[anon1579562]

ever wondered it was left at the bar on purpose.. to create hype for the iphone 4g?

Honestly, that's what I have thought from the beginning.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[qbnkelt]

That's what I meant by some cloak and dagger plan...I can't believe anyone would be as irresponsible and have such a lapse of judgement as to leave this super secret gadget behind in a bar.

[tedzone]

I think the fruitcakes at apple are a bunch of spoiled little whiners. Beginning with the head whiner- Jobs

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[stuaw11]

Wow, mature response

[stuaw11]

That's what I meant by some cloak and dagger plan...I can't believe anyone would be as irresponsible and have such a lapse of judgement as to leave this super secret gadget behind in a bar.

Youre telling me youre NEVER EVER lost something important in your life?

Cmon most people have at some time another- car keys, wallet, etc.

It was a mistake, period.

[crackvegas78]

ever wondered it was left at the bar on purpose.. to create hype for the iphone 4g?

I can see why some people think that, but there is a major flaw in that logic. Apple would never do something that is going to hurt the sales of the current iPhone before they are ready to sell the new one to the general public. I know some people want to jump on Apple for every single thing, but in the end what happens to Giz is not on Apple, it's on Giz.

[qbnkelt]

Youre telling me youre NEVER EVER lost something important in your life?

Cmon most people have at some time another- car keys, wallet, etc.

It was a mistake, period.

Of course I've misplaced things, but never lost a wallet, nor phone, nor keys. Sorry to disappoint. I thought I'd lost a credit card once but it was in a different slot inside my wallet. And I have *never* lost sensitive work information anywhere, much less in a bar.

But we are talking about a work related loss here, of a highly secretive device from a highly secretive company in a very competitive field. While drunk in a bar.

Serious lapse of judgement.

Wonder what would happen to me if I left our network information in a bar while drunk. And while one is private industry and the other is government, the level of security is almost the same. I expect that Apple is incensed over one of their employees showing such irresponsibility.

Unless it was their plan.

[Denise in Los Angeles]

Well the thing is its not up to Apple anymore. Its up to the District Attorney what to do and what to go after.

Its kind of out of Apple's hands now, they have no part in a criminal action (its the State v. "alleged criminal" in a criminal action; person/company v. person/company in a civil action).

It is entirely possible for Apple to sue Giz for theft of trade secrets, which is
a civil case, company vs company or company vs. person. Giz should have
never published on the site that they paid for information that did not belong
to the seller. That was an admission of a crime.

[stuaw11]

It is entirely possible for Apple to sue Giz for theft of trade secrets, which is
a civil case, company vs company or company vs. person. Giz should have
never published on the site that they paid for information that did not belong
to the seller. That was an admission of a crime.

Of course, but Im saying the people saying "Apple kicked in this guys door screw Apple" are just totally off base. Apple couldnt order anything done, the STATE OF CALIFORNIA kicked in this guys door and dont take orders from Apple. This was a governmental (DA) decision on that course of action.

[Denise in Los Angeles]

Of course, but Im saying the people saying "Apple kicked in this guys door screw Apple" are just totally off base. Apple couldnt order anything done, the STATE OF CALIFORNIA kicked in this guys door and dont take orders from Apple. This was a governmental (DA) decision on that course of action.

Rich companies have better influence and they can sway the government to
do this sort of thing. I think it was very well planned out that the DA served
the search warrant when no one was home. They probably waited until the
couple went out of the house.

They were able to get access to all the guy's computers and stuff.

You think if it was a minor theft case, that the police would go in so hard?

[stuaw11]

Rich companies have better influence and they can sway the government to
do this sort of thing. I think it was very well planned out that the DA served
the search warrant when no one was home. They probably waited until the
couple went out of the house.

They were able to get access to all the guy's computers and stuff.

You think if it was a minor theft case, that the police would go in so hard?

Im not disagreeing they can make it a bigger deal than for other peoples' cases (no different than any other high profile company or celeb), but it wasnt Apple breaking down their door like some people blow this "big bad Apple" persona to be.

Obviously the DA agreed with Apple it should be investigated and planned the raid. Influence yes, but they cant force the legal system's hand if there was no legit grounds for it.

[tcseacliff]

All that bull for a little story on the amazing 4G?

Glad Blackberry doesn't try to attack Kevin for some of the prototypes he's gotten. Apple has too much power for my liking.

that is correct. Apple should be more concerned about the human rights violations in china and other countries just for their bottom line!! A guy committed suicide in the name of Apple. but they choose to go after a guy for finding their technology.they getting a little too evil.

[stuaw11]

Apple should be more concerned about the human rights violations in china and other countries just for their bottom line!! A guy committed suicide in the name of Apple.

Apple cant stop human rights violations, they have no physical presence in China. They subcontract these deals out to vendors, and the cost is the bottom line. Lets face it without China, Taiwan, etc we'd be paying $10 for a pack of gum and $1000 for our phones. Its one side effect of cheap labor. If the US government cant influence human rights violations, then surely Apple cant.

