Print 30 comment(s) - last by eddieroolz.. on Apr 29 at 6:07 PM

  (Source: Gizmodo)
Wired apparently didn't think buying potentially stolen goods was a good idea

On March 28 reportedly received an unbelievable email claiming that a tipster had obtained a misplaced fourth generation iPhone.  According to the site, they entered a brief discussion about coverage on the device.  The discussion quickly terminated though when the source start hinting he wanted money. Wired declined to buy possibly stolen property and thus walked away from the year's biggest tech scoop.

Gizmodo on the other hand had took the bait.  Now, not long after police raided the home of a Gizmodo editor, police reportedly have located the seller as well.

A source close to the transaction is quoted by as claiming that the seller made an earnest effort to return the phone to Apple.  They claim they tried to contact Apple and searched for the iPhone user on Facebook, but couldn't find them.  

They claim the $5,000 "sale" described by 
Gizmodo was really merely for an exclusivity agreement, not the sale of the actual device.  Describes the source, "The idea wasn’t to find out who was going to pay the most, it was, Who’s going to confirm this?"

The finder is reportedly a college-aged Silicon Valley man.

If the search warrant against Chen is any indication, the man may soon face criminal charges.  Police obviously aren't buying the exclusivity fee claim, particularly after 
Gizmodo admitted in writing to buying the phone and numerous staffers at the site commented on the device's purchase, including site owner and Gawker President Nick Denton.

The police reason that if the finder wanted to return the phone, why didn't he just turn it in to police?  That, after all, is the legal approach if you discover something valuable that didn't belong to you.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

iPhone Thief?
By JWalk on 4/28/2010 10:22:07 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not trying to choose a side here, but isn't the title of this article kind of presumptuous? From what we know so far, Apple believes the phone may have been stolen, and the guy who sold it to Gizmodo swears he just found it. There is an on-going investigation, but to my knowledge no one has been convicted (or even arrested) of theft at this point. Maybe throwing the word "alleged" in that title might be a good idea?

RE: iPhone Thief?
By bupkus on 4/28/2010 11:11:31 AM , Rating: 5
All professional news organizations I'm aware of use the word "alleged" when describing pending charges or even charged individuals.

Need I say more?

RE: iPhone Thief?
By MonkeyPaw on 4/28/2010 6:00:18 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, they even use "alleged" when there's the most obvious evidence against them, like a security video.

The whole thing is ridiculous, if you ask me. I guess Apple just wants to make an example on this one to scare everyone away from this if it ever comes up again. What's funny is that Giz is quite a zealous Apple news site. I actually unsubscribed from their feed during their overwhelming article-per-minute iPad launch coverage. I guess Apple will bite any hand that gets close. You would have thought Google "stole" it.

RE: iPhone Thief?
By Elooder2 on 4/28/2010 12:40:36 PM , Rating: 3
If it was found and not literally stolen (from, for example, a pocket or a bag), then whoever "found" it should have gone directly to the police and let them deal with it. Certainly the police would be able to get to someone in Apple who knew about the phone and all would've been nice and well (and Apple would get no free publicity this time).
Instead, the person who found it CLAIMS to have attempted to return the thing (and in every single description of those attempts they sound at the very least half - hearted, meaning he obviously wasn't that anxious to return it or is making it up). There is no proof attempts to return it have actually been made, especially considering he could've simply dropped it off at a police station.
The whole thing is an obvious example of stupidity on the part of Gizmodo which may cost dearly both them and the "thief", all stemming from obvious lack of knowledge of the legal side of the whole thing in both of them.
Then again, what if there was no "Apple employee who left the phone at a bar" and all of this is a cleverly planned marketing trick by Apple themselves and the guy who purportedly lost it did it knowingly and on purpose? Wouldn't put that past them...

RE: iPhone Thief?
By invidious on 4/28/2010 12:51:26 PM , Rating: 5
Judged determine guilt, not Mick, not Apple, not you.

RE: iPhone Thief?
By invidious on 4/28/2010 12:52:13 PM , Rating: 3

My kingdom for an edit button.

RE: iPhone Thief?
By maugrimtr on 4/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: iPhone Thief?
By Dark Legion on 4/28/2010 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 2

And believe it or not, libel is not on there.

RE: iPhone Thief?
By Dark Legion on 4/28/2010 4:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
(not saying this case actually is, just pointing it out)

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki