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."

Comments

Pics

[Anonymous Coward]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Pics

[Ced_Ex]

You want pics of a 52 year old school teacher?

Re:Pics

[mevets]

I bet this sets the record for the number of people that read the referenced articles.
For the record, if a 48-year-old mechanic can pretend to be an 18-year-old hot CO-ED; an 18-year-old hot CO-ED can pretend to be a 52-year-old school teacher.

Re:Pics

[treeves]

It is certainty that someone does. He just won't admit to it.

Re:Pics

[Haedrian]

"Clements-Jeffrey, 52, got the laptop fixed up and then started using it to "

I think i'll pass personally.

Re:Pics

[Anonymous Coward]

You want pics of a 52 year old school teacher?

Yes please.

Re:Pics

[Anonymous Coward]

This place is getting more and more like 4chan everyday.

>>37259000
Nice trips btw

Re:Pics

[wronski]

Mind your manners, sir! This is Slashdot, not 4chan, we have standards here.

Re:Pics

[cydnub]

Clements-Jeffrey, -->52<--, got the laptop fixed up and then started using it to correspond with her long-distance boyfriend

No, no you don't want to see any pics. You cannot unsee them.

Re:Pics

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an 87 year old school teacher, you insensitive clod. Anything under 50 is CP.

Re:Pics

[hairyfeet]

I think the bigger question is why everyone assumes she must have known it was stolen. Now if the laptop was less than a year old? Yeah she should have known. But if it is more than a year and a half? Frankly I've seen them go for less and often sell 3 to 4 year old laptops myself for around that price. Often the batteries on the damned things cost more than they are worth so they go for cheap. hell I've seen nice Core2Duos go for $80 simply because the battery was toast.

As for the age thing? I've seen hot as hell 52 year olds and ugly as fuck 19 year olds, can't really go by that.

Re:Pics

[silentcoder]

Teacher: Yacko, can you conjugate ?
Yacko: Conjugate ? I've never even kissed a girl !

Re:Pics

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the person wanting the pics is a 57 year old school teacher?

Re:Pics

[Zaatxe]

My wife is a 47 year old university professor and I think she is hot.

Re:Pics

[utsuprainfra]

My wife is a 47 year old university professor and I think she is hot.

Me too.

Evidence

[eedwardsjr]

It is still criminal evidence. Why not use it?

Re:Evidence

[FredFredrickson]

Seriously, since the actual owners authorized the monitoring company to have that form of access to the computer, anybody who steals it and uses it afterwards (knowingly or not) really has no legal dispute with the rightful owner and any company the owner authorized to snap screencaps and whatnot.

Re:Evidence

[shentino]

The 4th amendment only stops the *state* (and police acting on their behalf) from snooping.

If someone else does the snooping you don't need a warrant.

Mind you that the police cannot *ask* someone to snoop for them, otherwise you create an agency relation that causes 4th amendment immunity to apply against whoever does the snooping.

At most the security company that peeked was guilty of invasion of privacy. Sharing it with the police, however, was not a crime, and if it turns out said photos implicate someone in a crime, the 4th amendment does not apply since the security company was not acting as an agent of the police.

Re:Evidence

[DJRumpy]

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:

In so many words, the court was saying that Absolute went too far in collecting the contents of the communications being made on the stolen computer. Had the information collection stopped at IP addresses and other non-content information, the remote tracking efforts may not have run afoul of the ECPA.

Re:Evidence

[hedwards]

That's not true, while the 4th amendment only prevents the government from doing it, every state in the union has its own wiretap law on the books which bars this sort of covert surveillance.

It's questionable to me as to why precisely the company isn't being prosecuted for that violation.

Re:Evidence

[mr1911]

This isn't wiretapping. This is like a criminal complaining that your security camera footage of them breaking into your house is somehow a violation of their rights.

Actually, this specific case is like someone believing they bought your house for $600 and then complaining your security camera caught them having sex in the pool.

And while we're here...

That's not true, while the 4th amendment only prevents the government from doing it, every state in the union has its own wiretap law on the books which bars this sort of covert surveillance.

The 4th Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, preserves the rights of citizens by limiting the power of the federal government. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that says I cannot take steps to monitor my property to ensure it's return if/when stolen.

Re:Evidence

[TWX]

More importantly, anything that the stolen item is used for is potential forfeit or criminal itself. The woman was stupid enough to put nude photos of herself on a computer. Did she not expect other people to see them? She should be a lot more worried about distribution by the boyfriend or someday-ex-boyfriend than she should be by the police or the laptop recovery company.

If anything, she should consider herself lucky that the rightful owners of the computer aren't going to push for a transfer of copyright of all images that were made or stored on the computer, which I could see them managing to succeed with. Call it reparations for the criminal act of receiving stolen property.

Re:Evidence

[Kjella]

Seriously, since the actual owners authorized the monitoring company to have that form of access to the computer, anybody who steals it and uses it afterwards (knowingly or not) really has no legal dispute with the rightful owner and any company the owner authorized to snap screencaps and whatnot.

I think your argument sounds a bit too much like the legal owner can do anything. That alone would be like that school that had spycam software installed on pupil's laptops, even if they're the legal owner of the laptop they or their authorized company don't have legal permission to covertly bring it into people's homes and take pictures of whatever they want. If it had been her boyfriend's pictures or co-inhabitants in the background, they might have a case. But in this case she's operating a stolen computer, it's like complaining of being photographed driving a stolen car. Secondly, securing evidence for the police is a legitimate cause, if they found this in some camera tech's private stash I might think very differently about the case. You could easily argue that nude photos could include tattoos, birthmarks or other identifying markers that may help identification. I think she's got a really bad case.

Re:Evidence

[sbrown123]

"every state in the union has its own wiretap law on the books which bars this sort of covert surveillance."

It is not covert if the owner gives another company permission to do it. What you are trying to argue is that if someone broke in to a house with a house alarm it is a wiretapping violation for the house alarm to sound.

Re:Evidence

[TWX]

If the rightful owner of the computer can demonstrate that fact, the police probably wouldn't even need a warrant. They'd be acting on behalf of the legitimate owner of the computer.

Mind you, that's probably not a good idea for the legitimate owner, as if they've done anything shady then they'd essentially be waiving their right to fourth amendment privacy by granting access to the police, but since in this case a third-party company is involved that acts as a buffer.

Re:Evidence

[gshegosh]

Shouldn't she be suing the thief that sold her the laptop instead of a software manufacturer?

Re:Evidence

[Gordonjcp]

Mind you, that's probably not a good idea for the legitimate owner, as if they've done anything shady then they'd essentially be waiving their right to fourth amendment privacy by granting access to the police

This is why you must always maintain a minimum standard of shadiness that can be readily explained away, thus hiding the real shadiness.

Re:Evidence

[demonlapin]

All sorts of things are possible legal arguments, but I'd start with "you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using someone else's computer, especially if it's stolen".

Re:Evidence

[Artraze]

That's true, but there are laws (rather than amendments) preventing private parties from snooping as well. For example: wire tapping, breaking and entering, and perhaps even some anti-voyeurism statutes as well. In computer related situations there are even additional laws like that federal anti-hacking law.

Further, as you somewhat noted, the 4th amendment kicks in if they are acting as an agent of the police... However, that does not simply mean if the police _ask_, but if the party is determined to be working with police at all... Obviously it's case by case, but generally speaking after one has talked to the police about an issue any additional investigation can be bound by the 4th, regardless of whether they actually asked, simply winked, or even flat out said not to. A sufficiently good lawyer may well be able to make it stick is this case because these people were specifically collecting evidence to hand over to the police. (v.s. say, a private party investigating a souse for infidelity and coming across evidence of a crime where the 4th certainly does not apply.)

Finally, additional civil issues may apply here. They violated copyright (though I do forget what exemptions are present for evidence, IIRC they don't exist for private parties) and there may also be a case for defamation of character depending on how far they spread.

Re:Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure she should, for selling her stolen goods. The thing is that it wasn't the thief that started to distribute nude photos of her and the company that acted as a "buffer" against the police should know better.

Re:Evidence

[mwvdlee]

Have you ever bought second hand stuff?
How do you know that second hand stuff wasn't stolen?
In fact, you can't even know for sure in shops.

Large part of the issue here is whether the school teacher could be reasonably expected to know the laptop was stolen given the low $60 price she paid for it.

