Monthly Archives: April 2010

Gizmodo iPhone caper draws police attention

Posted on by

From cnet News:

Silicon Valley police are investigating what appears to be a lost Apple iPhone prototype purchased by a gadget blog, a transaction that may have violated criminal laws, a law enforcement official told CNET on Friday.

Apple has spoken to local police about the incident and the investigation is believed to be headed by a computer crime task force led by the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office, the source said. Apple’s Cupertino headquarters is in Santa Clara County, about 40 miles south of San Francisco.

Who’s laughing now?

Political quote of the day

Posted on by

You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True.

– Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele answering his own question: Why should an African-American vote Republican?

Gizmodo: complete lack of ethics

Posted on by

Gizmodo paid $5,000 for an iPhone that one could fairly characterize as stolen. The also “outed” the engineer who left the iPhone at a bar (which was a needless attack on a guy who made a mistake). The question now is whether they will face any legal consequences, either criminal or civil.

But there is no question that Gizmodo (and its parent Gawker) deserve public shaming for their disgusting behavior. From Andy Ihnatko:

If Gizmodo was truly interested in getting the iPhone back to its owner — as they claim — why did it take them so long to develop a simple piece of information that could have cracked the engineer’s identity immediately? Did Gizmodo’s lawyers advise them against acquiring the phone, and what legal liabilities were they aware of? Were they being arrogant, self-delusional or is this such a small issue that only a most nerdly gossip hound with too much time on his or her hands would even be interested in the answers?

As Robert Powell, father of the employee who lost the phone, says of the person who first found the phone:

The bottom line is the guy stole the phone.  The guy’s a thief.

All the finder of the phone had to do was give it to the bartender. All Gizmodo had to do was take the phone to any Apple store, ask for a manager, and give him or her the phone.

The “lost” iPhone (updated)

Posted on by

So it increasingly appears that someone from Apple (perhaps an engineer) left a prototype iPhone to be release this summer in a bar. It eventually ended up in the hands of Gizmodo, who’s owner has acknowledged paying for it.

Can Gizmodo be guilty of a crime under California law?  Charles Arthur, writing in the Guardian, notes the following provision of the California Civil Code and wonders about its possible impact.

§ 2080. Duties of finder: Any person who finds a thing lost is not bound to take charge of it, unless the person is otherwise required to do so by contract or law, but when the person does take charge of it he or she is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. Any person or any public or private entity that finds and takes possession of any money, goods, things in action, or other personal property, or saves any domestic animal from harm, neglect, drowning, or starvation, shall, within a reasonable time, inform the owner, if known, and make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property. Any person who takes possession of a live domestic animal shall provide for humane treatment of the animal.

As he says,

So basically, if you come into possession of something, you’re meant to tell the owner and give it back. You can ask for some payment for your trouble (but only the trouble). If you then sell it – ooh, things get complicated. That would be, in effect, theft: depriving the rightful owner of their property. And it’s very, very clear who the rightful owner is here, isn’t it?

Update: John Gruber points to this provision of the California Penal Code:

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.