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

291–300 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#291

Post by CamperBob »

tvon wrote: post #157
jonknee wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's savvy he can turn this into a launchpad for his career. One of the hardest parts of moving up the chain is getting noticed by the right people. He's been noticed more than anyone could ever reasonably expect. If he's as talented as I've heard he should have no problem using that to his advantage.

I see your perspective, but the guy is an iPhone engineer, I don't think having lost a prototype at a bar in a very public way can possibly add anything to his resume or make him stand out more in a positive way. I could see someone maybe specifically contacting him and offering him a job after this event, though I don't really see why they'd single him out unless they were looking for an iPhone engineer specifically…

I see your perspective, but the guy is an iPhone engineer, I don't think having lost a prototype at a bar in a very public way can possibly add anything to his resume or make him stand out more in a positive way.

Anyone who hasn't fucked up at least that badly hasn't been trying.

Be honest with yourself. There's no high ground to be taken when it comes to being a perfect employee.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#292

Post by ahoyhere »

tmsh wrote: post #97
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…

I agree with you. But, although I haven't studied this event all that carefully, there is a difference between corporate espionage or some sort of malicious attempt at blatantly undermining Apple -- and the way Gizmodo presented their story, afaik. Gizmodo almost seemed to poke fun at the weird circumstances of the prototype being left behind (the photos of the bar and all that). Did they reveal any trade secrets abo…

Actually, if somebody interviewed by the Daily Show "accidentally" dropped some classified info for $5k, I'm pretty sure the Daily Show would be held culpable.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#293

Post by gjm11 »

nailer wrote: post #283
zts wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one thing to suggest that the police will pay greater attention to high profile cases (with which I'd agree), and quite another thing to imply that the raid happened because Apple requested it. Beyond that, could you point out the source of your assertion that Apple requested this? I missed it in the article, and that's the conspiracy you've raised.

If I were Apple, I'd ask the police to get the phone back from Jason Chen, hire my own people to get his address, and let the police do what they will, knowing that likely means a raid. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.

1. Apple already had the phone; Gizmodo sent it back to them.

2. "If I were Apple, I would have done X" does not in any way imply "Apple did X".

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#294

Post by watty »

anigbrowl wrote: post #222
watty wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gizmodo: "Weeks later, Gizmodo got it for $5,000 in cash. At the time, we didn't know if it was the real thing or not. It didn't even get past the Apple logo screen. Once we saw it inside and out, however, there was no doubt about it. It was the real thing, so we started to work on documenting it before returning it to Apple. We had the phone, but we didn't know the owner. Later, we learnt about this story, but we di…

It was the real thing, so we started to work on documenting it before returning it to Apple. We had the phone, but we didn't know the owner. Wouldn't the owner of an Apple prototype most likely be...Apple? Surely you're not asking me to buy the idea that they thought it was the engineers's personal property, and that if they sent it to Apple, it might never find its way back to him. That's an insult to even an averag…

I'm just replying to the original upvoted post, "Didn't he/she know the engineer's name?".

Obviously the "finder" knew it was Apple hardware and the thug who stole my XBox knew it was Microsoft. The finder DID call the "owner" and most likely has it recorded. I'm not defending Gizmodo at all but I think the thief has a more compelling argument in court.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#295

Post by rbanffy »

ErrantX wrote: post #130
jrockway wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially in the UK, where writing a book that criticizes pseudoscience is "illegal", as is publishing photographs of celebrities. I'm surprised there are any journalists left there at all.

Hmm careful; those are civil laws. You can't be arrested for them. (which isn't to say they are correct - just not related)

> You can't be arrested for them.

Unless you refuse to comply with a court order related to a civil matter.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#296

Post by mos1 »

pyre wrote: post #237
jamesbressi wrote: post #11

Seems a bit overkill? JUST for a moment, forget about the your bias on Gizmodo or Apple... When's the last time you or someone you know reported something stolen, knew who took it and possibly had just as much evidence of who has possession, and there was no search warrant and raid done on your behalf? I experienced several examples where there was video evidence of the theft, the value of the goods were anywhere bet…

My wife's car was stolen. When it was recovered we found ATM receipts in the car (presumably from the thief). The Toronto Police never called us back about it when we told them that we found the receipts. I mean, we had the bank account numbers of the thief (or at least someone that knew him/her). There was even a parking receipt from the Toronto Zoo and a receipt for school supplies from WalMart (along with an un-op…

You had ATM receipts generated by a known thief.

Can you see why this might not be the solid proof of identity that you like to imagine it was?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#297

Post by nailer »

37prime wrote: post #288
nailer wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most places, if the owner doesn't collect it, the item does indeed belong to you.

The "owner" of the phone, which the finder of the phone knows the name of, where it was found etc, was actively looking for the phone. The words of the finder was published by none other than Gizmodo, who definitely has everything to gain if the statements were true. That's conflict of interest. To cite some others who had found this specific California Law: California law regulates what you can do when you find lost…

Gizmodo identified the owner of the phone. The finder knew some items, but not enough.

By the time the owner contacted the finder, it was in Gizmodo's hands (which I believe was a few days after the finder contacted apple).

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#298

Post by nailer »

gjm11 wrote: post #293
nailer wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were Apple, I'd ask the police to get the phone back from Jason Chen, hire my own people to get his address, and let the police do what they will, knowing that likely means a raid. I'm not sure what the alternative would be.

1. Apple already had the phone; Gizmodo sent it back to them. 2. "If I were Apple, I would have done X" does not in any way imply "Apple did X".

1. Interesting. So what was the purpose of the raid?

2. Agreed. There may be a remote chance the police just read the internet and really, really care about apple. But I doubt it.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#299

Post by rhl »

pyre wrote: post #240
rhl wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that covered by the 5th Amendment (not 100% sure, I'm not American)?

The 5th Amendment says that you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself, but I don't think that covers everything. If you have a safe in your house and the police have a search warrant for the contents of the safe, I think you are legally required to turn over the combination or key. I remember hearing about this being used as a justification by a judge in a case relating to encryption. It's just sad that most cas…

Oh I see, thanks. I didn't realize this kind of jurisprudence was linked to the child porn issues. Obviously that's a commendable reason to add exceptions to the 5th amendment.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#300

Post by johSho7w »

mbreese wrote: post #259
johSho7w wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these secrets are so valuable maybe Apple should rethink its policy of letting them walk out the door to go to a bar.

Okay, this type of reasoning really is starting to get to me. You aren't the first to mention it in this thread, but it is wrong. Let me ask you this: if you are designing a phone , how else would you test it? You have to take it out into the real world and test it in real world situations. They gave it to a trusted employee and disguised it as much as they could. And the guy lost it. It's a known risk and it happens…

So, how exactly is it necessary to test the phone while the user is inebriated with access to the public? They couldn't host a private party for that? Test it at workers houses? Why is access to the public so vital? It's not. If Apple condoned this form of testing they have to accept the risks. Crying for the nanny state to save you from your own actions is bullshit.

If you lose a phone in the public you should expect that any secrets become public. Apple seems to be OK with that risk. I don't understand the clamoring for gestapo police to swoop in and correct corporate mistakes.

Post reply on HN