I feel no pity for criminals, but punishing somebody innocent is worse than not punishing somebody guilty.

Re:Evidence

[PCM2]

And I might counter with the principle that law enforcement is only entitled to search for those things that are actually relevant to the commission of a crime. Search warrants have to be very specific. If the police think I've stolen an elephant, and they get a warrant to search my property for the elephant, they can't search my dresser drawers; there's no way an elephant would fit in there. In this case, police were looking for a stolen laptop and they somehow came into possession of naked pictures of consenting adults -- which are not only irrelevant to the location of said laptop, but they're also not evidence of any crime. Similarly, police have very stringent requirements for wiretaps. If they're tapping your phone because they believe you might give evidence of a crime over the phone, and your grandma calls, they're supposed to shut off the tape; that call is not pertinent to the investigation. How were these naked photos pertinent, except as a way to humiliate a suspect (who, BTW, eventually had her charges dismissed; she was never convicted of anything).

Re:Evidence

[Nethemas the Great]

The trouble was that the court found that the woman in possession of the laptop believed herself to the the legal owner. Evidently that finding affords her the legal protections afforded a legitimate owner.

Re:Evidence

[Nethemas the Great]

The thief doesn't have the kind of money that the software manufacturer does.

Re:Evidence

[MakinBacon]

Have you ever bought second hand stuff? How do you know that second hand stuff wasn't stolen? In fact, you can't even know for sure in shops.

Large part of the issue here is whether the school teacher could be reasonably expected to know the laptop was stolen given the low $60 price she paid for it.

I feel no pity for criminals, but punishing somebody innocent is worse than not punishing somebody guilty.

I feel no pity for criminals, but punishing somebody innocent is worse than not punishing somebody guilty.

She's not being punished; TFA clearly states the charges against her were dropped. She's now suing Absolute and the police for violation of privacy, which is crazy because those photos were taken with the authorization of the laptop's owner and they were legitimate evidence in a criminal case.

Re:Evidence

[PCM2]

If she took the guy who sold her the laptop to court, the most she would probably be able to get is the amount she paid for the laptop (and he might be required by the court to repay that anyway). Instead she's suing the police department and the software manufacturer for privacy and constitutional violations -- things that have statutory damages attached. In other words, more money this way.

Re:Evidence

[demonlapin]

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.

Re:Evidence

[demonlapin]

Law enforcement doesn't enter into this until after the fact. The photos were seized by a private organization operating on behalf of the legitimate owner of the property. The question is whether the ECPA was violated in the process; the court seems to think so, but can't bring a prosecution of its own.

Re:Evidence

[Bucky24]

But the students didn't steal the laptops, they signed an agreement. Though I agree the school shouldn't be allowed to do that, the situation isn't entirely the same.

Re:Evidence

[PCM2]

Law enforcement doesn't enter into this until after the fact. The photos were seized by a private organization operating on behalf of the legitimate owner of the property

Which is why she's suing the software company and the police department.

Re:Evidence

[geekoid]

She did not expect the authorities and 3rd party people she didn't authorize to see them.

Of course you people have no grasp of reality, practicality, or that other people besides yourself matters, so I don't actually expect you to see a grey area.

And your feeble conclusion regarding copyright of the pictures is, quite frankly, mind numbing stupid.

Re:Evidence

[Imrik]

In some states the security camera footage is considered a violation of their rights and is inadmissible in court unless it is clearly posted that the grounds are monitored by camera.

Re:Evidence

[geekoid]

She is being punished, her private pictures are being distributed around without her permission.

And they where not evidence in a criminal case. All they need was location.

Re:Evidence

[ciscocontractor]

This is exactly the point that many seem to be missing, it doesn't matter if the subject of the photos knew the laptop was stolen. It is my laptop, and therefore all data within it is my property. I have a contractual agreement with the theft tracking company whereby I grant them full and unlimited access to the device, and they may use any of my data on my laptop to identify the parties responsible, and share any such information with law enforcement to recover it.

Re:Evidence

[geekoid]

That's a separate issue. And she could, however for 60 dollars no one will hear the case, and small claims may not be worth it.

However the thief didn't take picture of her and spread the around.

Re:Evidence

[hey!]

At most the security company that peeked was guilty of invasion of privacy.

Er... You make it sound like that's a small thing. If the police violated her 4th amendment rights, that in itself would not be such a big thing for her because it would immunize her from any charges brought on evidence obtained from that violation, directly or indirectly. It would be the accompanying invasion of privacy by the police that did her harm in that case.

Now a private entity collecting this information and handing it to the police would be *worse*, because (a) they'd be spreading the invasion and possibly (b) she is obliged to defend herself now because the third party have effectively helped the police do an end-run around the rules.

Personally, I'd argue that if a private company has a relationship to the police in which they routinely provided the police with evidence as part of services they're selling, they're acting as an agent of the state. It's not the same as if they were just being public spirited here, there's a private quid pro quo going on as well: the police are taking actions which add value to the company's product. Even though they don't get paid in *cash*, they get paid in other considerations which have considerable monetary value to them, and which are *excludable* competitive benefits. I think in that case 4th amendment evidence rules *should* apply. Whether they do in practice would be a matter of case law rather than reason.

What should matter in this case is the *substance* of what has been done for her, not some kind of abstract, Mad Tea Party ontological argument. If there is a system by which the police routinely collect evidence, the admissibility of that evidence should be governed by the Constitution under the 4th and 14th amendments no matter how cleverly disguised the business arrangements between the police and investigators are. Likewise the privacy invasion is a serious harm no matter the good intentions of the company and state, and all the cases where the system has been spying on actual criminals.

Re:Evidence

[Attila Dimedici]

That's not true, while the 4th amendment only prevents the government from doing it, every state in the union has its own wiretap law on the books which bars this sort of covert surveillance.

No, it is true. While, depending on state law, it could conceivably be a crime to have captured the data, it is not a violation of the 4th Amendment, nor is sharing it with the police a crime (at least, I am unaware of any states that have laws that would make it a crime to share it with the police). Further, while it may be possible to construe the laws of some states to make this a crime, receiving stolen property is explicitly a crime in every state. Generally, all they have to do to secure a conviction is prove that the item was stolen and that you should have known that from the circumstances under which you purchased it.

Re:Evidence

[LordKronos]

And they where not evidence in a criminal case. All they need was location.

All they need is the location? OK, so assuming the location is a private residence, if 6 people live there, who did it? All 6 of them say "I have no idea what you are talking about". Who do you charge? Do you go get a warrant to search the house? By the time you get it, the person who actually has it will likely have disposed of it. Do you get the warrant before your initial contact and then just search the house right away? What if it was a friend who was using the laptop in that house when they visited? You'll find nothing in the house. Do you wait until they are online somewhere and then try to show up at the location and get them before they disappear? What if it doesn't show up again?

You can't know before the fact that you won't need the evidence later, so you gather it when you have the opportunity.

Re:Evidence

[geekoid]

Lying abut a warrant may have had something to do with the case as well:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/03/03/Stolen_Laptop_Led_to_False_Arrest_Woman_Says.htm

She is suing the police because they lied about a warrant and treated her with abuse.

She is suing absolute because the pictures have nothing to do with the case. Had it just been the IP they would have been fine.

Re:Evidence

[MakinBacon]

She is being punished, her private pictures are being distributed around without her permission.

No they aren't, because the only people with access to the photos are lojack, the cops, and (probably) the judge and jury. That doesn't qualify as the photos being "distributed around", that's the photos being presented as evidence for a court case. I agree that these photos are super-private and all, but they're still evidence because she couldn't have taken them without possessing the stolen computer.

And they where not evidence in a criminal case. All they need was location.

No, they need all the evidence they can get. When you watch court proceedings on TV, you will rarely see the prosecution present only a single article because more evidence == stronger case. All the location does is prove that the laptop was used to access the internet from her house, which could mean anything. The defense could argue that the perpetrator might have figured out how to connect to her wifi network, or maybe lojack screwed up and somehow got the wrong IP address. If the prosecution also presents pictures that the defendant took of herself using the webcam, then the prosecution has a much stronger case because they now have evidence that the defendant actually came in contact with the laptop.

Re:Evidence

[Score Whore]

No this is more like you installing a camera in your bathroom. Then you go on vacation. While you are away some pecker head breaks in, and throws a party. One of the guests uses the bathroom and you put the pictures on the internet. Even though the guest did not break in and the act of the guest using the bathroom has nothing whatsoever to do with the breaking and entering anyway.

Re:Evidence

[Obfuscant]

She did not expect the authorities and 3rd party people she didn't authorize to see them. Of course you people have no grasp of reality,

Several years ago, many people started using these new-fangled things called "cell phones". For reasons I will never understand, people who were talking into a small box with an antenna on the top of it didn't grasp the concept of "radio", and that if their little box with an antenna on the top of it could receive and reproduce sounds from a distance there might be other little boxes that could receive and reproduce the same sounds. They did not expect anyone but the person whose phone number they had dialled into the little box to actually hear what they were saying.

This was back in the days when people still had other little boxes with antennas on the top that would reproduce sounds (and marvel of marvels, even pictures!) from a distance. It's not like "radio" should be a foreign concept to anyone. And yet, to these people, it was.

What was the solution to the problem of people thinking that nobody else could hear them talking on a radio? Was it to ENCRYPT the radio signal so nobody could understand what was being said? Oh, no. The only solution was to make listening to their signals illegal, and to make it illegal for other radios to be able to receive those signals.

So today, when it is almost trivial to build wideband receivers to add functionality to radios, we have laws that force manufacturers to cut large sections out of the available coverage, even after the functions of those frequencies are changing.

What is the moral of that story? Stupid people have stupid expectations, and the stupid laws that result from bending reality to their stupid expectations are, well, stupid. Now, I will admit that giving these stupid people the legal expectation that their secret conversations were secret did improve the quality of listening that the rest of us pragmatists who already owned radios heard. When people think they cannot be overheard, they will say the darndest things.

But please, rant about "reality" a bit more.

Re:Evidence

[ideonexus]

This reminds me of my days as an idiot juvenile delinquent, when I would shoplift from stores. Security guards would stop me occasionally, certain that I had been stealing. They would harass me and taunt me, but as long as I didn't open my trench coat, I was safe. They wouldn't dare search me and take the chance that I didn't have stolen goods on me, because they knew I'd slap them and their store with a lawsuit. The law protected a thief like me, but it's larger purpose was to protect the innocent from an invasion of privacy.

Obviously the same principle and consequences apply here. She wasn't the criminal, her privacy was invaded, and she should sue the police department and security company into the ground for damages. They majorly screwed up and this will have implications well beyond this case. It will put a damper on the methods law enforcement can use, but that's how our Constitution works.

Re:Evidence

[shentino]

Don't get me wrong. Invading privacy is a SERIOUS matter and I would happily attempt to sue the security company or press charges if I could, were I in her situation.

My point, however, was that barring direction or encouragement or will on the part of the police, they are not at fault for what a third party chooses to do of its own free will, and accordingly, should not be punished. To be blunt, don't punish the police for something the security company did.

Furthermore, there is no actionable quid pro quo if the police are doing things that the security company benefits from only incidentally.

The police, however, would have an obligation to act on any criminal conduct that was brought to their attention and over which they had jurisdiction. This includes both any evidence someone tosses their way, as well as any improprieties in how that evidence was gathered. They'd have to put the security company under an "invasion of privacy" microscope if the security company broke any criminal laws in the process of securing the evidence they turn in.

Failure to do so might well constitute consent from the state to continue whatever they did to get it, and if such was the case, said consent may be construed as creating an agency relationship, as acting on behalf of the police would be the only legal way to continue doing so if it would otherwise be criminal.

So I would look at whether or not the police knowingly tolerated a violation of criminal law by the security company in the process of gathering the evidence it chose to submit to the police.

As far as it being worse, I point out that, no matter how you find out, concealing a crime is usually itself a criminal offense. So if the security company, nosy as it was, found evidence of a crime, it would have been obligated to submit it to the police. It has also been well established that criminal actions are not entitled to a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. So if a crime has indeed been committed, the security company is not liable for invading her privacy.

Note though that they actually have to be right. They are not themselves police, and therefore they are not protected by probable cause. Private parties have to actually be right.

You and I both agree that the security company had no right to snoop, and then unconditionally report to the police.

If she's innocent, the security company is on the hook for privacy invasion. If she's committed a crime, however, the security company is off the hook, since the commission of a criminal act causes her to lose standing to have an expectation of privacy.

Re:Evidence

[MimeticLie]

The issue, though, is that the tech wasn't using the webcam to take the pictures, he was intercepting them as she sent them to her boyfriend. Wiretapping statues are very broad in the US; if they can be applied to videotaping cops, I'm sure they could be made to fit a situation where someone's communication was actually intercepted.

Add to that the fact that there was enough uncertainty that she knew it was stolen for the prosecutor to drop charges against her and the fact that the case survived this motion for summary judgement, and it certainly seems like she has a better case than you think.

Re:Evidence

[PRMan]

Unless she put video with an audio track, wiretapping laws don't apply. They only apply to audio.

Re:Evidence

[PRMan]

Wiretapping is only for audio. These are pictures.

Re:Evidence

[MimeticLie]

That's incorrect as far as the US Code is concerned:

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how state wiretapping laws are written, but if they follow the federal example, electronic communication counts.

Re:Evidence

[Ambvai]

On the subject of cell phones and radios... a few years back [3ish?] I was trying to call somebody and ended up picking up somebody else's signal. Well. I was bored, so I pretty much sat there for half an hour during lunch, listening to some guy yell at his credit card company about unauthorized charges that happened a month ago.

Scary thing was that there was a particular spot in the building where I would consistently get other phone calls.

Re:Evidence

[snowgirl]

That's incorrect as far as the US Code is concerned:

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how state wiretapping laws are written, but if they follow the federal example, electronic communication counts.

You're correct that it doesn't concern only audio communications. Rather, it applies to any and all recordings of CONVERSATIONS or language communication. If the tech was only intercepting pictures, then again, she has no case for claiming wiretapping.

Re:Evidence

[Whuffo]

This sounds great if you're going on a fishing expedition. Heck, we don't know what kind of evidence you might have or if you'll dispose of it, so let's come kick your door in and search through your possessions. If you've done nothing wrong, you won't have anything to worry about, right?

There are specific rules for gathering evidence. The constitution may be tattered, but it still is the law of the land and it speaks to this particular issue.

I'm still trying to find a way to justify that "she only paid $60 so she knew it was stolen" stuff. If she'd paid less than $100 for a new HP TouchPad would that prove it was stolen? Did anyone consider the value of a used laptop in a buyer's market? $60 may have been the fair market value of that item, not proof that she knew it was stolen.

Maybe, just maybe - she bought that laptop in good faith at a reasonable price. The previous owner left some monitoring software on it and things went downhill from there. Now the monitoring company has been caught sharing her personal information with the public so they're going to toss up all the plausible deniability they can to escape legal liability for their acts. It's cheaper to pay off that previous owner to say what they want than to pay their lawyers, you know.

Re:Evidence

[snowgirl]

The 4th Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, preserves the rights of citizens by limiting the power of the federal government. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that says I cannot take steps to monitor my property to ensure it's return if/when stolen.

Point of pedantry: under the 14th amendment nearly all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to apply to state and local governments as well.

Re:Evidence

[protektor]

There are only 2-3 states where that is an issue. All the other states say that only 1 person has to know about the recording for it to be legal. This goes right back to being able to film police and if it is legal or not. You might want to actually read up on this before you comment.

Re:Evidence

[SecurityGuy]

No, she's not being punished. There'd be a case there if her pictures were posted on the internet, but they weren't. They were acquired by a company acting with the authorization of the laptop owner, and given to the police. Good luck making the case that giving evidence of a crime to the police is itself a crime. Had the police recovered the laptop, they might well have analyzed the laptop to find out who had it and found the pictures themselves. Sorry, it's unfortunate for this woman that her pictures fell into hands she didn't intend, but the laptop owner didn't do anything wrong. She should sue the idiot student who sold her stolen property.

The police did, however, do something wrong. I don't see an issue with them getting the pictures, but they quite frankly need to stfu as far as their opinion on her sexual conduct goes. It's none of their concern, and they should respect her right to act any way she wishes with another consenting adult. I don't know if it's actionable or not, but I won't feel bad if the police get into hot water for it.

Re:Evidence

[protektor]

IP address does not prove anything. It doesn't even prove where the laptop is/was. How do you know that the laptop wasn't connected to her neighbor's wifi? Do you know that for a fact? The IP address would not tell you that she was using her neighbor's wifi. It would make it seem like the neighbor was the one with the laptop, but the pictures of who is actually using the laptop tell a different story. This is exactly why all of these type of programs take a picture with the web cam when possible so they can see who exactly is using the computer.

Re:Evidence

[SecurityGuy]

This sounds great if you're going on a fishing expedition

Nonsense. It's a fishing expedition if you search through my possessions looking for evidence of a crime without having any specific crime you're investigating. In other words, just pawing through my personal effects trying to find something to pin on me. That didn't happen at all in this case. This was a stolen item. The evidence specifically relates to where it is, and who has it.

There are specific rules for gathering evidence

Yes, there are, and they don't apply to private citizens UNLESS they are acting under color of law. Me paying a company to access my webcam when my laptop goes missing does not qualify.

The woman who bought the laptop is clearly a victim here, she's just not the victim of the laptop owner. She's the victim of her criminal student who sold her stolen property.

Re:Evidence

[protektor]

It depends on the state. Most states have said you can record as long as at least 1 person knows they are being recorded. Given that the true owner of the laptop knew that the laptop was recording, I would find it hard to believe that the courts would say that the owner can not record pictures via the web cam to prove who actually stole or was using the stolen laptop at one point. That would have to be the most stupid legal ruling out there and would cause huge problems for other issues where people are trying to retrieve stolen items.

Sorry but the criminals or those dealing in stolen merchandise do not deserve more protections than the actual owner who is trying to retrieve their stolen property. If she has a problem then she should go after the kid and his family that sold her the stolen laptop. Why she didn't completely reformat and reinstall the OS if it was messed up I will never know. That is one of the first things you should do with a used computer or laptop. Is completely reformat the system and install the OS fresh. If she didn't get reinstall disks then she should have known something was not quite right. She could have also called the manufacturer and ordered the disks if she didn't get any and she would have known it was stolen then. So I don't feel for her one bit. Whenever I buy used computers and electronics the very first thing I do is register as the new owner with the manufacturer, so if there is a problem I will know right away and so I get any support available to me, or any offers they have for people who buy their device used.

Re:Evidence

[protektor]

The security company can *NOT* be an agent of the police. They are absolutely *NOT* acting on behalf of the police. They could care less about the police and what the police will or won't do. The security company is acting on behalf of the rightful owner of the laptop. If the owner of the laptop said send me the information and I'll take care of the issue from here, then that is exactly what the security company would have done. I would bet that in fact is exactly what the security company did. The owner said track it, they did and then sent the laptop owner the results for him to take to the police or whatever he wanted to do. The police can't activate the Lo-Jack on a car without the owner's permission or a warrant. So they are not acting on behalf of the police. The same thing here. The police can't just call up and say hey tell me where this laptop is.

So no the security company absolutely is *NOT* an agent of the police. An agent of police could be told hey go do this by the police and they would, without a court order. That is the nature and whole point of being an agent of the police, the person isn't acting under court order but simply the authority of the police. No security company is going to do anything simply because the police tell them to do it, not without a court order, and then they are not an agent of the police, but rather complying with a lawful court order.

Re:Evidence

[protektor]

WRONG! Actually go and look at what the court said. It didn't say that anyone went to far. It said that the case wasn't cut and dry and thus would not be simply thrown out. The court did *NOT* decide any facts about the case one way or the other, other than to say there might be a case here, and it wasn't a situation where the case should definitely be thrown out right at the start. That is a huge difference from the court saying someone screwed up. This is just the court saying...ehhh maybe there is a case here, we don't know for sure so we are going to allow the case to go forward at this point.

Re:Evidence

[protektor]

I don't see how there is going to be a Constitutional violation here at all. Exactly which amendment of the Constitution was violated and by whom? Unlawful search and seizure? Well the police didn't do the search and seizure of the laptop, the security company did. The laptop wasn't her's so it wasn't unlawful. So exactly where is the unlawful part? Was her privacy violated? Maybe, but I don't think so since everything was done in an attempt to find out who was using the laptop, to make sure they got the right person, and where the laptop was. Only the security company's people (maybe 1-2 people), maybe the owner (1 person), and the police and prosecuting attorney who got the warrant and the judge (maybe) saw the pictures. Doesn't seem like a lot of people to me, and all of them but the owner are professionals so I don't see the problem here.

I absolutely do not think that any kind of ruling should be done that removes rights from the rightful owner to trackdown and recover their stolen property. Why didn't she register the laptop with the manufacturer in case the laptop was recalled for product defects and safety issues? The fact that she didn't, I suspect is because she knew it was sold to her cheaper than the market is for it. I always register my used equipment with the manufacturer to make sure I know about product recalls or whatever. If I get a stolen used item then I will know instantly when I register it with the manufacturer.

It would have to be a pretty old laptop to be realistically worth only $60. Why the kid couldn't just reinstall the OS to fix the problem himself should tell you a lot about the fact it was probably a stolen laptop. I don't feel sorry for her one bit.

 

Re:Evidence

[hawk]

>Don't you see, the cops /had/ to look at those pictures. If
>they didn't we would accuse them of being incompetent.

instead, justice got blinded. :)

hawk

Re:Evidence

[MimeticLie]

I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. Again, I point to the US Code, specifically from the Definitions section of that same chapter:

(12) “electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include—
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;

Emphasis mine again.

Re:Evidence

[Roger W Moore]

If she's innocent, the security company is on the hook for privacy invasion.

Why? If she is innocent all this means is that she was conned by the criminal who stole the laptop. The laptop is still not hers and, as well as losing the money she spent buying the laptop, it turns out she has also ended up being fooled into putting her priviate photos onto a device where there was (unbeknownst to her) no expectation of privacy.

If somehow believing that she really was the owner of the laptop means that she suddenly gains all the rights of the real owner then the next thing you know she will be suing the original owner for the $60 she paid for his laptop!

Of course the law does not operate on common sense so I've no idea whether she has a legal case or not but if we do follow common sense then surely she should be suing the criminal who caused her to expose these photos to the police and software company in the first place rather than go after the people who were trying to help!

Re:Evidence

[iamhassi]

It's a stolen laptop. "I didn't know it was stolen" is not a valid defense according to US law anymore than "I didn't know the speed limit". If she's somehow wins based on "I didn't know it was stolen" then that will make the "I didn't know" defense valid and suddenly anyone can claim "I didn't know" and get off.

She's going to lose the case. Sure the judge allowed her to proceed, but "I didn't know" is not an excuse to break the law. Besides her story doesn't really add up, buying a $60 laptop from a student and having it "fixed up" but never finding the tracking software? Somehow she was savvy enough to fix it but not smart enough to find the tracking software really doesn't add up, even if she hired someone to fix it they should have found the software.

Re:Evidence

[iamhassi]

She is being punished, her private pictures are being distributed around without her permission.

And they where not evidence in a criminal case. All they need was location.

they were used in a criminal case, but the charges were dropped. Just because the prosecuting attorney decides not to bring the case to trial doesn't mean the evidence does not exist.

Re:Evidence

[nosferatu1001]

1) She took the pictures
2) If by spread around you mean "handed over to the police as evidence in the commission of a possible crime", then youre correct.

Re:Evidence

[snowgirl]

I can't find any relevant case law that overrides your understanding of the text. However I should note, the intent of the wiretapping laws was to protect communications, and as such, a picture containing static that I send to someone else isn't particularly "communication", and thus is outside of the scope of the purpose of the law. That being said, interception of a fax is an interception of an image that also conveys communication, and therefore would fall into the scope of the purpose of the law.

Considering the later hypothetical, I don't know how well this argument would fly in court, but any lawyer who doesn't at least attempt to argue it ("It's not communication and was thus outside of the purpose of the law") is not a good lawyer.

But I will agree, it's highly likely that any judge would rule that images transmitted through the internet would qualify as wiretapping. Of course, this also assumes that the communication was interstate (an erotic webcam chat between g/f and b/f? Almost certainly interstate, if they were in the same state, they would more likely just get together). If the communication was intrastate, then the Federal laws don't even matter, and the individual state involved is the relevant matter. (As with anything in law, the more you poke at it, the more exceptions end up falling out.)

Re:Evidence

[xaxa]

The woman who bought the laptop is clearly a victim here, she's just not the victim of the laptop owner. She's the victim of her criminal student who sold her stolen property.

