Mercantilism at its finest: Cops help Apple employees search home for iPhone

[TNforPaul45]

Sorry if this has already been posted, have not seen it:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/09/02/iphone.5.prototype/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



San Francisco (CNN) -- Police officials said they helped Apple investigators, who searched a man's home here recently.
They were reportedly looking for a prototype of the next iPhone (http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/08/31/apple.phone.bar/index.html) that an Apple employee left in a bar in San Francisco's Mission neighborhood, according to CNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20099899-37/apple-loses-another-unreleased-iphone-exclusive). Apple had contacted the police claiming the prototype is invaluable, the report says.
Four San Francisco Police officers escorted Apple investigators to a home in the city's Bernal Heights neighborhood, the statement said. The two Apple employees searched the home while the officers waited outside, police said. They did not find the item there and declined to file a police report, according to the statement.


No word if this search was consented to like last month's search was. The article is very confusing on the details and of course leaves a lot of them out. Was there a search warrant? Is one even needed any more?



How much more are we going to take?

[specsaregood]

The fact that the police didn't even do the searching REALLY pisses me off.

And at first the Police denied it happened.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/sfpd-we-stood-outside-when-apples-investigators-tossed-mans-home.php


SFPD: We Stood Outside When Apple's Investigators Tossed Man's Home

San Francisco police have admitted that "three or four" of their officers stood outside a man's house as up to two Apple investigators searched the home for the phone, finding nothing, but embroiling Apple in a potentially messy legal snafu, SF Weekly originally reported.

The admission comes after a police spokesperson previously told SF Weekly that "that no records of any such activity by SFPD officers existed, as they should if police had been involved in a home visit and search," which would seem to mean that officers failed to report the search to their own department.
more at link

[TNforPaul45]

The fact that the police didn't even do the searching REALLY pisses me off.

And at first the Police denied it happened.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/sfpd-we-stood-outside-when-apples-investigators-tossed-mans-home.php

Exactly. And if a warrant was not involved, or consent, then this is simply the Police allowing breaking and entering. They even searched the computer files in the house. I wonder if the computer equipment was password-protected? Did they take any hard drives? Did they delete any files?

I think my neighbor has a file that lists all the lottery numbers that will occur for the next 20 years. I FEEL like I should have them. Should I call the police so that they can stand outside his house while I ransack it? I guess it's not unwarranted search-and-seizure if the police just let normal citizens to do it. Great little loophole there.

Guess they were just "patrolling."

[Anti Federalist]

How much more are we going to take?

Hah!

The way things are right now, your average Americunt would be in this hole:

http://blog.cleveland.com/world_impact/2008/07/large_korea2.jpg

...thanking the brave troops for their service, just before the bullet shredded their brains.

We're in a nine line bind here, and no fucking fooling.

[Pericles]

I've been reading some Solzhenitsyn, and have a few relevant quotes for the situation:

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal.

At what point, then, should one resist? When one's belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one's home? An arrest consists of a series of incidental irrelevancies, of a multitude of things that do not matter, and there seems no point in arguing about one of them individually...and yet all these incidental irrelevancies taken together implacably constitute the arrest.

[Anti Federalist]

To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time, and betrayal.

That precisely describes where we are at these days.

Adversity breeds men, prosperity breeds monsters.

Or, put another way:


...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[TNforPaul45]

Adversity breeds men, prosperity breeds monsters.


I've always thought, that maybe this is the reason that men had to "fall," that the Garden of Eden situation "occurred," that God knew that humans living in a paradise would never lift a finger to better themselves.

[Pericles]

That precisely describes where we are at these days.

Adversity breeds men, prosperity breeds monsters.

Or, put another way:

More Solzhenitsyn:

Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic diseases of the 20th century, and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press.

You can have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power.

[Revolution9]

OK.. THis was a while back but just to be sure. Someone steals a company prototype and because the police were involved in retrieving the property of the company it was stolen from this is now a bad thing? To be straight, this iPhone was a piece of tech that many millions of dollars went into. It was not JUST a 499 USD gadget but a prototype and was being lofted to the editor of a tech gadget site. I do not believe it was "lost" and the tech editor just happened to be at the same bar.

Correct me if I am wrong. If you are anti-IP and use that as an excuse then STFU..IP still exists and the goods stolen were physical in nature as well.

Rev9

[specsaregood]

OK.. THis was a while back but just to be sure. Someone steals a company prototype and because the police were involved in retrieving the property of the company it was stolen from this is now a bad thing? To be straight, this iPhone was a piece of tech that many millions of dollars went into. It was not JUST a 499 USD gadget but a prototype and was being lofted to the editor of a tech gadget site. I do not believe it was "lost" and the tech editor just happened to be at the same bar.

Correct me if I am wrong. If you are anti-IP and use that as an excuse then STFU..IP still exists and the goods stolen were physical in nature as well.

