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

301–306 of 306 posts

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#301

Post by mbreese »

johSho7w wrote: post #300
mbreese wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expec…

>If you lose a phone in the public you should expect that any secrets become public

So, if you lost your wallet, it would be okay if I then knew your credit card numbers? Even if I didn't use them? I promise not to tell...

This isn't clamoring for a police state. It's recognizing that when property is lost, regardless of how, it still belongs to the person who lost it. I'm normally not one for "corporate rights", but in this case it doesn't matter that the entity that owned the phone was Apple. Hell, it could have been the next gen Blueberry (yes, I meant Blueberry) for all I care.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#302

Post by johSho7w »

mbreese wrote: post #301
johSho7w wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expec…

>If you lose a phone in the public you should expect that any secrets become public So, if you lost your wallet, it would be okay if I then knew your credit card numbers? Even if I didn't use them? I promise not to tell... This isn't clamoring for a police state. It's recognizing that when property is lost, regardless of how, it still belongs to the person who lost it. I'm normally not one for "corporate rights", but…

If you lose your wallet and assume that credit card numbers are not compromised you're an idiot.

Are you saying Gizmodo refused to return the phone to Apple claiming it was now their own property? Or that Gizmodo demanded reimbursement from Apple in exchange for returning the phone?

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#303

Post by johSho7w »

po wrote: post #256
johSho7w wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple is claiming trade secret protection, they need to demonstrate that they attempted to protect the secret. Apple authorized taking the phone into the public. These "secrets" were not taken from the Apple campus or workplace.

I believe that if I have a briefcase full of confidential documents, it would be logical that I can leave my workplace with them without them suddenly not being trade-secrets anymore. I can bring them to the airport. I can put it on a chair next to me while I eat and if I forget them, they are not suddenly considered open. To me, the point of this law is that the finder's-keepers attitude is encouraging theft. I thin…

Are you talking about trade secrets or theft?

Gizmodo never disputed that the phone was Apple's property and they returned it to Apple as soon as Apple claimed it. If Gizmodo physically damaged the phone they should be responsible for the damage caused to the device.

I actually don't see a huge problem if I lose my phone, someone else pays $5000 to the finder and then turns around and returns it to me when I demonstrate that it is mine.

Taking photos of the device isn't the issue. Anyone could easily have taken a photo of the phone at the bar. If you are saying the visual appearance of the product is a trade secret then it should not be paraded about in public by employees.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#304

Post by infinite8s »

loso wrote: post #132
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…

And that is my main problem with the story. I do not have a dog in the fight since I have a feeling that the whole story has yet to be told. But if this was anyone else cell phone, there would be no cops kicking down doors.

It would if Google or Microsoft lost some new "supersecret" prototype. People are making the false equivalence that this is the same as losing your phone. It is not. They lost an unreleased prototype of a phone that will likely sell millions. The information about the design of this phone would probably be worth lots of money to competitors.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#305

Post by infinite8s »

nailer wrote: post #298
gjm11 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The purpose of the raid was to determine who sold the phone to Gizmodo. Hence their defense using the journalist shield law.

Re: Police raid Gizmodo editor's house

#306

Post by catch23 »

metamemetics wrote: post #285
catch23 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many unreleased iPhones have you lost and gotten returned using this method? I think the person who found the lost phone knew exactly who it belonged to, but decided to resell it for $5000 instead of returning it.

I thought the finder contacted a random apple support employee. The finder should be commended for even taking the effort to look up an apple support phone number if he actually did. The person who lost it should have plastered a lot of nice text messages to the phone with a number to call to return it from a friends phone immediately after noticing it gone. Say how you really need the phone numbers on it. A very low…

I understand that you're trying to push your point, but I feel it's a bit pointless trying to defend someone who knowingly sold stolen goods for $5k. The finder did not contact Apple, the bar where it was found, or the original owner. I can't see how someone can justify themselves by attempting to "contact" Apple, then turning around and selling it to the highest media outlet buyer.
Post reply on HN