She played her part in the theft of the laptop by buying it.

It's for the court to decide how she should be punished for this. Normally, someone who buys stolen goods that they would reasonably think were legitimate (e.g. a used bicycle for a fair price in a shop) has no punishment beyond forfeiting the goods. Knowing the goods are stolen obviously warrants some punishment, and there's a whole area in between, where a normal person should be suspicious.

Re:Evidence

[delinear]

No, it's not like you putting the pictures on the internet, it's like you showing the pictures to the police in order for them to identify a possible culprit, and those pictures then being used by a judge and jury in a court case. In that case the question in your hypothetical example is whether the person in the picture was criminally culpable for trespass - i.e. should they have reasonably known they were illegally in someone else's house or were they acting in good faith. That person suing you for using your security system to identify them is ridiculous.

Re:Evidence

[delinear]

What if she was caught on CCTV in the local Starbucks using the laptop. Would that be evidence the police could use? If so, apart from her false expectation of privacy (she was using someone else's laptop and even if she didn't know it was stolen she evidently hadn't checked that there was no snooping software on there) I see no difference here. If anything, the manager of Starbucks would be obstructing the police in their investigation if he didn't give them the footage.

Re:Evidence

[TheCRAIGGERS]

It's a stolen laptop. "I didn't know it was stolen" is not a valid defense according to US law anymore than "I didn't know the speed limit". If she's somehow wins based on "I didn't know it was stolen" then that will make the "I didn't know" defense valid and suddenly anyone can claim "I didn't know" and get off.

She's not claiming the laptop is hers. She's not fighting that part. What she's fighting is that her expectation of privacy was breached when they intercepted her nude photos and shared them.

Besides her story doesn't really add up, buying a $60 laptop from a student and having it "fixed up" but never finding the tracking software? Somehow she was savvy enough to fix it but not smart enough to find the tracking software really doesn't add up, even if she hired someone to fix it they should have found the software.

So, you don't think it's impossible to find a "broken" laptop for cheap? I'm sure all of us have stories of people having a "broken" computer that only needed a reinstall of an OS, or perhaps a virus cleaning. Many people doesn't understand how the software can be totally fucked and the hardware 100% fine. And if the laptop is a year or two old, it might be worth it for the seller to just go buy a new one anyway, rather than paying Best Buy $300 to format and reinstall the OS.

Also, I've never used such tracking software before (so I could be wrong), but I'd imagine such software is designed to be hard to find or remove. If it were as simple as uninstalling "Laptop Anti-Theft Software version 4.52" from the Add/Remove programs, I don't think many people would buy it. Besides, if she truly did buy it (and I have no reason to doubt her story), than she wouldn't be looking for such software, like a savvy thief might be.

Re:Evidence

[Coren22]

The LoJack software hides in hardware. It isn't installed on the hard drive.

Re:Evidence

[michelcolman]

I hope the jury and everyone else in the courtroom will get to see the pictures. That will teach her :-)

Re:Evidence

[_0xd0ad]

Most states have said you can record as long as at least 1 person knows they are being recorded

Not quite. One-party wiretap laws require one party to the conversation to know they're being recorded. If she truly didn't know that the laptop was stolen, she was justified in believing that it was her device, and therefore in believing that the only two parties to her conversation were herself and her boyfriend. That is why she is claiming it's a violation of her privacy.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that the pictures should be available to the police and to the court. But they did violate her privacy by revealing to the public the nature of the pictures that they found, after it was determined that she hadn't stolen it. It required a gross breach of professionalism for us to ever learn about their existence.

Re:Evidence

[iamhassi]

Not entirely true. While they make the claim "Our software refuses to give up easily — even laptops with wiped or removed hard drives can be recovered." they also have a limited number of OSes they support, Windows and Mac only. IF the LoJack was truly hardware based it really wouldn't matter what OS you're running. LoJack doesn't support Linux so wipe it and put any version of Linux on the drive and you're in the clear.

Re:Evidence

[virg_mattes]

The laptop is still not hers and, as well as losing the money she spent buying the laptop, it turns out she has also ended up being fooled into putting her priviate photos onto a device where there was (unbeknownst to her) no expectation of privacy.

This makes little sense in legal terms. If she has supportable expectation of privacy, then it's an expectation independent of actual ownership. Deceit on the part of the original thief doesn't nullify that.

If somehow believing that she really was the owner of the laptop means that she suddenly gains all the rights of the real owner then the next thing you know she will be suing the original owner for the $60 she paid for his laptop!

The argument is that reasonable belief of ownership gives her all the privacy rights of a real owner, not all legal rights in general.

Of course the law does not operate on common sense so I've no idea whether she has a legal case or not but if we do follow common sense then surely she should be suing the criminal who caused her to expose these photos to the police and software company in the first place rather than go after the people who were trying to help!

The company that intercepted the photos was in no way helping nor offering to help her, and neither were the police, and her argument is that there was no right nor need to intercept nor pass on these photos in the course of investigating the theft of the laptop. In that, I entirely agree. An argument could be made that intercepted data could be useful in tracking down the laptop and the thief, but there was a violation of privacy in retaining these photos and a lack of due diligence on the part of the security company for not reviewing the data they captured and sending only that which would be reasonable to pursue the theft, and destroying the rest.

Virg

Pics or it didn't happen!

[myurr]

Actually maybe the boyfriend is long distance for a reason and we shouldn't be looking for the pics!

Re:Pics or it didn't happen!

[JabberWokky]

What the hell? My wife just went to go get me coffee, and she's fresh out of the shower. I just had a magnificent set of breasts next to my head. I'm guessing that most people here have access to a naked member of their preferred gender, or are in between partners. More over, we see our kids naked, deal with changing on boats or while camping with friends... nakedness, even erotic photos, aren't exactly the most notable things in the world. Pretty much everybody gets naked.

Can we please just act like adults, realize the photos were part of tracking down evidence, and not act like a women without clothes on is an exceptional thing? Who the hell cares? The police used them to identify the possessor of the stolen goods. What's next? Giggling after you shake an oncologist's hands because he's touched lots of boobs?

Seriously? $60?

[macbeth66]

This was stolen equipment. Everything and anything on it is evidence. Sorry, tough luck, cookie.

Can I get a copies of the pics?

Karma's a bitch

[GodfatherofSoul]

You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned. About as dumb as people who download hacking binaries.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[i kan reed]

Yes, you should always buy from theives at retail prices. That will drive down demand for theft.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[jandrese]

Why would someone buy a laptop from a crackhead on the street corner when you could buy one for the same price legit that comes with stuff like tech support and a lack of cops busting down your door a week later? You're basically trading money for risk when buying from a fence.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[randomaxe]

You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned.

I guess I should cancel my order for that $99 TouchPad, then?

Re:Karma's a bitch

[YodasEvilTwin]

Some people know how to re-install an OS.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new on the Internet.
Visit Craigslist or Ebay. Lots of people there selling stuff for real cheap because they really want to get rid of it fast, and because few people would buy from a complete stranger at normal price.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[hedwards]

I agree, $60 for a broken laptop is most likely too little, but by the same token, it's not something I would personally know had I not sold a previous laptop off piece by piece.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Technician]

Probably was stolen without the charger. It became non functional due to a low battery. Fixed may be AC adapter purchased.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Hatta]

Spending money on computer repair is always dumb.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Jeng]

She was dumb for not contacting the parents and making sure it was legit deal.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Kittenman]

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.

Yep - those people are just dumb idiots, eh? Not that I know much about them, of course.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Spending money on computer repair is always dumb.

That's the dumbest thing I've read all week. And I read Digg, so that's no small feat.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[lavagolemking]

TFA says it's LoJack. You may not have known, but LoJack is embedded in the BIOS so the backdoor program (which is whitelisted by most AVs) gets silently restored each time Windows is re-installed. Unless the buyer is installing Linux, it doesn't matter how many times you reinstall the OS because the loJack will re-install from the motherboard each time.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[geekoid]

Well, we read the article.
We know the lie, now.
You can fix a computer and, shockingly, not re-install the OS, or remove it and back it up, then recovery the image after the repair. I'm sure that's shocking to people like you that can't fix anything themselves.

If it was an image, then yes the software would be put back with the rest of the image.

