Lost iPhone story getting ugly
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: iPhone ringtones
Next: Non-Flash flashing ads
From: Bruce Horrocks on 27 Apr 2010 16:52 On 27/04/2010 12:20, Pd wrote: > <http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers> > > Police raid Jason Chen's house, take computers and drives apparently > using an invalid search warrant. I think that he should complain that the warrant doesn't cover the items that were removed. Therefore they were seized unlawfully and can't be used evidentially against him. How do I reach this conclusion? Simple: the intro paragraph to the warrant says that the property to be seized must be "...lawfully sizeable [sic] pursuant to Penal Code 1524..." Since the stated penal code almost certainly makes no provision for sizing items, he's off scot free. ;-) -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England (bruce at scorecrow dot com)
From: Richard Tobin on 27 Apr 2010 17:32 In article <1jhm11a.omqebdgv46yoN%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>, Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >The law aren't helping keep apples secret, they are prosecuting someone >for stealing their property and selling it, which I am sure you would be >happy they did for you if it happened to you. Or maybe not if you don't >see anything wrong with it. Large corporations aren't the same as people. Something that would be immoral if you did it to a person isn't necessarily immoral if you do it to a company. In this case, all the law is doing is helping Apple keep their secrets. For them, losing a phone is not like an average person losing a phone. It doesn't do any harm in terms of the loss of an object, because they have so much anyway. The same goes for sufficiently rich people. I don't see anything immoral about stealing something from Bill Gates. It may be impractical to arrange the legal system to accommodate that, but it's not a moral issue. -- Richard
From: Pd on 27 Apr 2010 17:37 Tim Hodgson <thnews(a)poboxmolar.com.invalid> wrote: > I bet Clive Stafford-Smith wishes he could get this much media interest > in the niceties of the US legal system. As I'm sure does Patricia Prewitt. http://www.patriciaprewitt.com/ -- Pd
From: smurf on 27 Apr 2010 18:03 Jim wrote: > On 2010-04-27, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: >> <http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers> >> >> Police raid Jason Chen's house, take computers and drives apparently >> using an invalid search warrant. >> > > As I undertand it they're claiming it's invalid due to the time > (9.45pm). However, it was valid between 7pm and 10pm, so it appears > fine. > > What gets me is this: Gizmodo _knew_ that they were buying a device > that was being sold to them by someone other than the actual owner. > How is that not theft? They could argue that they bought it with the > sole intention of returning it to Apple, but given that they held > onto it for a week, *dismantled it* and photographed it six ways from > Sunday, then I wish them the very best of luck with that. They're > going to need it. > > Jim In England, theft requires the intention to permanently remove it from its rightful owner. I dont think that applies to the website owner, but the fact that the finder sold it on to him, suggests that the finder did indulge in theft, and that website owner knowingly bought goods from someone who was not the owner of the device. Handling stolen goods is quite a serious offence more so then the theft (and easier to prove).
From: Woody on 27 Apr 2010 19:33
Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article <1jhm11a.omqebdgv46yoN%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>, > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > >The law aren't helping keep apples secret, they are prosecuting someone > >for stealing their property and selling it, which I am sure you would be > >happy they did for you if it happened to you. Or maybe not if you don't > >see anything wrong with it. > > Large corporations aren't the same as people. Something that would be > immoral if you did it to a person isn't necessarily immoral if you do > it to a company. So it is perfectly fine to steal stuff from companies? > In this case, all the law is doing is helping Apple keep their > secrets. No, all the law is doing is upholding the law. Why is that so wrong? > For them, losing a phone is not like an average person > losing a phone. It doesn't do any harm in terms of the loss of an > object, because they have so much anyway. Why does it matter what they have? Why does it matter what the loss mean to them, it still doesn't give someone else the right to steal something from them to make a profit. Or it doesn't to me, obviously it does to you. And anyway, the recipient of the phone was another large corporation, who wanted to make loads of money at the expense of the original owners of the phone. So that is ok too? Is there some sort of sliding scale of how much you can steal before it becomes immoral? I mean I guess you could afford another phone without too much trouble so it would be ok to steal your phone, but probably not to steal your car? > The same goes for sufficiently rich people. I don't see anything > immoral about stealing something from Bill Gates. It may be > impractical to arrange the legal system to accommodate that, but > it's not a moral issue. So if for instance you stole Bill Gates wedding ring, it wouldn't be immoral as he could just buy another? -- Woody www.alienrat.com |