It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police assist Apple in search of man's home

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


He was obviously not so innocent. The gps located the phone at his house, the phone had been synched with his PC, and he admitted to being at the bar where it disappeared. Now just being at the bar does not make him guilty. However the GPS track to his house, and most importantly the fact he had plugged the phone into his PC, defiantly makes him involved even if not the actual thief.
edit on 4-9-2011 by byeluvolk because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
The density of San Francisco is such that a GPS (especially an iphone GPS which is the worse in the biz) reading could be in several houses.

If Apple had nailed the location, they should go to the police AND a judge to get a warrant. Clearly and without dispute, this was a fishing expedition. Apple security pressure this guy to allow a search.

Regarding Apple employees having prototypes, it all comes down to the secrecy of Apple. They need to field test protypes just like everyone else, but they need or desire more secrecy. Basically with Apple, everything you buy is beta. That is why only fanbois get in line for the new shiny toy. People with brains that want Apple products sit back and let the fanbois do the beta testing.

My question is what kind of geek hangs out in the Mission (dive area) and drinks at a tequila bar (toxic waste).



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Ha ha - Thats hilarious!!!

Police refused in a statement released to the press to confime what the item being looked for was. However this was slightly given away by the file name of that press release - iphone5.doc

Brilliant!!!


I bet the good folks of SF feel really safe with this lot looking after them! LOL


Back on topic though - cormporate America runs America, no surprises here.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by byeluvolk
 




It has already been posted in this thread.




Calderon said he was led to believe the six people who arrived at his home were all policemen. He claimed he was never told that two of the people were Apple employees. Though he told the group that he didn't know anything about the phone, they asked to searched his house. He agreed. According to the SFPD's Dangerfield, officers never entered the home and it was Apple's employees who went through Calderon's belongings--a search that included an examination of his computer--in search of the phone. Calderon told SF Weekly that he would not have submitted to the search if he knew that the people doing it were not policemen. Read more: news.cnet.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
This must be a marketing stunt. The exact same thing happened last year with the iPhone 4.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq


I find this deplorable. Even if the police did not enter, Apple used the threat of the police state to perform a search of a private citizen. This is scary when the rights of a corporation exceed those of private citizens. This confirms my suspicions though of how the far left sees the marriage of corporate and government concerns. Who loses? The individual.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


This is what happens when you dont know your rights. DONT LET POLICE COME INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH OUT A WARRANT. No matter what they say they can legally lie to you. Make sure you see a SIGNED copy of the warrant.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
In California, a citizen can request the police to do a "civil standby". Usually this is to have the cops handy as you try to get your stuff out of your psycho-girlfriend's apartment. But a private detective could request a civil standby if they think there is going to be trouble.

Now where it gets ugly is how did SFPD behave during the civil standby. If they were out of earshot and the Apple employee misreprented himself as SFPD, then SFPD got duped. If they could hear the Apple employee acting like a cop and did nothing, then it is worse for SFPD. Potentially the Apple guy didn't lie, but the "suspect" saw the squad cars and assumed everyone was a cop. In any event, making the remark about citizenship is enough in my book to fire the Apple employee. Then again, we're talking about Apple, where everyone tries to emulate Steve Jobs and act like a jerk.

One remaining question is how many cops does SFPD send to do a civil standby? Because no crime has occurred, at best you get one cop. I never heard of four cops doing a civil standby. That is an excessive show of force. In California, a citizen can request the police to do a "civil standby". Usually this is to have the cops handy as you try to get your stuff out of your psycho-girlfriend's apartment. But a private detective could request a civil standby if they think there is going to be trouble.

Now where it gets ugly is how did SFPD behave during the civil standby. If they were out of earshot and the Apple employee misreprented himself as SFPD, then SFPD got duped. If they could hear the Apple employee acting like a cop and did nothing, then it is worse for SFPD. Potentially the Apple guy didn't lie, but the "suspect" saw the squad cars and assumed everyone was a cop. In any event, making the remark about citizenship is enough in my book to fire the Apple employee. Then again, we're talking about Apple, where everyone tries to emulate Steve Jobs and act like a jerk.

One remaining question is how many cops does SFPD send to do a civil standby? Because no crime has occurred, at best you get one cop. I never heard of four cops doing a civil standby. That is an excessive show of force.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari
 


Right, I read this. And that was why I was posting my statement. It is not reported that they were in uniform, and it is not reported that they told him they were police. Just that he assumed they were all police, and did not bother to ask for more information on all of the people present. He just assumed since the people he first talked to were indeed police officers that they all were. He also agreed to let what he assumes are police to search his house, but said he would not have agreed to let them search if he knew they were not police. This makes no sense as he knew the phone had been in his house, he knew it had been plugged into his PC. So why would allowing the police and not apple to search his house have made a difference? He knew he was guilty, if not of theft, at least of association to the thief. He should have denied access to his house in any form without the warrant. He could have then disposed of the PC and the incriminating evidence. Again as others have stated, “Know your rights,” It is his fault for letting them in. To try and make them out to be illegal searches after the fact is silly, he should never have allowed them in. He then knew he was suspect, and could have disposed of the evidence before they came back with a warrant.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join