If the laptop cost 60, and it was 60 bucks for the repair, ti could eb a deal. I can by a smashed car for 500 bucks, then spend 1500 getting it fixed and then have a car with 3000 dollars. People buy broken things and have people fix them for resale or use all the time.

You cost issue is a strawman. You don't know what was fixed, so you can't possible know if it is more then a eq. laptop.

Plus, maybe she thought she was helping the kid out, so it was worth a break even for her?
SInce the COURT investigated her story, and every one of your points is fallacies, we have good reason to suspect her story is true. We don't know the details.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[fermion]

She bought a non-functional laptop
The story only says that she claimed the student claimed it was "messed up" and that she took it somewhere to have it fixed. If the computer was truly in bad shape, and required work, one would think that the hard disk would have been reformatted in which case the recovery software would presumably have been deleted. There would have been no reason not to reformat the HD since she had no information on it. The fact that the hard disk was not reformatted could mean that she had no idea it was stolen, or that there was nothing wrong with computer in the first place and she was not aware of the security software.

from one of her students
At an alternative high school, where the student might tend to be a bit less law abiding than normal. High schools are full of laptops to give student access to current technology and teach them needed skills, but many students merely see these as quick cash for walking around and date money. Any legitimate teacher knows this, even at a regular high school, and would never buy a computer from a student, especially anything that looked like a school computer, which according to the article this was one, which is why the recovery software was on it. She, as a substitute teacher, took advantage of the one degree of removal, and made the purchase. There is no way in hell that this was not receiving stolen merchandise. Even if it wasn't, there are strict guidelines on what students can legitimately sell on campus, so if she broke no laws, she likely broke her contract with the district.

Slashdot refer to others as "dumb" or "idiots" without bothering to get even a modicum of information
The article gives plenty of information to judge this personal as at least a criminal, if not a stupid one. School laptops tend to be distinctive, often model not widely available to consumers. To get one out of the school, one has to be sneaky, as they are clearly identifiable. She either had to buy outside on the street or sneak it out of school herself. Any defense, that the computer was "messed up" and she paid to fix it, is not only irrelevant but complete here say. Even the story of buying it from a student is hearsay. I find it much more likely she stole the machine from the school and then tried to blame it on the student.

Even if the story is true, it is people like her that make it difficult to keep high end equipment for the majority of kids that want an education, not just a quick fix.

I also want to comment on the idea of the recovery software. This case proves it is needed. The taxpayer buys computers for the kids to use, not for employees to steal. It may be that schools should not buy computers for home use, but that is not the case here. Furthermore, the case for not taking sex pictures on the computer is that the computer does not provide the legal level of privacy equal to a sealed envelope sent through USPS. That the naked pictures were published were the result of multiple levels of bad decisions, not just one.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Just Some Guy]

You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned.

I have computers I'd sell for that price, all legitimate and everything. Furthermore, our school system sells old computers each summer for next to nothing. I bought a nice Mac, complete with OS install disks, for $30. $60 isn't an outlandishly cheap price for a used computer, depending on its source. For a brand new Macbook Pro? Stolen. However, the article said "[t]he student told her that the laptop was messed up and that his parents had given him a new one." How many perfectly good computers have we all seen thrown out because they were loaded with viruses and running slow?

Re:Karma's a bitch

[game kid]

Well, that sudden hardware-business exit does scream "fly-by-night"...

Re:Karma's a bitch

[rahvin112]

There is not a word in that article saying there was one single problem with the hardware. The implication I take from the wording is that the computer had a software problem. As she worked as a teacher at an alternative high school (PC for HS for juvenile delinquents) and she purchased a stolen laptop which had been stolen from another school district (wonder what those asset tags are for) I'm willing to wager it's highly likely she knew the damn thing was stolen and counted on not being caught. The police believed her story so well they charged her with receiving stolen property (the charges were dropped later, probably DA didn't think she/he could win the case).

Re:Karma's a bitch

[MMC Monster]

I guess any suitably old laptop could be had for $100 or less. After all, we live in an age of people targeting $200 for new laptops ( http://www.laptopsunder.net/ ).

Why is it so hard to believe that a used one would be less than $100?

Re:Karma's a bitch

[dr_dank]

"Crackhead" is such a harsh word. I prefer "processed cocaine enthusiast".

Re:Karma's a bitch

[crabboy.com]

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.

If only such foolishness were limited to Slashdot...

Re:Karma's a bitch

[rednip]

Honest men don't consider buying from thieves at all, the 'too good of a deal' is the best clue of it's illegality for such men, rather than a plan to pay a higher price for some social-economic affect of a strawman agenda.

I've had friends (fellow slacker roommates from upper middle class families) who were active thieves. I've seen people ask them if the item for sale was stolen, but as a negotiation tactic more than anything. Also, typically they wanted rid of the item quickly, with the price more in line with what they needed rather than what the items were worth. If you knew how much they needed (sometimes just lunch money, but more often for drugs, part of rent, etc) one would have a real 'advantage' in negotiations. However, be more careful if you think they may be armed and/or mentally unstable**.

*thieves sometimes pass though stages where this true as they have little connection to their own goods as any others. But no one comes up with a new but used item every week.
**Mental stability could be a continuing worry, if they consider you a buddy. However, as they would only give such a good deal for a buddy, it can be a default position. Buddies sometimes are 'called upon', but you shouldn't worry unless of the type to help. If that would be problematic, you can try to 'keep it business', but you'd loose some of the 'buddy discount'.

Now that you might know a little more about the most common and obvious thieves, perhaps the next time you can buy from one at a better price.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[syousef]

I guess I should cancel my order for that $99 TouchPad, then?

A touchpad that doesnt have any reasonable prospect of software being built for it. Yes you should cancel. It's not worth $99.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[jamesh]

You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned.

I guess I should cancel my order for that $99 TouchPad, then?

Yes. But not for the reason you think.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[fistfullast33l]

You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned. About as dumb as people who download hacking binaries.

TFA doesn't mention the age of type of laptop. I sold my 7 year old Dell Inspiron on eBay for $100, originally purchased for $1600. It worked just fine, except I had Linux on it and they were going to install Windows. We don't have enough details here to make a judgement either way. If it was brand new, the I say she should have used her judgement. But a few years old, then you never really know. This was a school library laptop, so it really could go either way.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[virg_mattes]

Where do you people get the idea that it was broken or that she repaired it or paid to have it repaired?

She said it herself.

The seller claimed it was "messed up" as part of his justification for the low price. Maybe. That's what SHE claims. Even if he did say it, that doesn't mean it's true. He also said it was his to sell and we know that was a lie. The "messed up" claim is part of HER justification for the low price. Absolutely no proof of any kind that it had any basis in reality.

Your argument reverses. The fact that he lied about ownership offers no proof that it wasn't actually messed up, nor does it make any sense to accuse her of lying because he lied.

How broken could it be if the tracking software was still intact and functioning while she was using it? Do you think they re-loaded and configured the tracking software during the repair?

Firstly, there are many repairs that don't require changes to the OS (a broken hinge or keyboard, for example). Secondly, The tracking software is lojack, which is BIOS-based and will silently reinstall itself from the motherboard after an OS wipe. Therefore, your argument comes up nonsensical.

And it doesn't make any sense for her to buy a broken laptop if she didn't have the skills to repair it herself. Any visit to a repair shop is going to push the price beyond the price of a brand new low-end laptop.

This precludes the possibility that she knows someone who was capable of the repair who would do it without being paid (perhaps, in exchange for cybersex or something...) so again your argument is nonsense.

The whole "it was broken" think is a red herring with no evidence to back it up and plenty to contradict it.

Both of the arguments you presented are demonstrably meaningless so your accusation is unsupportable.

Virg

Re:Karma's a bitch

[virg_mattes]

The fact that the hard disk was not reformatted could mean that she had no idea it was stolen, or that there was nothing wrong with computer in the first place and she was not aware of the security software.

Or it could indicate that the software is lojack (which it was, in this case), which is BIOS based and reinstalls from the motherboard when the OS is wiped and reinstalled. That fact that you didn't know that is more than sufficient evidence that she shouldn't be expected to know it either.

There is no way in hell that this was not receiving stolen merchandise.

Strange only to you, the judge involved decided that it wasn't a case for prosecution and dismissed the charges against her.

Even if it wasn't, there are strict guidelines on what students can legitimately sell on campus, so if she broke no laws, she likely broke her contract with the district.

