Slashdot Mirror
Publicly Shaming Laptop Thieves Catches Bystanders in the Crossfire
nonprofiteer writes "Embarrassing thieves by exposing them using laptop recovery software makes for fun tech stories, but what about a case of a person being literally exposed after cops and a software company got their hands on naked photos she exchanged with her long-distance boyfriend, not realizing the machine was stolen? (She bought it for $60 so she should have known, but still). The case is going to trial in Ohio in September. The plaintiffs argue that the software company had the right to get the computer's location in order to recover it, but that it should not have intercepted the nude photos and shared those with the cops. Seems like a legitimate complaint and the plaintiffs are especially sympathetic in not realizing the device was stolen."
They did use it. This was a separate lawsuit that was filed by the woman who bought the laptop from the thief. The thief was arrested and charged as you would expect. The woman however, did not know it was stolen and she in turn had explicit video conferences with her boyfriend using the stolen laptop (again unbeknownst to her that it was stolen). Because of this, she was deemed to have a reasonable and objective expectation of privacy. They found that although the company tracking the laptop had the right to obtain such information as IP address and geographical location, they went too far in collecting the contents of the private communications between the girlfriend and her boyfriend.
From TFA:
You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned. About as dumb as people who download hacking binaries.
She bought a non-functional laptop from one of her students for $60, then spent money to have it repaired. You can only call that "dumb" if you know what was wrong with the laptop.
I find it amusing that so many people on Slashdot refer to others as "dumb" or "idiots" without bothering to get even a modicum of information regarding the specific story being discussed.
#DeleteChrome
Well, having now read TFA, it looks mostly like the court found only that there wasn't enough evidence to grant the defendants summary judgement... which is a long way from saying that she definitely deserved the protections of a legitimate owner.
From a quick look now, I actually did find one thing interesting. The court based its opinion primarily on the idea that the communications were being intercepted. Whether the same court would have felt as strongly if the LoJack-for-Laptops crew had simply taken pictures with the webcam is an open question.
They lied about having a warrant.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/03/03/Stolen_Laptop_Led_to_False_Arrest_Woman_Says.htm
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My wife is a 47 year old university professor and I think she is hot.
So say we all