Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Iphone Apple

The 4G iPhone's Finder Reportedly Located 404

Posted by kdawson
from the tell-no-one dept.
CNET is reporting that investigators have interviewed the person who found the unreleased Apple iPhone and began all the trouble. Wired reports that last week people "identifying themselves as representing Apple last week visited and sought permission to search the Silicon Valley address of the college-age man who came into possession of a next-generation iPhone prototype." "'Someone came to [the finder's] house and knocked on his door,' the source told Wired.com, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is under investigation by the police. A roommate answered, but wouldn't let them in. ... News of Apple's lost iPhone prototype hit the Web like a bombshell, but it was apparently an open secret for weeks amongst the finder's roommates and neighbors, where the device was shown around mostly as a curiosity. ... 'There was no effort to keep it secret,' the source said. 'There were a bunch of people who knew.' ... Wired.com received an e-mail March 28 offering access to the device, but did not follow up on the exchange after the tipster made a thinly veiled request for money."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The 4G iPhone's Finder Reportedly Located

Comments Filter:
  • by Goaway (82658) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @08:30PM (#32006876) Homepage

    apparently illegal warrant

    Yes, let's trust the legal opinion of the lawyer who apparently thought it was a great idea for a newspaper to buy stolen property and announce it all over the internet.

  • Re:Gizmodo warrant? (Score:3, Informative)

    by joh (27088) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @08:38PM (#32006954)

    The EFF fights for the right cause but is not automatically right. Just being a journalist does not mean you're allowed to deal with stolen goods.

    By the way, the Gawker/Gizmodo guys obviously don't think they're journalists themselves:

    "We don’t seek to do good,” says Denton, wearing a purplish shirt, jeans and a beard that resembles a three-day growth. “We may inadvertently do good. We may inadvertently commit journalism. That is not the institutional intention." [washingtonpost.com]

  • by spire3661 (1038968) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @08:42PM (#32007014) Journal
    did a judge not sign off on the warrant? This is a felony THEFT case, not a journalistic source case. Chen has no standing. The police had a warrant signed by a judge in good standing. Until that warrant is JUDGED illegal by another judge in good standing , the warrant is legal and the police acted accordingly.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @08:46PM (#32007056)

    The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that. The asshole lost it.

    No you don't have to do that. Mind you if it's more than a few hundred bucks you have to give it to the cops for 90 days so they can run an ad in the paper looking for the owner, or they'll arrest you for theft. But no, you don't have to do it. They also don't have to let you out of a small cell after you're convicted of grand theft either.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @08:48PM (#32007076)

    The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that.

    Wrong.

    California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. 2080.3.
    http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/lost-and-found-california-law-and-next-generation-iphone [citmedialaw.org]

    The asshole lost it.

    Well given his job title, I'd say he's a very intelligent engineer, not an ignorant jerk like yourself.

  • by joh (27088) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @08:51PM (#32007122)

    They knew where the phone was when they bricked it using the "Find my iPhone" feature. Makes you wonder why did not ring the doorbell earlier.

    Finding doesn't work with 4.0 beta yet (but bricking works).

  • by russotto (537200) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @09:15PM (#32007330) Journal

    California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property."

    But Section 2080 of the Civil Code is not the Penal Code. He can't be jailed for violating Section 2080, only sued; and since Apple got their prototype back, that's unlikely, because they won't be able to show damages; the main obligation of a depositary (detailed in CCC 1822-1828) is to give the item back.

    California Penal Code 485 requires only "reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him".

  • by iamhassi (659463) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @09:30PM (#32007482) Journal
    "The guy is an idiot."

    Very much so, considering he's already been lying to press and police about trying to sell it.
    " "The idea wasn't to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, 'Who's going to confirm this?'" ..... Editors at both news organizations confirmed that they were contacted not about confirming whether the phone was legitimate, but about their interest in buying the device."

    BUSTED

    If this goes to court they have a great case against the finder of the iPhone and Gizmodo. Can't say I feel sorry for any of them
  • by s73v3r (963317) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {r3v37s}> on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @09:43PM (#32007624)
    Just about every Journalistic Ethics course will tell you that one of the primary tenets of Journalism is that you don't pay for a story.
  • by Wovel (964431) on Tuesday April 27, 2010 @10:34PM (#32008132) Homepage

    Apparently your kids are not going to learn from you either since you believe "Jason Chen did nothing wrong". The accounts written by the people accused of the crime do not even agree with the story you presented here. They did not notify Apple and promptly return it. They disassembled it , posted it on their web site and then demanded written communication they could also post on their web site before they were willing to return it.

  • If you find something on private property and then remove that item from the private property, you have stolen the item. Yes, a bar is private property. The proper course of action is to turn the item over to the owner of the property. If the owner of the property is not the owner of the item, they can hold it for the rightful owner or turn it over to the police. If the rightful owner does not claim their item within a certain time period then it can legally go to the finder, but that's after quite a long time.

    If you find an iPhone on a public sidewalk, you need to take it to the police. "Finder's keepers" is a nice schoolyard rhyme, but good luck using that as a legal defense. Yeah, nobody's going to fault you for picking up a quarter here and there, but if you take a clip of money with several hundred dollars in it you're a thief.

    So yeah. I'm fully behind Apple for supporting the prosecution of thieves, if in fact they do support it. With all the publicity this story has received, the police would still investigate even if Apple said not to. After all, a crime was committed.

  • by jpmorgan (517966) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @01:13AM (#32009720) Homepage

    That is the civil code

    Lost property is dealt with under both civil and criminal statutes in California. Gizmodo and the original finder may be in violation of California's civil code, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal code, and whether what they did is illegal (in the felonious sense). The criminal code only requires a 'reasonable and just' effort be made. Violating the civil code might open up Giz and the finder to a lawsuit, but given that the property has already been returned that probably wouldn't go very far.

  • by NekSnappa (803141) on Wednesday April 28, 2010 @08:59AM (#32013002)

    There are 34 companies that have representatives on that committee. The assistant DA who requested the warrant said he didn't even know Apple was one of them.

  • I think they way that Gizmodo and the guy that found it acted was certainly a bit stupid and shortsighted, but unless the guy that "found it" picked Gray Powell's pocket for the thing, calling it "theft" seems a bit of a stretch to me.

    Too bad (for them) that the law has a different view:
    California Code - Section 485

    One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

fortune: not found

Working...