Do you have any proof at all that this is the case, or are you just making stuff up as you go? Citation please, or you're just slandering her.

The article gives plenty of information to judge this personal as at least a criminal, if not a stupid one. School laptops tend to be distinctive, often model not widely available to consumers. To get one out of the school, one has to be sneaky, as they are clearly identifiable. She either had to buy outside on the street or sneak it out of school herself. Any defense, that the computer was "messed up" and she paid to fix it, is not only irrelevant but complete here say. Even the story of buying it from a student is hearsay. I find it much more likely she stole the machine from the school and then tried to blame it on the student.

You state an awful lot of "facts" here with no evidence that any of it is remotely true, and since the judge reviewed the case and dismissed the charges against her, I have to say that it's rather more likely that you're talking out of your ass than that you have some special insight as to what happened here. Moreover, you make several statements about how the laptop belonged to the school district, and that's factually false. It did belong to a school district, but a different one than the one in which she purchased it, so all of your commentary about "distinctive" is outright crap. As to "model not widely available to consumers", the general public could not be expected to know that, and again, the laptop wasn't from the school district she was teaching in so assuming it matched the laptops in the school is pure speculation.

Virg

Hmmm, children naked photos

[Anonymous Coward]

What happen it is naked picture of small child? My mom took a lot of picture when I am toddler, some including bathing activities. Does that constitute transmitting child pornography by the software company?

Re:Hmmm, children naked photos

[padraic2]

If only there was a way to ascertain the details of the article being discussed...

Re:Hmmm, children naked photos

[Bucky24]

People have been arrested for doing stuff like that, even though their intent was not illegal.

"she should have known"

[Anonymous Coward]

She purchased a laptop for $60 from a high school student. I'm comfortable believing she knew it was stolen. She just didn't care.

Re:"she should have known"

[rubycodez]

article said it needed to be fixed first. I love buying $2000 systems on ebay for $75 that need $100 part

Re:"she should have known"

[sjames]

She bought a "messed up" laptop for $60. It really was "messed up" since she then had to have it repaired before she could use it.

What do you suppose would be the minimum price of an old BROKEN laptop before a buyer who has no clue about PC repair should believe it's stolen?

Re:"she should have known"

[Riceballsan]

My local goodwill has similar prices on PCs etc... never seen a laptop at that price, but I wouldn't be shocked to. Pawn shops and desperate students you could expect similar, particularly if the laptop is very old. I still fail to see the arguement, she bought it cheap she had to know it was stolen. Secondly there is the fact that dozens of people have looked at the pictures before they tracked the laptop down and learned the price it sold for. It isn't so much an issue of whether or not she is inocent or guilty, it's a detail of what they snooped before learning any of it. For all they know while looking at her pictures, she could have paid $500 on ebay.

Re:"she should have known"

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations....
          According to the story, the student told her it was broken, and he had been given a new one. It also states that she had to get it fixed. There are no details on HOW it was broken or fixed, alas. Add to that the concept of a "good faith purchase" that can be at least a partial shield against prosecution. Putting all this together, it is possible that she "should have known" it was stolen, and, perhaps in a perfect world, she would have contacted the parents to find out if the student's story was true. However, it is not completely implausible that the story went down exactly as she said, and, there was no indication that the laptop was stolen. I have had a number of clients that I have credited similar amounts when I transferred their data from their "dead' laptop to the replacement they have purchased so the amount is not QUITE low enough to be questionable. In return, I would keep the "dead" computer. It works out well for both of us, as they don't have to deal with having it around the house, and disposing of it, and, I can usually get some useful hardware to fix something else, or sell. Sometimes, simply wiping the setup EEPROM. replacing the hard drive and installing Linux is all that is needed to get it back up and running happily.
          I have to say, though, that treating her data in such a casual fashion is a bad thing and leaves the security company and the police in a position where they SHOULD have their hands smacked. Nude photos are one thing, but, what if there had been significant amounts of financial information on the hard drive? Would it have been "OK" if the security company's lack of care and assumption that she was guilty resulted in identity theft and the associated complications and emotional pain it brings?
            Another point that seems to have fallen by the wayside is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Since the charges against the young woman were eventually dropped, either the prosecutors felt that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of knowingly receiving stolen property, or she cut a deal with them to roll on the student she bought the laptop from (it would be interesting to know how far the prosecutors are willing to go for a laptop that MIGHT have a value of $500) In any case, at this point she is innocent but gullible..and has learned a painful lesson about privacy on the Internet. Perhaps next time she will be wise enough to encrypt private data with PGP!

Re:"she should have known"

[Hatta]

Perhaps next time she will be wise enough to encrypt private data with PGP!

If your computer has been owned, whether by hackers or lojack, PGP is no help. Keyloggers defeat PGP.

Re:"she should have known"

[Eskarel]

When you're a teacher buying said laptop from a student at a school for juvenile delinquents you should assume that everything they own is stolen and not buy it.

Why do people still do this?

[godless dave]

I thought everyone knew by now that if you send a nude photo of yourself to someone else in electronic form, it will inevitably end up on the internet.

Prude police officer?

[tibit]

According to the Forbes article, one of the arresting police officers was "prudish" and found her naked pics "disgusting". The proper retort to this: keep your thoughts to yourself, dude. It's none of your business whether her photos are disgusting to you or not. She did nothing illegal by taking naked pics of herself. End of story. Sigh.

Re:Prude police officer?

[Jeng]

Probably just immature. The pics were of a 52 year old woman, not a very sexually appealing one apparently.

Re:Prude police officer?

[sjames]

He sounds to me like one of those people who delights in finding things offensive. The sort who will look over and over so he can be offended again.

Re:Prude police officer?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Free speech is not about protecting the ability of professionals acting on behalf of the state to pass comment (in their professional capacity) on the public.

Re:Prude police officer?

[tibit]

AC, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you!

Re:Prude police officer?

[tibit]

Gave me good laugh for the end of the day. Thanks!

Re:Prude police officer?

[mywhitewolf]

Especially sensitive matters like a naked photo.

how can AC not see the difference between a police officer who has no right to an opinion on this matter (don't we trust them not to have an opinion & remain impartial?) and a private citizen displaying displeasure at unprofessional conduct.

Re:Prude police officer?

[Bucky24]

Depends on if the cop made the comments in an official capacity. As in, was he acting as a citizen or a police officer when he said it? If a citizen, yes those rights apply. As an officer of the law, he should not have made those comments because that is beyond his official capacity.

The police officer should have contacted a member of the Fashion and Beauty Police for official comment on the photos.

Re:Prude police officer?

[cheekyjohnson]

don't we trust them not to have an opinion & remain impartial?

They're most likely going to have an opinion whether they say it or not. I don't really care what little comments they make.

Re:Prude police officer?

[mywhitewolf]

what if the little comment was "fucking nigger"?

I use to have photos of my self and my wife on our honeymoon doing the nasty. I'd be pretty upset if the police went through it, I'd be much angrier if they dared to so much as have an opinion about what i privately recorded for myself and my wife.

Cops have the law to judge people on.. judging others outside of this is completely inappropriate. Or do we not expect police to maintain professionalism when forcefully invading and involving themselves in others personal lives?

Re:Prude police officer?

[cheekyjohnson]

what if the little comment was "fucking nigger"?

I don't care. As long as they do not actively discriminate against people through action, I think they can hold whatever opinion they please.

I'd be much angrier if they dared to so much as have an opinion about what i privately recorded for myself and my wife.

They'll have an opinion whether they voice it to you or not.

Cops have the law to judge people on.. judging others outside of this is completely inappropriate.

I don't think what you're asking is possible. They're human. Upon seeing something, they will likely form their own opinion about it. This opinion will be there even if they do not speak it out loud.

Re:Prude police officer?

[mywhitewolf]

sorry, i should say. "I expect professionals of any capacity to keep their opinions to themselves, and not make press statements about such things". this needs to be especially true for the police who are legally protected and in some cases encouraged to violate your privacy and to completely expose you.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[hedwards]

Not really, if she genuinely didn't know that the laptop was stolen, then there's no crime so long as she returns the goods when notified. Granted it's stupid to buy a laptop for $60 from a boyfriend.

The photos themselves are evidence of illegal wiretapping, so they ultimately should have been provided to the police, so that the police could prosecute the company for the illegal wiretap.

