Apple Investigators Posed as Police in New Lost iPhone Prototype Search? | Hacker News Reader

Apple Investigators Posed as Police in New Lost iPhone Prototype Search?

macrumors.com

63 pointsantr62 comments

What's going on with Apple and shady legal dealings recently? It appears they are faking evidence in European courts; that should be a criminal offense. It appears they are impersonating police officers - that IS a criminal offense.

Is the media I'm reading biased? Is this all actually happening? What turned Apple into a crime or near-crime committing business? This is all very weird.

Anthony Colon worked for the San Jose Police Department for 26 years and retired in 2010 to take a job with Apple doing security. So I wonder if he'll argue that he told Calderon something to the effect of "I'm (mumble)was with the police" and was simply misunderstood? I don't think it will work.

Also, although it doesn't excuse their behavior, Calderon was crazy for letting them search without a warrant.

The fact that Colon deleted his LinkedIn profile very recently is a huge red flag.

I think the likelihood of this story being even close to 100% true is very remote. Yes, Apple likes to keep their secrets closely guarded. Yes, they go to extreme legal lengths, including intimidating the press (and early-access developers), takedown notices to blogs, and all other sorts of tight-lipped requirements on their employees.

This claim, however, this is so far beyond the normal realm of large company behavior that it's absurd. It's most likely that a good portion of what was reported is inaccurate.

The orders didn't necessarily come from the top. Could have been this ex-cop guy taking matters into his own hands.

Looks like it's not so far fetched, the SFPD has now admitted that they stood by while Apple staff searched the home. The only remaining piece is if they identified themselves properly.

Even without more information, this is extraordinarily embarrassing for both the SFPD and Apple. What other companies get policing privileges?

Well we should wait and find out the truth, apparently SFPD is investigating this right now, instead of jumping to conclusions and sensationalizing everything as the tech media loves to do to get every last page hit possible.

As for the European court thing, the judge had pics and the tablets in front of him so that turned out to be a whole bunch of nothing, they didn't decide the case on those drawings.

Just because fraud in court didn't swing a case doesn't mean it wasn't fraud.

I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if this did happen it was probably a case of an individual/team going too far and not some shift in Apple writ large. If you saw a night manager at Wendy's punch someone in the face you wouldn't assume it was corporate policy.

Though considering who it was, it would be more like the head of security for Wendy's corporate punching someone while investigating a theft.

Know how to recognize an Apple officer!

Is there a blue glow pulsing from the officer's eyes in time with your breathing?

When questioned about his identity, does the officer inflate and spin a beachball before answering?

Does the officer have rounded corners?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you might be speaking with a member of the Apple Police Force. Beware!

Hahahahha - genius. I can hardly type this from laughing. Thanks :)

What do you call the black rods of steel in your prison cell window in Apple Police Headquarters?

Genius bars.

It's more troubling that he is a retired police officer.

I'm sure he never did anything shady or in violation of people's rights, or threaten/intimidate immigrants during his previous 25 years on the force. Surely that behavior only started a few months ago when he joined Apple

Well, as for the 'posing as police', If you spent your life on the force, after you retire it might sometimes be difficult to refrain from "impersonating an officer".

I'm a big fan of Apple tech, but if this turns out to be true, I hope they throw the book at Apple.

100% agree

Personally, I hope the book is thrown by someone impersonating a judge.

Why in the world would you voluntarily allow police or purported police to search your apartment?

Because they wear uniforms and carry guns, and don't make it seem like you have a choice.

Very true. Most people don't understand how to properly resist police intimidation until they've already been victimized from it.

> Most people don't understand how to properly resist police intimidation

Got any links on how to do this?

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial...

http://flexyourrights.org/

First words out of your mouth when they want to search the premises or even ask you any questions is:

"I'd like to speak with my lawyer first".

and second, if those aren't the first, or you don't have an on-call lawyer, it is easier to start with:

"May I please see a search warrant?"

Also key: while you're talking with them, don't invite them inside. Talk to them outside, and if you do decide to talk with them to answer questions (ideally, with a lawyer), do it at a neutral location outside your home/office.

Definitely, whenever I have in the past talked to police officers (awesome parties ...) I always make sure to pull the door closed behind me. Then I am willing to have a chat. Usually it would come down to a "please keep the noise down, have a great evening" and we'd be set :-)

I guess I take this too far; I was staying in a friend's flat in Edinburgh; police showed up at the door, demanding entry -- I asked them for ID and then called the police to verify they were real cops, locked all my drives, etc., etc. Then after about 2-3 minutes, opened the door and went out into the hall -- turns out it was a gas leak. I'm sure they told stories about the paranoid American.

As someone pointed out in another thread, they reportedly threatened his family's immigration status. That's a big stick, and one routinely used by real cops (i.e., it was reasonable of him to believe they'd retaliate unfairly if he asserted his rights). I don't blame him for complying under the circumstances, even though it's outrageous that he was asked to (whether they were fake cops or not).

Because people fuck up when nervous and scared? How many people do you think have said they would challenge an airplane hijacker? They would rescue someone from a burning building? They would donate to charity? Then how many actually did?

George Aaronow: When I talk to the police I get nervous.

Ricky Roma: Yes. You know who doesn't?

George Aaronow: Who?

Ricky Roma: Thieves.

They threatened to go after his family (make trouble WRT to immigration). A whole bunch of very strong and savvy people have folded when the authorities (or apparently those posing as such in this case) do that, e.g. Michael Milken of junk bond fame.

How strong would you be in insisting on your rights when that might ruin the live of a loved one?

from http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/iphone_5_apple_p...

> San Francisco Police Department spokesman Lt. Troy Dangerfield now tells SF Weekly that "three or four" SFPD officers accompanied two Apple security officials in an unusual search of a Bernal Heights man's home.

The SFPD says they were there.

Just like Patent Trolling, Apple seems to have taken the "OK If we do it" approach to Impersonating An Officer.

This comment reminded me to check Gruber. Sure enough: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/09/02/iphone-5

Translation from Gruber-speak:

> Nice reporting by Peter Jamison at SF Weekly

Let's think positive things about people.

> Cook’s first crisis at the helm?

Let's think of this as a management challenge for post-Jobs Apple. (and not as Apple breaking the law)

> UPDATE: SF police now confirm they were involved.

The police were there so obviously nothing illegal happened! Move along, nothing to see...

----

Can't wait to read Gruber's full editorial if this story blows up. :)

edits: wording, formatting

Anybody else feel like both of these stories (this one and the one from last year regarding the iphone 4) were planted? My BS meter is going off like crazy.

The fact that the victim doesn't appear to have talked to the police is a bad sign.

Not really, if he honestly thought that the people that came to his door were police officers he would initially have had no reason to reach out to the police. Even after it's brought to his attention by the reporter, he might still think he doesn't need to call the police since the reporter has talked to them. It might occur to you or I to call the police and file a compliant or ask for an investigation but someone that has been threatened or isn't familiar with their rights might not. He did let six people with "some kind of badges" and no warrant search his property after all. That could mean he felt threatened (he said they made threatening comments) or simply didn't know what his rights were in that scenario.

From my reading of the sf weekly blog I didn't realize that the police weren't investigating until I read the third update as the other posts all sounded like the SFPD was already doing an investigation. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/09/lost_iphone_5_ap...

How does one get to walk around with the next iPhone prototype in a bar in the first place?

I'm calling it first: "This would never have happened under Jobs". If true, of course.

Calderón got in touch with us yesterday in an effort to clarify who, exactly, had searched his home on an evening in July.

This did happen under Jobs -- if true.

Jobs has been on medical leave since January and Tim Cook has been acting as CEO since then. Jobs just stepped aside completely in August by resigning.

He was still involved in the company, and for example, launched Lion in June. I find it hard to believe that Steve Jobs didn't know about another phone being lost. That's not the type of thing the acting CEO keeps from the CEO for fear of bothering him.

