I don't think you have the facts quite straight here. Here is Gizmodo's own account of how they got the phone: <http://gizmodo.com/5520438/how-apple-lost-the-next-iphone>
According to this account, the phone was picked up at the bar by the person who was sitting next to Powell (the one who lost the phone) and not the bartender. While the phone was still working and before he knew it was something out of the ordinary, the guy who found the phone discovered Powell's identity and took the phone home. The next day, he realized the phone was a prototype, and the account says he contacted Apple about it, but strangely enough, he never tried to contact Powell, and apparently he didn't take it back to the bar to see if anyone had asked about it. Several weeks later, he sells it to Gawker media. After Gizmodo takes it apart and publishes an article about it, Apple asks for it back and they return it. So it wasn't found by a bartender, the person who found it discovered who it belonged to, he didn't make a very good faith effort to return it, and knowing it wasn't his he sold it to Gizmodo who also knew it wasn't his. He had some legal cover while he was making some kind of attempt to return the phone (however haphazard and clueless), but once he sold the phone to someone who also knew the phone wasn't his, both buyer and seller became crooks in the legal sense as well as ethically. The police decided to pursue this even after the phone was returned (either of their own volition or because Apple or Powell filed a complaint), and they had plenty of justification for doing so. Just because a stolen item is returned, it doesn't negate the fact that it was stolen to begin with. Whether the police were within the law in executing their warrant is a matter of dispute, but even if being a blogger makes Jason Chen a journalist, there is already some legal precedent that shield laws can't be used to enable journalists to hide their own criminal behavior. Details here: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20003539-37.html> On Apr 28, 2010, at 11:36 PM, COMPUTERGUYS-L automatic digest system wrote: > From: Stewart Marshall <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: illegal search warrant? > > Lousy analogy Tom. You act as if you have not read any of what has > been written about this item. > > The fact is the item was left by absent minded techie at bar. > > Item was turned into bar tender who has no idea whose it is. (I > wonder how many folks had been there that night and had phones?) > > Good faith attempts were made to return said item to Apple, but > because of Apples own compartmentalization no one knew what they were > talking about. > > I cant remember how the Gizmodo guy got it at that point but he did, > he then did a review and took it apart analyzed etc. etc. > > When he had it back together and working he sent it back. > > It is only after the fact that they have raided the guys house and > not charged him with anything. I wonder what the search warrant said? > > You have to lay part of the blame here at Apple for being careless > with their tech stuff, and being a little paranoid. This is not the > first time someone has lost a prototype and someone else got it to > look at and review. > > This would make it one of the first times that the reviewer has been > criminalized for someone elses careless behavior. > > Is the Gizmodo guy totally innocent here, I don't think so, but he > saw a chance to be one of the first to see review and look at a > prototype of Iphone. > > But I also see Apple going over the top here and making themselves > look really really stupid and heavy handed. > > Especially since they had the phone back already. > > And I would venture to say if this had been a Windows Mobile 7 phone > that had had this happen to it, you would be jumping up and down > saying way to go Gimodo!!!! > > You tend to be so predictable Tom. > > Stewart ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