Rev9

I think the problem here is the possibility of private security impersonating police and private security tossing somebody's home while their police escort waits outside.

[LibertyEagle]

They should still have to get a warrant, don't you think, Rev?

[angelatc]

OK.. THis was a while back but just to be sure. Someone steals a company prototype and because the police were involved in retrieving the property of the company it was stolen from this is now a bad thing? To be straight, this iPhone was a piece of tech that many millions of dollars went into. It was not JUST a 499 USD gadget but a prototype and was being lofted to the editor of a tech gadget site. I do not believe it was "lost" and the tech editor just happened to be at the same bar.

Correct me if I am wrong. If you are anti-IP and use that as an excuse then STFU..IP still exists and the goods stolen were physical in nature as well.

Rev9

I only disagree because the law clearly allows the police to search for stolen property, but they have to get a warrant first. These people didn't have a warrant.

[specsaregood]

I only disagree because the law clearly allows the police to search for stolen property, but they have to get a warrant first. These people didn't have a warrant.

And even by the police's admission it wasn't the police that did the searching! The cops waited outside while apple employees searched the house.

[angelatc]

And even by the police's admission it wasn't the police that did the searching! The cops waited outside while apple employees searched the house. Well, yeah, that's breaking and entering. :)

[Rael]

The guy consented to the search. However he said he would not have consented if he knew it would be Apple employees searching his house (as if having the police search your house is any better). He is a fool for consenting to a search by ANYONE.

[Anti Federalist]

The guy consented to the search. However he said he would not have consented if he knew it would be Apple employees searching his house (as if having the police search your house is any better). He is a fool for consenting to a search by ANYONE.

Ah, that changes everything doesn't it now?

"Fool" is not a harsh enough term.

[Revolution9]

He let them search the house and the warrant was not drawn so that this tech editor had a way out. Awful nice of Apple considering what could have been done to him legally, never mind the employee who stole/lost it in the presence of one of the top tech sites editors. It was - comply with a non-police search to retrieve what was there and could be considered stolen or receiving stolen goods if the cops were directly-through-a-warrant involved - or deal with the cops who have a procedure in place once charges are filed (that is how the warrant would be obtained) that could go on for a longgggg time even if dropped and cost alot of cash. . It was pre-publicity for Apple and created a buzz..but really, if 3000 or whatever bucks can get the guts and OS of a new piece of gear that will generate alot of profit for a business for percents of pennies on a dollar then kiss innovation goodbye or see very draconian measures in lockdown mode at ANY company that puts R&D into tech and gadgets.

HTH
Rev9

[specsaregood]

He let them search the house and the warrant was not drawn so that this tech editor had a way out. Awful nice of Apple considering what could have been done to him legally, never mind the employee who stole/lost it in the presence of one of the top tech sites editors.

You are thinking of a different incident, this guy is not a tech editor, the device was not found at his house and it happened just recently.

[specsaregood]

The guy consented to the search. However he said he would not have consented if he knew it would be Apple employees searching his house (as if having the police search your house is any better). He is a fool for consenting to a search by ANYONE.

Well the important factor here is: did he consent to the police or the private security. Did the private security misrepresent themselves as police? If he consented to the police and it was the private security that did the searching, then they did not have consent. If the private security told him they were police, then any consent would be null as well.

[TNforPaul45]

The guy consented to the search. However he said he would not have consented if he knew it would be Apple employees searching his house (as if having the police search your house is any better). He is a fool for consenting to a search by ANYONE.

The article is confusing to me. It mentions a previous search "last month" that says was consented to by the owner, but then, on this search, it only loosely infers that this person consented, so we are not sure. There may be other articles out there clearing this up, though.


OK.. THis was a while back but just to be sure. Someone steals a company prototype and because the police were involved in retrieving the property of the company it was stolen from this is now a bad thing? To be straight, this iPhone was a piece of tech that many millions of dollars went into. It was not JUST a 499 USD gadget but a prototype and was being lofted to the editor of a tech gadget site. I do not believe it was "lost" and the tech editor just happened to be at the same bar.

Correct me if I am wrong. If you are anti-IP and use that as an excuse then STFU..IP still exists and the goods stolen were physical in nature as well.

Rev9

Here's the problem with your logic:

1. The article mentions that Apple used the GPS on the phone to "determine an approximate location." (Illegal Wire Tapping, Conjectural Evidence)
2. Then the police stood guard (and probably helped them to forcibly enter) while employees searched the house (Warrantless search and seizure, Breaking and Entering)
3. Also, since they illegally entered the home without a court signed warrant, and were multiple employees of a company, Apple violated the RICO act and committed violations of robbery by searching and copying computer files which they took with them or gained possession of while in the home.

Again, all this hinges on whether or not the owner gave them consent to search in this specific instance. The article is not clear. But if they didn't, I would not be surprised.