Apple Employees May Have Falsely Represented Police Officers
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.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 118 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jdy
Thread beginning with comment 488459
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Very strange
by vitae on Sun 4th Sep 2011 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Very strange"
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

If he has a half decent lawyer, he doesn't lose. Cops on his lawn with no search warrant and not there in any official capacity but to back up corporate private investigators, and Apple employees making racial remarks, comments about immigration status. No way, both of these entities would settle out of court.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Very strange
by Soulbender on Mon 5th Sep 2011 01:20 in reply to "RE[4]: Very strange"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No way, both of these entities would settle out of court.


That's a shame though since it indirectly makes this ok behavior. I've always thought of this whole "settle out of court" business to be questionable and a net negative for justice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Very strange
by vitae on Mon 5th Sep 2011 05:31 in reply to "RE[5]: Very strange"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20



That's a shame though since it indirectly makes this ok behavior. I've always thought of this whole "settle out of court" business to be questionable and a net negative for justice.


It kind of depends how you look at it. There is the Gerald Ford principle to consider, ie. when he pardoned Nixon, he was criticized by everyone for it, because everybody wanted an overt admission of guilt, but they were never going to get it. Later in an interview with Woodward or somebody, he said the reason he did it was that Nixon, by accepting the pardon, was admitting guilt, though Richard himself probably didn't even consider that, just thought it was a get out of jail free card.

And it could be treated the same on a smaller scale in a civil suit.

Edited 2011-09-05 05:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >