DSLRUsers.com

Many of you will already be on top of this story ... probably the hottest tech story of the year.

A systems engineer from Apple was out celebrating his birthday at a bar not too far from Apple's HQ ... and ended up leaving his engineering prototype of the next iPhone in the bar, from where a stranger picked it up, tried to return it to Apple (who disavowed all knowledge of the device) and subsequently sold it to Gizmodo, a technology/gadget news site.

Of course, having said "It's not our's", Apple then sent a nice letter - from their chief counsel - to Giz, asking for their property to be returned.

As I said, this is likely to be the hottest tech story of the year, and there are many aspects to it: the payment for the device by Giz, the naming of the engineer by Giz in their story, the ethics of reporting upon the device, which some claim to have been stolen from Apple (even though they said it wasn't their's) ... and there are many other angles as well.

While not photography related, I think this story goes well beyond the boundaries of pure gadgets and technology, and as such, I think it bears some relevance within our community at a broader level. Consequently, I'd be interested to hear the views of you, and to encourage open and frank discussion about all of the issues that you see as being presented with this story.

For those who have not caught up with the story, here's a few links that you may find of interest ...

Full story at Gizmodo

The letter asking for the phone to be returned is here

And for a counterpoint

And this one is ... just odd

Hitlers reply!

Finders keepers especially If you found some 'lost property' and made serious attempts to return it. What you do with your property is your business. Thoughts?

gstark wrote:ethics of reporting upon the device

Ethics and media can't be used in a sensible or truthful manner in the same sentence.

Main issue here is that now the specs of the 4G is known, can anyone else do BETTER? I doubt not. Who knows apple might do better just in case. Maybe they will incorporate holographic technology instead of waiting for the 5G. win-win for everyone.

At the end of the day, this is just like any other ethical question without a right or wrong answer. Would you tell your dying grandma that the sweater that she tediously made for you is crappy?

On a much happier note, Gary you should check out the new series called Treme - me thinks you would love the music. It is about the New Orleans aftermath and the lives of the many musicians who chose to remain.

If a person buys a Nikon camera for $250 from a stranger in a pub then he is deemed by law to be as guilty as the thief. When Gizmodo purchased the phone they were aware that it was not the property of the seller and as such are as guilty as the seller.

I would have thought that the person who found it would have made more money by approaching Apple!

Big V wrote:On a much happier note, Gary you should check out the new series called Treme - me thinks you would love the music. It is about the New Orleans aftermath and the lives of the many musicians who chose to remain.

Thanks ... and yes, I already have access to Ep1 and just need to find a few moments to watch it.

FWIW, Leigh is currently in Anaheim, has spent two days being entertained at the peopletrap built by a mouse, and today (Friday) LA time heads of to N'Awlins for weekend one of Jazzfest.

sirhc55 wrote:If a person buys a Nikon camera for $250 from a stranger in a pub then he is deemed by law to be as guilty as the thief. When Gizmodo purchased the phone they were aware that it was not the property of the seller and as such are as guilty as the seller.

In Australia we have a law that defines theft by finding. To my knowledge, there is no such law in California.

I would have thought that the person who found it would have made more money by approaching Apple!

When the finder approached Apple, they disavowed any knowledge of the phone. He was given a ticket number, was promised a callback, but that callback never came.

So, you have found this phone, you have called Apple, and they have denied that they own it. Who, at that point in time, does own this phone?

Apple eventually claimed ownership, but not until about a month later. There is this gap in the ownership chain ....

gstark wrote:In Australia we have a law that defines theft by finding. To my knowledge, there is no such law in California.

With our law, as highlighted recently in the money in the suitcase incident, my understanding is that if you make genuine and reasonable attempts to find the owner you are not guilty of theft.

gstark wrote:When the finder approached Apple, they disavowed any knowledge of the phone. He was given a ticket number, was promised a callback, but that callback never came.

So, you have found this phone, you have called Apple, and they have denied that they own it. Who, at that point in time, does own this phone?

Apple eventually claimed ownership, but not until about a month later. There is this gap in the ownership chain ....

Once they have denied ownership, I think he has every right to say "yippee look what I found" and do what he likes with it. Once it was apparent that it was a prototype the only possible owner is Apple and they say it isn't theirs. Even with a theft by finding law in place, he's on pretty safe ground in my extremely un-expert opinion.

As for him selling it to Gizmodo - why not? The device is news, pure and simple, and the media should be free to report on it once it is out in the public domain, which it was once Apple denied it was theirs. As for cash for a news story, that is a broader issue that isn't specific to this case. It's no worse here than ACA paying many of the people that bring them stories.

gstark wrote:Apple eventually claimed ownership, but not until about a month later. There is this gap in the ownership chain ....

The Gizmodo article states that, under Californian law, the owner has three years to claim the lost property otherwise it becomes the property of the premise where it was found. Doesn't sound like a gap to me. I tend to agree with the other take on it, the guy that picked it up knew enough to identify it as a prototype and to contact the appropriate people (not apple) to ensure remuneration.

The details of the phone sound good though, about time I upgraded my 3G!

And Apple didn't deny it was theirs, a representative in one small section of Apple denied it was theirs.

Ant wrote:

gstark wrote:Apple eventually claimed ownership, but not until about a month later. There is this gap in the ownership chain ....

The Gizmodo article states that, under Californian law, the owner has three years to claim the lost property

But Apple actively denied owning it. The three years is moot at that point.

There are actually several different laws that may apply here, but we need to remember that for all intents and purposes it looked very similar to an ordinary production iPhone. That's a part of the normal development and testing process - make it look like a current model so it doesn't attract attention, but include the new features etc so that they may be tested and evaluated in a field environment.

Given its disguised appearance, who is to know what it truly is? And given that Apple bricked it within a few hours, it was also a non-functional unit from the morning after the night of its loss.

Ok, so who wants this non-functional iPhone? On the surface of it all, it's not really a great acquisition prospect, really.

And Apple didn't deny it was theirs, a representative in one small section of Apple denied it was theirs.

Which is effectively Apple making that denial. If not Apple, then who might it have been? And if the support technicians were not authorised to make that denial, then the matter should have been referred up their management chain.

That didn't happen, this Apple denied ownership.

There is a difference here between what is right, and what you might get away with in the eyes of the law.

I have found lost items on occasion, and I have either tendered them to the establishment in which it was found, or handed it in at the local copshop. In one occasion, it was a ladies purse handed in at the copshop. I got a call some time later to come get it, as some statuary time or other had elapsed with no claim.

As for selling it, that's just wrong.

Michael

photohiker wrote:There is a difference here between what is right,

Agree. We all know what is right for each situation within our hearts. No different in this situation.

photohiker wrote:As for selling it, that's just wrong.

I see no difference in keeping it or selling it. There is a difference if he returned it. But then Apple refused to have it back.

surenj wrote:

photohiker wrote:There is a difference here between what is right,

Agree. We all know what is right for each situation within our hearts. No different in this situation.

photohiker wrote:As for selling it, that's just wrong.

I see no difference in keeping it or selling it. There is a difference if he returned it. But then Apple refused to have it back.

The owner or 'user' had his facebook setup on it. You don't need to be a sleuth to work that out. You could just drop him a message. I might be swimming against the tide here, but it doesn't look like the original finder of the phone tried real hard to return it - admittedly based on the limited information from Gizmodo.

My point is, if the finder had the nouse to find Gizmodo, how come they didn't have the nouse to find Mr Powell?

Michael

photohiker wrote:The owner or 'user' had his facebook setup on it. You don't need to be a sleuth to work that out.

User, but Apple bricked the phone overnight. It had turned into a pumpkin, and in so doing, Facebook finally became attractive to me, in that it was no longer usable.

Nor was any other function on that phone.

I'd respectfully suggest that it might need the skills of a supersleuth, unless the details already been recorded by that drunken holder of the device.

Chances of that happening?

gstark wrote:Chances of that happening?

Well, I guess it might depend on level of drunkenness, and/or the real intent behind taking the phone in the first place.

What's missing from this story is any respect for someone else's property. Our hapless engineer would surely retrace his steps in the morning to try and recover the device, the finder taking it home would guarantee that the search would be fruitless. Did the un-named 'finder' leave contact details at the bar? Doesn't sound like it. The finder created a break in traceability that guaranteed the property would not be returned to its owner easily.

Of course it should have been left with the establishment where it was lost. Of course the finder could have rung from the bar to the last caller in the address book and left a message where the phone could be found, or posted a message on facebook, etc. etc. Its very convenient that the phone was bricked overnight, a feature that is apparently not available yet on iPhoneOS 4.0 if you are to believe things you read on the interwebs.

Michael

Hi Michael,

Have you taken a few moments to read the articles at the links?

photohiker wrote:

gstark wrote:Chances of that happening?

Well, I guess it might depend on level of drunkenness, and/or the real intent behind taking the phone in the first place.

I'm unsure of what you mean when you say "real intent in taking the phone" ? The phone was left on a bar stool. Drunk person A handed it to drunk person B, asking "is this yours? No? Must be your friends". The intent that I see in that dialog is more along the lines of "this phone belongs to somebody other than myself, and I want to get it back to that person".

The realisation that this was not a normal iPhone only came somewhat later, when some of the newer features were noticed like the forward mounted camera.

What's missing from this story is any respect for someone else's property.

Quite the contrary, really. Were there the lack of respect, surely drunk person A would have just pocketed the damn thing?

Our hapless engineer would surely retrace his steps in the morning to try and recover the device

He apparently called the bar. Fair enough.

The person with the phone, meanwhile, called Apple. Also fair enough.

But they told him the phone wasn't their's. They said they'd call him back. They didn't.

The finder created a break in traceability that guaranteed the property would not be returned to its owner easily.

Again, Apple - the owners, were called. They denied ownership.

And don't you think that the engineer, who got drunk and left this phone on a bar stool, should take any responsibility for his actions?

Of course it should have been left with the establishment where it was lost.

And the finder was drunk.

Of course the finder could have rung from the bar to the last caller in the address book

The finder was drunk.

and left a message where the phone could be found, or posted a message on facebook, etc. etc.

Perhaps we are overlooking the fact that that the finder was drunk.

Its very convenient that the phone was bricked overnight, a feature that is apparently not available yet on iPhoneOS 4.0 if you are to believe things you read on the interwebs.

It's actually not a function in the OS, but a function within a service (that you pay extra for) provided by Apple. it's there now, and has been for quite some time. iPhone OS 4 is not yet available to the public, it's in beta, and as a beta product, there would be many features that are incomplete or disabled.

gstark wrote:Hi Michael,

Have you taken a few moments to read the articles at the links?

Yes Gary, I did. I was left thinking that although I am happy to hear that there is a new all-powerful iPhone in the works, I was not all that happy with the 'story' of how it came to Gismodo. I for one, don't think that it's 'ok' to take someones else's property regardless of whether he, I, or some other person (or all of us) is/was drunk.

This whole story is a one-sided description by a media organisation with their own interests at heart. We have not heard from the finder except what Gizmodo has decided to share with us, suitably 'spun'.

Even if the phone was taken with no intent, once it was discovered to be a prototype new model, what is to stop the finder from dropping it in a postbox addressed to the iPhone 4 Development team, 1 Infinite loop, Cupertino? There are plenty of ways of doing your best to make sure lost property finds its way back to its owner. IMHO this was not done here.

gstark wrote:I'm unsure of what you mean when you say "real intent in taking the phone" ? The phone was left on a bar stool. Drunk person A handed it to drunk person B, asking "is this yours? No? Must be your friends". The intent that I see in that dialog is more along the lines of "this phone belongs to somebody other than myself, and I want to get it back to that person".

No problems with drunk A, after that, I think the 'wanting to get it back to that person' went off the rails.

gstark wrote:

The finder created a break in traceability that guaranteed the property would not be returned to its owner easily.

Again, Apple - the owners, were called. They denied ownership.

Actually, no. The break occurred when drunk B put it in his pocket and went home.

gstark wrote:And don't you think that the engineer, who got drunk and left this phone on a bar stool, should take any responsibility for his actions?

Yes. That has nothing to do with how his property was dealt with once he lost it though.

Michael

Michael,

photohiker wrote:Yes. That has nothing to do with how his property was dealt with once he lost it though.

Yet you suggested that the finder trawl through the phone, calling the last person called, and/or using his facebook account to post a message?

Gary,

gstark wrote:Michael,

photohiker wrote:Yes. That has nothing to do with how his property was dealt with once he lost it though.

Yet you suggested that the finder trawl through the phone, calling the last person called, and/or using his facebook account to post a message?

I'm suggesting that it would be easy to contact the owner using information stored on the phone while it was working, and that few owners would object to a finder using the phone in an attempt to return it.

I don't use facebook, but I'd bet that one could send oneself a private message.

I see we have again reached the point where you play the man, not the ball. Sorry for being disagreeable, but I got the impression you wanted to discuss the ethics of the situation, and it's now clear to me where this is going, so I'll just leave it there.

Perhaps someone else has another opinion?

Michael

photohiker wrote:Gary,

gstark wrote:Michael,

photohiker wrote:Yes. That has nothing to do with how his property was dealt with once he lost it though.

Yet you suggested that the finder trawl through the phone, calling the last person called, and/or using his facebook account to post a message?

I'm suggesting that it would be easy to contact the owner using information stored on the phone while it was working,

And while those who had custody of it were drunk. Probably mutually exclusive.

I don't use facebook, but I'd bet that one could send oneself a private message.

I too avoid it. It's worse than the plague, IMHO.

I see we have again reached the point where you play the man, not the ball.

Sorry, but no.

I'm pointing out that your arguments, to me, seem to be inconsistent and contradictory. You wish to see the rightful holder of the phone respected - as do I - yet you seem to espouse using that person's private data to find him. I would find that very disrespectful.

Once you start using that person's phone, where does that stop? While I can see where that is coming from, and why one might suggest this option, it's merely a different form of ethical delimna from what has occurred.

Is it better than what occurred? Is it worse?

I don't profess to know, but I do not accept the argument that the phone was stolen. Not when it was left on a barstool by somebody in a drunken state.

Perhaps someone else has another opinion?

I'm surprised the phone didn't have a passcode lock. I have one on my lowly iPod Touch and have a graphic set up that displays when you try to turn the device on which has my name and a PO Box to where the device could be sent if found.

More hoo ha:

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/blogger-raided-over-iphone-prototype-leak-20100427-tobz.html

Dilbert is onto it.

Michael

My second son (6yo at the time) once found a $50 note on the main street in Bathurst where we lived. He asked, "Dad, should I put it back on the ground?" I replied, "No son, give it here and Dad will look after it!" Ah, the innocence of some children!

iPhones weren't invented at that stage.