Sam Oliver
According to the San Jose Business Journal, investigators have identified and interviewed the person who took the phone from the Gourmet Haus Staudt on March 18 after it was left by an Apple engineer who was at the local watering hole to celebrate his birthday.
However, state officials were unable to confirm to the publication whether that person was the same individual who eventually sold the device to gadget blog Gizmodo for $5,000. Although no one has been charged with a crime in matter as of yet, a search warrant was issued late last week authorizing California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team to search the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen.
“We’re still not saying it’s a crime,†San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told the Journal “The investigation has contacted as many segments of the people involved in this situation, including the person who took the phone from the German restaurant. The police know who he is and they have talked to him.â€
During the search of Chen's home, members of California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team seized a MacBook, MacBook Pro, 32GB iPad, 16GB iPhone, an AirPort Extreme, IBM ThinkPad, a Dell desktop, external hard drives, and other items.
In response, Gizmodo invoked the California shield law, which protects journalists from having to turn over anonymous sources or unpublished material to law enforcement. As such, Wagstaffe said Chen’s computers, hard drives and servers would remain untouched until investigators determine whether he is indeed protected by the law.
“I told (Gizmodo) we will hold off and not do any investigation into the computer itself while we resolve this issue,†he said, adding that if attorneys 'come to the conclusion that Chen is not protected, Gizmodo may seek an injunction preventing investigators from moving forward and examining the computers.'
Wagstaffe also revealed that outside counsel for Apple, along with the Apple engineer who lost the iPhone, asked authorities to launch the ongoing investigation when they called the District Attorney’s office last week to report the theft of the iPhone prototype.
Marko Zivkovic
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
Andrew O'Hara
183 Comments
It's only fair if the face book profile of the guy who took the phone, is revealed. If he just gets a silent slap on the wrist the story is incomplete.
PS At least a month in jail would also be in order to deter future attempts to do the same.
This is getting good. I am sitting back with my popcorn and beer enjoying the fireworks.
The police are clearly doing things by the book - to prepare for an appeal. But it's too late - Gizmodo's in big trouble.
Gizmodo's only defense is that they were acting as a journalist and are now protecting their source. Since the police already know who took the phone and have interviewed him, Gizmodo is no longer protecting anyone. Not that it mattered - they publicly admitted to having committed a couple of felonies. There's plenty of evidence to convict them of that alone.
I'll go on record as saying that the story Gizmodo told was not true. Gizmodo and the guy who took the phone had some kind of formal or informal arrangement for the phone to be taken and Gizmodo would use their 'journalism veil' to cover it up. That's really the only thing that fits all the facts.
1. The "seller" obviously knew the name of Gray Powell and that he worked for Apple as an engineer.
2. He knew this information and also provided the information to Gizmodo.
3. Gizmodo published his name, age, title and company he worked for.
4. The "seller" obviously knew who the owner was and did not return the property.
5. Under california law this is considered a theft because the "seller" profited from the property.
6. Gizmodo ALSO knew the owner of the phone and profited from it (web site traffic) without contacting the owner for it to be returned. This is also against CA law.
7. Both the "seller" and Gizmodo are responsible for theft under CA law. Gizmodo probably as an accessory.
This is about as open and shut as you can get. Even if Gizmodo is protected, the cops know the "seller" already and they will go after him for sure. Apple will see to it that Gawker spends millions of dollars fighting this (drop in the bucket for Apple) which will no doubt hurt them.
I'll go on record as saying that the story Gizmodo told was not true. Gizmodo and the guy who took the phone had some kind of formal or informal arrangement for the phone to be taken and Gizmodo would use their 'journalism veil' to cover it up. That's really the only thing that fits all the facts.
Doubtful. I think Josh Topolsky of Engadget refused to purchase the phone after the seller initially approached Engadget. Smart move by Josh.