Read about it

That link contains nothing about Apple forcing anything.

Nor has any other credible source suggested that.

BronzeBeard, you have disappointed us. Please return your hat immediately.

The story sounds fishy.
They broke into his home just to carry out a search warrant?
Couldn't they have just waited until he got home or is just normal police being pricks and knocking people's door down just because they can?
Anyways, sucks for him if true cuz you know the cops ain't gonna be paying for a new door.

Wait, even though no one is suggesting that Apple made this happen... do LEOs really conduct raids on their own initiative like that?

Around here, the sheriff's dept will only go pay someone a visit if they're asked to - i.e. someone would have to report to them this 'crime' and specifically ask them to do something about it. They won't just read the intartubes and decide that some journo has broken the law and take it upon themselves to pursue them.
...Which means someone did push for this to happen.

Quote: Original post by cowsarenotevil
That link contains nothing about Apple forcing anything.

Who else would press charges on apple's stolen propriety requiring a warrant to seize evidence?

The story is only a few hours old, give it time and it'll mature faster than milk.

That being said, are you really trying to back up apple? ...

Quote: Original post by BronzeBeard
That being said, are you really trying to back up apple? ...

Link aside, why not? Are you trying to back up dealing in stolen goods? [wink]

I'll agree with you in that I'm not sure breaking into the guys home and confiscating his equipment was warranted (well, except maybe literally since they had a warrant). But Gizmodo did spend five grand to a bloke for a mobile phone that he said he found in a pub. IMO that's pretty dodgy ground they're on.

Even taking their word it was genuinely lost, there's no rule of "finders keepers"; that bloke should have either handed it in to the bar management, Apple or the police. Selling it on to Gizmodo when both parties involved knew damn well the phone belonged to someone else makes it theft. Grand theft, in this case.

And I'm not sure you can use journalistic privilege as a defense against paying for a stolen mobile phone just because you want the latest scoop on the technological shinies. [rolleyes]

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by BronzeBeard
That being said, are you really trying to back up apple? ...

Link aside, why not? Are you trying to back up dealing in stolen goods? [wink]

I'll agree with you in that I'm not sure breaking into the guys home and confiscating his equipment was warranted (well, except maybe literally since they had a warrant). But Gizmodo did spend five grand to a bloke for a mobile phone that he said he found in a pub. IMO that's pretty dodgy ground they're on.

Even taking their word it was genuinely lost, there's no rule of "finders keepers"; that bloke should have either handed it in to the bar management, Apple or the police. Selling it on to Gizmodo when both parties involved knew damn well the phone belonged to someone else makes it theft. Grand theft, in this case.

And I'm not sure you can use journalistic privilege as a defense against paying for a stolen mobile phone just because you want the latest scoop on the technological shinies. [rolleyes]

To be fair, the guy had a phone that was remotely wiped and couldn't be identified by customer service. It's not like he didn't try to return it at all before he sold it.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
To be fair, the guy had a phone that was remotely wiped and couldn't be identified by customer service. It's not like he didn't try to return it at all before he sold it.

At least, that's what Gizmodo says the guy told them as why it makes it all perfectly acceptable. And who are we to argue against that? [grin]

I admit I haven't actually read the original Gizmodo article, rather the numerous tech blog reports about the article; it's the nature of the story rather than the story itself that interest me. I'm just bemused Gizmodo felt it was okay to pay a substantial sum for that particular "hot" item and not expect a lawyer-fueled Apple-branded death laser pointed their way.