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 488362
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ???
by ballmerlikesgoogle on Sat 3rd Sep 2011 14:55 UTC in reply to "???"
Member since:

If it turns out Apple is in the wrong, then they should reap the consequences. Isn't there a innocent until proven guilty in the US?

That is correct, however, say that in the circumstance of the person who had their home violated without a warrant. by the government.

Was he guilty of a crime? No. Was he manipulated by law enforcement and Apple employees to gain access to the house? Yes.

So in his circumstance, he was guilty before innocent. Did he have the phone? No.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ???
by buttcoffee on Sun 4th Sep 2011 08:12 in reply to "RE: ???"
buttcoffee Member since:

The cops don't need a warrant when someone consents to the search. The cops can try to manipulate you and lie to you.

Even if this story is true, nothing illegal even occurred.

Reply Parent Score: 0