Slashdot Mirror
Internet Community Catches a Car Thief
COredneck sends us a NYTimes story (registration may be required) about an Internet community solving a crime in less than 48 hours. An auto dealer in Calgary lends a car for a test drive — a 1991 Nissan Skyline GT-R. The test driver and another person don't return the car. The dealer then files a police report, but also posts a message about the stolen car on Beyond.ca, an automotive fan board. Many people who read the board keep their eyes out and find the car. They also use Facebook to find the suspect and his high school; and they use Google Maps to pinpoint the thief's location. They film the collar and post the video on Beyond.ca. The dealer says, "This guy has worldwide recognition for being a car thief for the rest of his life. The Internet is not going away."
The only reason this worked as well as it did was because of the type of car. You don't see Skyline GT-R's driving around all over the place and it's very well recognized by car enthusiasts (especially the sport compact/drifting crowd).
If it was something like a Honda Accord then they never would have found it this way.
...but Vigilantism shouldn't be encouraged. While a few cases of internet Vigilantism have made news, overall, it is still a bad idea. If stuff like this continues, we are going to end up with mob rule. And who is to say that the mob has the right guy?
This wasn't vigilantism. Other than blocking the car in, they did not engage the guy directly, nor did they try for mob justice. They blocked him in so he couldn't get away, and then they called the cops and waited for them to show up.
I see nothing at all wrong with this. The cops can then determine if a crime was committed, and guess what? If not, they can arrest the "vigilantes" for filing a false report.
(Now if they d actually tried to hold the person *himself* then I'd have a problem with that. That's when you get into the realm of false imprisonment and civil rights violations.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
First off as a dealer you should not allow anyone to test drive without proof of insurance and license. Your dealer lot insurance may cover an uninsured/unlicensed driver's accident, (I've been hit by someone that way before) but your insurance co is not going to like you after the fact. That license has your name and picture on it. You should at least record their name. Better would be a photocopy of both before you give them the keys.
Second, why are they letting someone go for a test drive unaccompanied by someone from the dealership, someone they don't personally know?
This should not have happened in the first place. I can't say I would have felt sorry for them had it not gone this well. It does not set a good example to show how you can be stupid and get away with it due to the marvels of modern technology.
I personally hope their lot insurance rates go through the roof for a year over this. Roundabouts, it's people doing stupid things like this and NOT getting lucky that result in MY rates going up to spread the loss coverage.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Slippery Slope fallacy. This isn't even remotely close to what you're proposing it will lead to. While there may someday (and already have been) cases of vigilantism gone wrong there are just as many case of it gone right. So long as the correct sort of vigilantism (the 'get some info and call the police', not the 'go batman on them') is portrait as a good thing I highly doubt the other one will become seriously popular.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
What about the rest of us? If somebody posts my car's pictures online and asks people to help them find me, the same tricks will work. It will be even quicker, because I will not even be expecting any sort of pursuit...
When police try to use these methods, we are full of "big brother" gloom. When "the mob" does it, we are cheering...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
So basically his life is ruined, even if he honestly tries to redeem myself afterwards, because he'll be forever known as the infamous first criminal to be caught thanks to the almighty Internet.
I don't think the above issue (in general) can be understated. There isn't a person alive who hasn't once done something that is embarrasing, in bad form, wrong, or even illegal, or otherwise said or wrote something that wasn't poorly worded, taken out of context, intended as an off-colour joke, or simply a case of temporary stupidity.
Why is this a big deal? Now the average person is subjected to the same level of scrutiny given to, for example, a candidate running for political office. Dunno about you, but my family and friends tend to be forgiving of my failings and shortcomings, but I sure don't want a million random strangers participating in the dissemination of information that is then recursively subjected to the judgment or actions of another million random strangers, with a prospective employer or someone similar thrown in for added fun. And that's assuming we're talking about disinterested parties and not angry ex-girlfriends, wives, schoolmates you teased, or hookers you didn't sufficiently tip.
When talking about "folks on the internet", we're mostly talking about mobs and mob mentality. In this case it seems the mob was right, so we're free to cheer for its leaders and the outcome.