Slashdot Mirror
Court Allows Webcam Spying On Rental Laptops
tekgoblin writes "Back in May there was a class action lawsuit filed against the rental company Aaron's, which had secretly installed spying software that would turn on a laptop's webcam, take pictures and then send them back to the company. Overall it seemed like a large invasion of privacy, which should at least warrant an injunction to stop use of the software until the case is settled, right? Not to the judge, who refused to order an injunction on the grounds that the family was no longer in possession of the laptop. As for everyone else still using their Aaron's laptops, the judge had this to say to them (PDF): 'Moreover, it is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative class will be subjected to remote access of personal information.'"
... it is okay if anyone bugs the judge's house?
Because until you actually record/hear anything, "it is purely conjecture that someone will use the micros to remote access of personal information".
Why can't
Should I go ahead and uninstall that wiretapping software, there's nothing I'm liable for, am I? I mean, I just removed very obviously malicious software, the rental place should be happy that I did it. They would surely have informed me if they installed something like this deliberately.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How about "Boycott Aaron's until they stop including spying software in their rental laptops".
Don't give me "Some people can't afford to boycott them" as there will be other companies who don't do this, and if not there's a business opportunity for someone.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
So, when are you Americans going to exercise your Second Amendment rights and just shoot this bastard?
1 - give rented laptop to family's teen child 2 - Let her do what teens do in front of webcams 3 - sue company for creation of CP (bonus) - eat popcorn as you watch SWAT teams storming their office. 5 - PROFIT!
I've never understood why there isn't a LED that indicates whether the camera is on, on every laptop computer. It's not like there's any shortage of LED's on the average laptop.
Thats what I always do - perhaps I'm paranoid but it only takes a few seconds and it resolves all of these sorts of issues along with malware checking you out. But then I don't use skype or do webchats , perhaps for someone who did it would be a nuisance but if not I recommend everyone to do it.
Oh look people's rights being stomped on again, seems like a common theme these days. I hope goverments don't sit around wondering why their populations are pissed off at them, cause they sure as hell don't have to look far.
The software is only supposed to be used to find the location of stolen equipment or equipment out of lease so that the equipment can be easily retrieved. The problem was that when the plaintiffs paid cash for the laptop the cash was diverted by a dishonest employee and never got recorded. As far as the manager knew the laptop was out of lease and needed to be retrieved. The plaintiffs failed to make the case that the software was being used on a regular basis to spy on owners or renters of the equipment. There was evidence that the software was being used but the purpose of that use is unclear. Due to that, the injunction was not granted.
The out of context quote 'Moreover, it is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative class will be subjected to remote access of personal information' is salacious at best. Not it says "will be subjected" not "can be subjected". It is not proven that other renters will have their money stolen by an dishonest employee and their laptop considered out of lease.
As usual with coverage of complex legal decisions, the headlines and soundbites don't resemble the decision at all. The case hasn't even begun; the judge did not "allow" the webcams at all. He's just ruling on a preliminary injunction before the case begins: the plaintiff is asking for the judge to issue an order stopping Aaron's from further use of the cameras while the case is going on. The judge is saying here that the injunction is moot because the plaintiff doesn't have the laptop, and hasn't presented any evidence that anyone else is being recorded. The judge is just saying (1) he can't order Aaron's to stop doing something when there's no evidence that they're actually doing it, and (2) the case is weak because the law under which they are suing may not apply (which is true; the plaintiffs ought to be suing under more general privacy torts). Under no stretch of reality does this mean he's "allowing" the use of the webcams.
--Lee Daniel Crocker : http://www.etceterology.com My life is in the public domain.
Thing is, it's a lot -cheaper- to own a computer than to rent one, especially since there's a huge surplus of second-hand computers.
If you cannot afford even that, you're better off doing without a computer at all until you've saved up enough. (save the money you'd otherwise pay to rent a computer!)
Actually, if you think about, an independent judicial system is supposed to hold the general public in disdain. That's why it is independent. The problem is that specific parts the the general public is not held in disdain: corporations, Judges appear to be hypnotized by them. I wonder why...
Or better yet, if there are laws about / against this practice, how about the company... follow them NOT DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
... then what happens once you own it? Does the rental company somehow remove their spying software? Or do they retain the ability to spy on the person who now owns the computer outright?
I'm going to get hated on for this,
Yes, and deservedly so.
but if you're renting a laptop. it's not yours.
No one is claiming ownership of the laptop, but the real problem is this next bit:
This company has every right to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Pants-on-head crazy. If you rent/lease an apartment, can your landlord take a shower at night in your bathroom? Can he watch you while you sleep? It's not just creepy-wrong, it's illegal.
Don't like it? Tough. Either go buy a laptop, which makes it yours, or find a way to disable the program, which no doubt is against the rental agreement.
Contract law can be a complicated thing, but here's something to know: if a person tells you to do something illegal, in a contract that you sign,
you don't have to do the illegal thing. If a person says that they're going to do something illegal, and you sign the contract, that doesn't absolve them of wrongdoing.
(This is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer, etc)
I do not think it would matter what you think she would think. In fact, she makes it clear in her statements that she would not like it.
The judge basically stated in the decision that she was bound by law not to provide the injunction as it would be over turned in the direct appeals court to her court due to several reasons. She cited precedent with these reasons too. First, they can only consider the immediate and irreparable harm of the named parties to the suit, not class parties who might be subjected. The named parties would not suffer any immediate harm since they no longer have a computer with the software on it. Another problem was that common sense conclusions cannot be injected into a case. She spends a good deal of time talking about this in which she notes several reversals when this happened in the past and gives notice that the court can only consider things brought up within the complaint.
There are more problems with providing an injunction complete with citations of previous cases to back her reasoning. If someone would initiate a suit alleging direct harm and capable of showing continued harm that doesn't skip important issues in the complaint, she could order an injunction and extend it to everyone putatively involved. But her hands are tied with the way this case have panned out to date as she cited several ways the injunction would be overturned easily if she had granted it.
Now be careful here, poofmeisterp. This one's a bit of a red herring.
If you're talking about the lawsuit regarding the lady who was driving with hot cup of coffee in her lap and spilled it and was awarded money from McDonald's, that's a bit of an urban legend propagated by the right wing. First, the lady wasn't driving, she was a passenger. Plus, the car was not moving. Finally, it's not just that the coffee was hot, but it was kept at a temperature hotter than you could possibly make coffee at home. So hot in fact, that it melted the styrofoam cup and boiled onto her lap. It was found that McDonalds had been keeping coffee at a temperature over 190 degrees and had had almost 40 warnings from health inspectors and complaints from customers in that area.
So yes, if you're going to serve coffee in to-go cups at a temperature that can cause third degree burns then you better notify your customers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"People who have no money don't know how to handle money" doesn't imply "people who have money know how to handle it".
Besides, Wall Street traders made a killing, then left the resulting mess to be paid for by the rest of us. So it seems to me that they know how to handle money just fine; it's their morality that is lacking.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Yes, these places really are "bad." Many years ago a female friend tried to rent a TV just for a month, and they scammed her into rent-to-own (she was only 20, not familiar with contract legalese) and even after she paid the last payment (after a year, coming out to 3X the price of the TV overall) they tried to claim she never paid all the payments and tried to take back the TV.
I intervened, got screamed at and threatened by the store manager, who even grabbed my arm roughly to throw me out. Had there not been several other customers in the store, my words "that looks like assault to me" might have been ignored as most of the sales people looked like ex-football players.
So yes, these places are designed to be bad, and commonly follow blatantly illegal practices.
Word.
We have a huge portion of our population that literally has trouble planning for tomorrow, let alone next week, next month or next year or further. I was married to one of those once. It was surreal. (Let's not get into my once being young, inexperienced, naive and all that... I'm not that now.) I got a first-hand look at what it's like to live that way and it's nothing I could tolerate. The thing is, people who live like this are in the majority! People who manage their money even a little are in the minority from what I can tell.
If there was one thing I could change about the people of the US, it would be that. After that, just about EVERYTHING would change after that though... and I mean just about everything.
Not really, the spy program in question takes screenshots, logs key strokes, sound recordings as well as snapshots from the webcam. It's primary goal is to track and recover lost and stolen devices in order to return them to the proper owner as well as prosecute the theft. This is hidden in what they call a detective mode in which Arron's would have activated in order to take web cam snap shots.
Blocking the web cam from view still does nothing to the bulk of the interception of electronic communications which the case is centered around with the wiretapping laws. If I remember in the story about original complaint, the plaintiff fell behind in payments and Arron's asked for it back. She declared that she no longer had the laptop in her possession and they pulled up screenshots of her logging into her email and other accounts under her name as well as web cam images showing her to be the operator of the device. So this is really about more then just web cam images like the concept of the school that became peeping toms on preteen kiddies.
I know, i shouldn't have added the ad hominen in the last sentence, But why not call a spade a spade, it's what they were doing.