Slashdot Mirror
IT Repair Installs Webcam Spying Software
Vapon writes "A lady noticed her computer was running slower after she had brought her computer in to be repaired. She took the computer to a second repair shop where they found that one of the problems was that her webcam would turn on whenever it detected her around and was taking photos and uploading it to a website. The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 women and has photos of at least one undressing."
not just lawsuit.. It is criminal offense that the technician will go to jail.
Speaking as someone who actually RTFA...
Apple's warranties are absolutely worth it. The three year extended warranty is dirt frickin cheap compared to any repair you might need down the line. Hard drive failed? Replaced. Keys fell of your keyboard? Replaced. Little rubber feet come off the bottom of the laptop? Here's a sheet of extras, just in case they come off again in three years.
Seriously, if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Ars Technica had this first. They should get the credit. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080805-high-tech-peeping-tom-rigged-laptop-webcam-to-snap-nude-pics.html
I! Tego Arcana Dei.
Right to privacy, as a conjectured right, dates back to the 1890s. The Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965) established the idea that a "right to privacy" did exist. But (and this is true for Roe vs. Wade as well) the privacy spoken of there (however you feel about the rulings) has to do with the right of a citizen to have privacy from the government. The only laws which may have been violated may have been anti-stalking laws (enacted in the early 1990's) and (to cite California's) this does not seem to fit, "alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose" as "two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." As to civil suit, well, they have to prove damages. As far as I can tell, that could be solely dependent on what happened with the images. Those who had their computers trespassed upon would be lucky to get even a small amount of compensation.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
The constitution doesn't grant anything. It enjoins the government from taking certain actions.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Absolutely backwards. The Constitution grants powers to the government. Anything that's not in there, they can't do.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
This is true. The founders believed that we have inalienable rights, which means that they are granted by God, not the government. The government is not allowed to try to take them away.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
The Fourth Amendment provides for security in persons, papers, effects and so forth from the government. Even if you construe it to be a privacy provision, it's not binding on Joe Sleazeball's Krazy Komputer Krepair Kshop.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
You may have said that as a joke, but Comcast is one step ahead of you. http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/managing-infosec/comcast-wants-to-put-a-video-camera-in-your-television-set-top-box-23242
Yeah, a while back, when video recording equipment first got small and cheap enough for people to purchase, scum started using it to spy on women. This was back in the 80s and 90s, and it turned out while there were laws against recording conversations, which could be legally used to nail some of them, if they recorded just video (Which all of them immediately started doing.), there was actually no law against it.
But that was back in the 80s and 90s, and there were enough well-publicized cases of this happening that they changed the law.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Freemasonry traditionally requires belief in a deity. In fact, its religious syncretism (a member of any religion can join as long as they see their god as the same Great Architect of the Universe) is one of the reasons that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been very critical of it. However, a few of the founding fathers were Deists, so they certainly believed in an invisible guy in the sky who granted rights as part of the natural order he created, but they simply didn't think he intervened.
Local paper article about this. Includes a picture!
Amendments are still part of the constitution, so you can't just magically exclude them. Also, the 'main body' has limits listed in them as well:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section9
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
And so on. Please stop acting like an expert on things that you are completely wrong on.
> For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.
Which is unnecessary, as they were postulates.
"We hold the these truths to be self-evident:"