Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Sep 2011 21:47 UTC
Apple So, I kind of mocked this story yesterday, but today an interesting twist has emerged which puts the story in an entirely different light. This week, CNet reported a story about how Apple is working with the San Francisco Police Department to retrieve a lost iPhone 5 prototype. The police and Apple apparently traced the phone to someone's house, and showed up on his doorstep, threatening him and his family. The only problem - the SFPD has no record of any house search or of the case in general - raising the question whether Apple employees falsely impersonated the SFPD, which happens to be a serious crime in California. Update: While I was busy sleeping, the story changed a little bit, but it's still far too shady. After conferring with Apple, the SFPD now states four police officers were involved, and that only the two Apple employees entered Calderon's house. However, Calderon had no idea these two were private non-police people, since he claims they did not identify themselves as Apple employees. Had he known, he would not have let them search his house. So, update or no, Apple employees still impersonated police officers, and issued threats to intimidate Calderon into letting them search his house - without a warrant. I don't understand how people can just accept this sort of behaviour. Don't you have rights in the US? Update II: Perfect summary.
Thread beginning with comment 488359
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

In complete agreement.

Note: I may not agree all the time with Thom, but for anyone to violate someone's homeplace under false pretense and accusation is wrong.

Someone needs to go back and see why this was the case in American history. And reread the Fourth Amendment again and again and again.

Certain Democrats, Republicans, and judges as well need to understand this, that regardless of terrorism, war, corporate interests, and other matters that protecting the rights of the citizens comes before all else.

Reply Parent Score: 3

buttcoffee Member since:

You may want to reread the 4th amendment yourself. According to this story that's from some other blog, the person consented to a search. He's not protected by the 4th amendment since he consented. lol The coppers can make up all sort of nonsense to try to get you to consent.

Reply Parent Score: 2