If you think Apple is the only one, then youre sorely mistaken. You better get rid of your car, TV, computer, most Appliances- basically anything electronic because most of that is from China or Taiwan.

And you act like Jobs stood over this guy while he killed himself. The guy clearly had mental issues if he committed suicide. To say that it was directly and purely on Apple's behalf is a stretch at best since FOXCONN was the one coming down on him.

[sivan]

The Appalling Reaction to the iPhone Leak

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[stuaw11]

The Appalling Reaction to the iPhone Leak

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

And yet of course the relevant facts are convieniently left out of this rant/editorial.

Printing HP leaks isnt a crime; getting info from sources isnt a crime; but BUYING STOLEN PROPERTY IS A CRIME. It says so in the penal code as well as the common law. I love the "found himself in possession." Not quite, forgetting the payment of $5000 for the item which was purportedly stolen in the first place. And Gizmodo knew the whole story how it was acquired too as it published that as well.

Its not like if a source brought it over to take some pics of and scoop for a few hours, there would have been NO legal issues with what they did, EVEN IF they still knew the guy walked off with it and kept it (still stolen by common law and statutory definitions). The Shield Law protects their sources, criminal or not. But once they paid for possession of that stolen item they violated the state penal code for purchasing stolen property.

There's a HUGE difference between the scenario that story depicts with real journalism and HP, and what happened here. This story is fixated on the legality to publish the pics which is NOT the issue. The issue is how the device was acquired to get those pics. And journalists should NOT be shielded from criminal acts. Thats far from the legislative intent of the Shield Law to protect journalist's sources (their property searched to protect a news source) which is what the law is intended to do, NOT cover up THEIR crime.

Next time Gizmodo should try consulting their attorney BEFORE making stupid moves like that and going to cry freedom of the press. The 1st amendment ISNT a shield from criminal acts. I dont shed a tear for them one bit; they made a stupid move and now theyre paying for it.

Lets say you run a business and you loan out an employee (a legal bailee) a vehicle to use for the job. The employee goes to the bar and accidentally leaves the keys on the table, someone picks them up and takes the car home, and then proceeds to sell it off. Are you HONESTLY just going to let it go or call the police to get the car back and press charges for the crimes?!?! What a double standard we live!! Its easy to blame the "big bad Apple" when its not your property on the line or a crime committed on you.

Im more appalled people write this drivel they call journalism for that masses leaving out key facts and having a complete lack of any understanding of the laws.

[qbnkelt]

LOL!!! Wait...are you SERIOUS?!!? This sentence makes the whole bashing in of doors and confiscating Chen's equipment understandable...and it's easy to understand that Apple was not devoid of influence over the whole incident.


"So, what happened? This week, Chen's house was raided by officers from California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT), a special task force of police officers and federal agents created to combat computer-related crimes -- and which just happens to have Apple on its steering committee. The cops took all of Chen's computer equipment."

All because one irresponsible employee was too much in his cups to realise what he was doing with sensitive company equipment.

Oh, brother....

[stuaw11]

LOL!!! Wait...are you SERIOUS?!!? This sentence makes the whole bashing in of doors and confiscating Chen's equipment understandable...and it's easy to understand that Apple was not devoid of influence over the whole incident.


"So, what happened? This week, Chen's house was raided by officers from California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT), a special task force of police officers and federal agents created to combat computer-related crimes -- and which just happens to have Apple on its steering committee. The cops took all of Chen's computer equipment."

All because one irresponsible employee was too much in his cups to realise what he was doing with sensitive company equipment.

Oh, brother....

Who cares? If a police officer had a rape in the family does it only mean hes going after a person suspected of rape as a personal vendetta or because they broke the law?

A crime is a crime is a crime. Influence, maybe, but doesnt make it right in the first place to have been done.

[grahamf]

Also, Giz paid for a phone that was not supposed to be for sale and also belonged to someone else, which I believe can be covered under BlackMarketing laws.

[crackvegas78]

LOL!!! Wait...are you SERIOUS?!!? This sentence makes the whole bashing in of doors and confiscating Chen's equipment understandable...and it's easy to understand that Apple was not devoid of influence over the whole incident.


"So, what happened? This week, Chen's house was raided by officers from California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT), a special task force of police officers and federal agents created to combat computer-related crimes -- and which just happens to have Apple on its steering committee. The cops took all of Chen's computer equipment."

All because one irresponsible employee was too much in his cups to realise what he was doing with sensitive company equipment.

Oh, brother....

Just so I understand your point. You are saying that it was okay for some guy to steal it and sell it, knowing that it belonged to someone else. But it is not okay for Apple to try and protect their on IP? Also last time I checked Apple was not working in the DA's office and is not the one currently pushing the investigation forward.

[crackvegas78]

Also, Giz paid for a phone that was not supposed to be for sale and also belonged to someone else, which I believe can be covered under BlackMarketing laws.

Yeah great point, even if Giz didn't know that it was stolen which they did they still knew that they could not buy it on the legitimate and legal market. IMHO Giz did this all to themselves.