Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IT Repair Installs Webcam Spying Software

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-look-hot-undressing dept.

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."

6 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Lawsuit! by Apatharch · · Score: 5, Informative

    Speaking as someone who actually RTFA...

    Craig Feigin was arrested and held on $20,000 bail after he admitted to rigging Marisel Garcia's computer, and other women's computers, with Webcam Spy Hacker. Under Florida law, he could be charged with a felony and face jail time.

  2. Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception by Dekortage · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. Credit where credit is due... by DenaliPrime · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  4. Re:Lawsuit! by cwAllenPoole · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/
  5. Re:Lawsuit! by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  6. Re:Lawsuit! by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?