Sure, if any of this is true it's very likely that Jobs was kept aware of the situation or even advised on how to proceed. At the end of the day this happened under Cook because Cook was the acting CEO.

edit: I don't know of a better way to describe Cooks role during this period as he was responsible for daily operations while Jobs retained the title of CEO. Acting CEO may not be the correct description.

Not according to this PR on Jan 17, 2011: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/17Apple-Media-Adviso...

"At my request, the board of directors has granted me a medical leave of absence so I can focus on my health. I will continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for the company."

Right, he was on medical leave. He retained the title and was involved in all major strategic decisions. Tim Cook was left to handle daily operations and was essentially acting CEO. While I would be surprised if Jobs didn't know about a lost iPhone given his heavy involvement in the company I also don't see how this isn't a daily operations issue falling to Tim Cook.

Is there any proof substantiating this guy's claim that a search even happened?

He gave the (former) police officer's name and phone number to the newspaper... so he got it somehow?

Yeah, thats the sticky part about this. Because the story has changed and it's corroborated I'm inclined not to believe it. But having that guys info is odd, although he was on LinkedIn.

Why is a possibly false rumor that has nothing to do with hacking & startups on the front page the whole day?

EDIT: If you agree with me, down vote on the story instead of upvoting this. Otherwise, I would have just done the opposite of my intention.

Doesn't it seem like the guy who claims this happened could be lying? His story did change once the SFPD said it wasn't them.

I think his story is still consistent. He said SFPD came to his house. SF Weekly said, they actually didn't. So he said, well, people who said they were SFPD came to my house, and here's their number. It's the number of an Apple security person.

In the SF Weekly article they have him contacting them after the SFPD denied involvement.

Sure, he could be lying. There is very little to substantiate his account. But there is nothing in the article about his story changing once the SFPD said it wasn't them.

Before we all jump over Apple, this could just be one guy going somewhat 'rogue', and forgetting he's a retired police officer, and not an Apple Investigator in the private sector. If what is written is true, this investigator likely has a lot of explaining to do.

The conspiracist in me thinks the SF police dept worked with him, but didn't want it on the record for some reason, and will just shuffle the investigation under the rug.

The article specifically says that 6 people are alleged to have shown up with badges, claiming to be with the police. So it can't be explained away as one old nutjob reliving the glory days of busting down doors and roughing up perps.

That said, we do need more information. The entire basis for this story is one person's account and the actual police saying they had nothing to do with it. The only corroborating evidence is a phone number that the "police" left that belongs to an Apple employee. The again, who knows how he actually got the number.

It's too early to jump all over Apple based on so little evidence, but the whole thing sounds pretty shady. If it does turn out they did this they need to suffer.

Good points, not sure why I disregarded the 6 other people at the door.

Although, it is a bit odd that after all this, he (Calderon) still hasn't reached out to the SFPD, as indicated in the SF Weekly's latest updates.

He may have simply thought he didn't need to do anything since the police are obviously aware of the situation.

Oh geez. The "few bad apples" defense. The iPhone 5 is such a white-hot priority at Apple, I'd be surprised if this investigation somehow did not shoot up like lightning through the chain of command.

Yea, it's pretty weak, and I'm sure the executives gave some ultimatums to the security team. Who knows though, when bonuses are on the line people will do some crazy things.

I agree. Lost iPhone 5 is a really big issue, the last lost model was international news. There can be little doubt that Cook was briefed on it. I seriously doubt he had no opinion about it voiced in that meeting.

Furthermore, someone at Apple at some point in the past decided they needed a private police force with badges and uniforms that looks like real police, and recruited from "retired" police (how can one be 26 and retired anyway). That's not a casual decision by some middle manager, that's another CEO level decision, and that one probably came from Jobs.

  > how can one be 26 and retired anyway

26 years of experience on the force != 26 years old

... unless he was holding a badge out of the womb.

Ah, thanks for that correction, I mistakenly read "I am a 26 year retired law enforcement professional" as "I am a 26 year old retired law enforcement professional".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com