This is the problem...let's get the facts straight and then referenced is a
part of the article that is not confirmed...



On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:56 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 AM, t.piwowar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Apple sent folks over to the guy's house to demand he give them back the
> > phone.  He didn't.
>
>   Let's do get the facts straight.  The PCWorld article you referenced
> was drawing upon another story that appeared in Wired Magazine.
>
>  The representatives from Apple Corp, who went to the home of the
> person alleged to have been in possession of the phone, were not able
> to confront the person they were looking for.  When they arrived, the
> individual they were interested in was not there.  His roommate was,
> and it was he who answered the knock on the door.  The Apple Corp.
> folks demanded that they be allowed to enter and search the house, but
> the roommate refused their demand because the person of interest was
> not present.  I would have done the same thing in that situation.  I
> would never let any officially unauthorized persons search through the
> belongings of someone who shared a house with me unless I had been
> specifically told by that individual to allow it.
>
>  Those Apple representatives apparently never made another attempt to
> recover the phone at that address.
>
>  Additionally, it was at first denied by the San Mateo Police that
> Apple ever had any hand in the raid and search of the premises in
> question.  We now know that to have been untrue, and a silly thing for
> the authorities to have said in the first place.  At a minimum, Apple
> would have had to have filed a theft report, and since Apple already
> knew where the phone was alleged to be located, they would have
> provided that information to police.  That is called having a hand in
> the execution of the search.  I am not casting aspersions toward Apple
> Corp. in this instance, but I do wonder why the San Mateo Police were
> initially trying to hide the fact that Apple Corp. was involved in the
> execution of the search.  Perhaps because Apple is a corporate partner
> (consultant) with them?
>
>  Steve
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> **  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
> **  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
> *************************************************************************
>


*************************************************************************
**  List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy  **
**  policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/  **
*************************************************************************

Reply via email to