. Nobody is but Apple. Do you want every rumor site to be shut down?

Arguably they are, under the Uniform trade Secrets Act (which is CA law): "... (b) Misappropriation" means: ... (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: ... (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. In detail - http://news.yco…

Interesting & upmodded. I didn't know that knowledge acquired by accident was protected from disclosure by those to whom the info has been revealed. Consider me educated.
Post reply on HN