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

211–220 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#211

Post by epochwolf »

nailer wrote: post #163
zweben wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the people he spoke to wouldn't even be aware of the existence of the lost prototype, I don't think you could call that an honest attempt to return the phone at all. Even sending an email to sjobs@apple.com would've been more likely to get the phone back to Apple.

You're right, sjobs@ would have been better, but whoever received the call at Apple and didn't route it to the right people (or whoever ignored it for a week) seriously let the company down.

Do we know what the guy that called Apple actually said? Just imagine if I called Google and told them I had a lost Nexus One.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#213

Post by danudey »

jrockway wrote: post #70
nailer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ruled that the lady in question "exhibited none of the recognized qualities or characteristics traditionally associated with the news process, nor has she demonstrated an established connection or affiliation with any news entity". Ie, this lady wasn't considered a journalist. Chen is an employee of a media organization. That the organization has a blog doesn't make it different to, say, AA Gill writing for The Ti…

Chen is an employee of a media organization. A media organization with a legal staff, I might add.

Their 'legal staff' is their COO, Derbyshire, who is a British barrister. Hardly the expert on California law you want on your side when being investigated by the DA.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#214

Post by rhl »

showerst wrote: post #117
jrockway wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading that warrant makes me not regret the full-disk encryption on every computer in my house. It makes the computer slower, but it removes any incentive to remove the device from my home. (And it removes the ability of my own computer to incriminate me.)

I believe in the US you can still be legally compelled to give up the encryption key(s), and simply held in contempt (indefinitely?) until you do.

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

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#215

Post by danudey »

zephyrfalcon wrote: post #96
jonknee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Gray Powell's life is "wrecked"? He still has a job and if he were fired he'd get a new job really quickly. He's now the most well known iPhone engineer and only known sin was something that could happen to anyone and I have a hard time believing would close future career doors. In reality it will probably help him get interviews in the future.

"he'd get a new job really quickly" You think? (recruiter reads resume) "Oh, yeah, you're the guy who lost the iPhone prototype! I can't wait to hire you!" :-)

Look at it this way: he's the only employee you're likely to hire to truly understands the feeling you get when you think Steve Jobs is going ensure you never work in the valley again.

Sure, he lost a valuable prototype, and the entire world got to see it before Steve Jobs unveiled it, ruining Apple's legendary cloak of secrecy, but you know that he's one of few people in the world who will never, ever make that mistake again.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#216

Post by sshumaker »

37prime wrote: post #112
nailer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What crime? The gent who found the phone called Apple repeatedly to give it back and was ignored.

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

They clearly knew the engineer's name and information, since they went ahead and posted it on their website. So they could have easily tried to contact him and return it.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#217

Post by Lazlo_Nibble »

kjhgfghjknbv wrote: post #188
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…

So what about photos of a new car prototypes? There are a bunch of magazines devoted to those. Or reviews of to-be-released movies? Or photos of celebs in public? Not terribly happy about companies using the Police to break down doors to manage their PR.

If Car & Driver bought a Ferrari prototype from someone who clearly wasn't its legal owner, then ran a big front-page teardown story on the car with a snarky sidebar about how stupid it was for Ferrari to "lose" it, do you really think the resulting police raid would just be "Ferrari managing their PR"?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#218

Post by kevinpet »

pingswept wrote: post #194
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?

How do trade secrets even enter into this? They're planning on selling these phones all over the world. How could just possession of one be regarded as violating trade secrets?

It's a trade secret until Apple announces it. Obviously business plans become public eventually, the secret portion is before it becomes public.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#219

Post by ptomato »

jrockway wrote: post #199
ptomato wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If someone found my lost phone in a bar, I doubt any search warrants would be served. Apple has something to do with this case.

If you were, say, a major celebrity and there was a lot of press about it (as in this case) there would be.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#220

Post by doron »

rufo wrote: post #206
nailer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling the owner (in the company sense) is better than handing a device in to some dodgy bartender. If I lost an item belonging to my current employer, we would both certainly prefer that. I don't know much about east coast US police but the NY ones certainly don't give a shit about stuff left in public places by drunk people.

I honestly don't buy that. You find an iPhone lying on a street-corner? Then maybe you go through your own methods. You find an iPhone at a bar? The first place that person is going to look is at that bar . The sensible thing is to turn it into the bartender, not take it home, attempt to track down the person, then explain why exactly it is you have their iPhone/wallet/etc. (EDIT: Put another way: according to the or…

I found cellphones on several occasions, never gave it to anyone. I always tried (and was successful) in finding the owner by calling people on the phones address book.

Actually giving the phone to a stranger, never really crossed my mind, and call NYC police? HA.

Post reply on HN