This is classic

[jandrese]

According to a judicial opinion in the case (via Internet Cases), the officers “told her that she was stupid and that she was under arrest”

Apparently the cops on the scene didn't buy her "I didn't realize it was stolen" line for a second.

Re:This is classic

[lexsird]

Yes, we know cops are the fonts of wisdom in our society.

Re:This is classic

[metrometro]

> Apparently the cops on the scene didn't buy her "I didn't realize it was stolen" line for a second.

And that's why the burden of proof is on the state.

Re:This is classic

[bmo]

In spite of everything, being stupid is not a crime no matter how much one wishes it was so.

For a crime to have been committed, there has to be mens rea, a guilty mind. That's up to the state to prove. Whatever the cop thought didn't matter.

If being stupid was a crime, everyone would be in jail.

--
BMO

Re:This is classic

[hawk]

And why the shoe is on the other foot.

Oh wait, I guess she didn't have those, either. :)

hawk

Re:This is classic

[syousef]

In spite of everything, being stupid is not a crime no matter how much one wishes it was so.

For a crime to have been committed, there has to be mens rea, a guilty mind. That's up to the state to prove. Whatever the cop thought didn't matter.

If being stupid was a crime, everyone would be in jail.

--
BMO

Being stupid is not a crime, but (at least in Australia) keeping goods that a "reasonable man" would suspect stolen means you can be convicted of receiving stolen goods. Mens rea (Intent) is not an element of every crime and does not need to be proved in every crime. Consider man-slaughter.

Re:This is classic

[Kidbro]

Yes, we know cops are the fonts of wisdom in our society.

Nah, you're confusing them with courier sans.

Re:This is classic

[_0xd0ad]

Yes, we know cops are the fonts of wisdom in our society.

So they're sort of like a lexicon of insight?

Re:This is classic

[lexsird]

Of course, and they are chief of said liars and bullshit artists themselves. Have you ever taken a look at the incredibly predatory system that we call "law enforcement?" Of course there are monsters out there they have to deal with. But sometimes, when you hunt monsters, you become one yourself. It's amazing the insight one can get when one lives next to a police center and they come over for coffee and hang out. They can become really cynical and need grounding now and then. Most are really great people, but some, well some are worse than the criminals they hunt. What is amazing is the naivety they have about each others behaviors. Most of it is willing sadly.

How is $60 unreasonable?

[wall0645]

I am surprised that so many people are saying the low price of the laptop matters. I have bought both laptop and desktop computers legitimately for that price. I've sold people old computers of mine for less. Hell, I've *given* people computers I don't use. I of course did not RTFA and maybe this is a top of the line laptop bought in a dark alley, but $60 does not cry "obviously stolen" to me.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I have a laptop at home right now that I would sell for 60 dollars. It still works but given its age I would almost feel bad for the person who bought it.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[sjames]

It was used and "messed up", so I agree completely, $60 was not so cheap that it should raise the alarm.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, some netbooks retail new for 200 bucks on sale. Enough years of wear on 600 dollar laptop can put it down below 100 in value, let alone a broken one (as the article mentions). 60 bucks is no reason to think even a functional computer is stolen, people often undervalue these things after they have trouble getting people to buy it at 80% of retail. Since the amount of people who can actually fix these things is small, broken computer equipment tends to go for way less, even if it's only a few years old.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[HungWeiLo]

Because of the War on Drugs, it is possible to buy expensive electronics at 2am for $30 or less.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[smellsofbikes]

I am surprised that so many people are saying the low price of the laptop matters. I have bought both laptop and desktop computers legitimately for that price. I've sold people old computers of mine for less. Hell, I've *given* people computers I don't use. I of course did not RTFA and maybe this is a top of the line laptop bought in a dark alley, but $60 does not cry "obviously stolen" to me.

No doubt. The last computer I paid more than $200 for was an Amiga 2000 back in the 1980's. Every laptop I have was acquired broken and under $40, and I fixed them and started using them. She got a broken laptop and got it fixed. What kind of person pays more than $60 for a broken laptop? Rich people, I guess. Now with that said, when I buy a broken laptop the first thing I do before I start using it is pull the hard drive (and look around on it to see what's there) and put in a new drive with linux on it, so I probably wouldn't get bitten the way she did... but the laptop I'm typing this on, I bought for $35 on ebay because it was broken (missing keys, didn't boot correctly because the cpu was no longer solidly bonded to the heatsink.) That looks like a $35 laptop to me, but maybe it was stolen.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[Mr. Underbridge]

I might also consider that the teacher was working at an 'alternative' school. So you're buying a computer at a suspiciously low price from a student who's been subject to significant disciplinary action? I think any intelligent person should question the source of said computer.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[varmittang]

From the article it seems that here was a built in web cam. So is most likely a one or two year old laptop, so $60 was probably due to the fact he didn't have the username and password for it so it was unusable. Which should scream, STOLEN!!!!

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[ShakaUVM]

Thats the second time you are spewing this bile. Alternative high schools are for people who don't "fit" with the regular high school system. They are most certainly not filled with criminals or people on probation. The people there might simply be gay or lesbian, or simply don't fit into the 9-4 school system. Personally, I had a job to support myself at a young age and found that alternative high school was the only way that I could continue to go to school and also put food on the table.

Alternative schools are some of the best schools available. They teach thinking outside the box and will tailor their curriculum to your needs.

Alternative schools are some of the worst schools around, if you, you know, look at the numbers. But it's good they worked out for you. I have friends that did well at them, so I know where you're coming from.

But to be fair to the GP, there IS a large contingent of losers (no other way to put it) at alt highs.

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[hawk]

More bluntly, would you want some who can't make that connectionteachin *your* kids?

Hawk

Re:How is $60 unreasonable?

[NorQue]

Got a Notebook I bought June 2006 here with a built-in Webcam and I'm pretty sure that was already standard back then. Webcam is defnitely no indicator of a two year old computer.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Rehnberg]

Not illegal, however, since it was authorized by the legal owner of the computer.

Where are the nude photos?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Any links? I need to get a good overview of this case in order to be able to judge it impartially and in a professional manner.

Re:Where are the nude photos?

[Baloroth]

Yeah, pics or it didn't happen :)

I'm innocent officer I swear

[EEPROMS]

I can see it now in the police interview room..... I swear officer, how was I to know that a next to new $800 laptop with no manuals or documentation purchased of some crack user on the street for $60 was stolen.

Trust me she knew it was stolen and she is blowing smoke up everyones proverbial.

Re:I'm innocent officer I swear

[SoCalChris]

Low end laptops often go on sale for $250-$300. It's completely possible that someone would sell a 2-3 year old low end laptop that requires repairs for $60.

Re:I'm innocent officer I swear

[Calibax]

Trust you? Why? Do you have special knowledge of this case? I didn't notice anyone say it was a "next to new $800 laptop" in TFA.

I've got a couple of systems in the backroom that I'd happily sell you for $60 as I'm about to give them away because we need the space. They aren't new but they do work, if rather slowly and with somewhat small hard drives.

Why exactly do you think think that buying a non-functional laptop for $60 suggests it was stolen? And then she paid more money to have it repaired. I would have thought that a person knowingly buying a stolen computer would not expect to have to pay more money for repairs.

Did you read TFA? I know it's against all the principles of Slashdot, but that will sometimes give insights that will stop you looking entirely foolish when posting.

Re:I'm innocent officer I swear

[sjames]

How about the well used and BROKEN laptop that she actually bought from a student?

Re:I'm innocent officer I swear

[syousef]

Low end laptops often go on sale for $250-$300. It's completely possible that someone would sell a 2-3 year old low end laptop that requires repairs for $60.

I thought the standard was to sell it on Ebay as "slightly used".

Re:I'm innocent officer I swear

[Rinikusu]

I still pull laptops out of the garbage and find many that just need a good cleaning and a fresh OS install. I'm selling a broken laptop on CL right now for $100 (but I'll take $75) because I don't feel like paying $100 for a new LCD and taking the time to install it. I think a lot of folks here don't realize the rest of the world is not on a 6 month upgrade cycle and 5-6 year old hardware is still perfectly serviceable for the web, skype, etc. None of my current machines are newer than 2005, for example, and while I'm planning on upgrading to a new laptop, it's not because my current hardware is lacking, per se, it's because battery life and the associated tech is so much better. (thinkpad is down to about 2.5 hours of usage, my old vaio is lucky to get 45 minutes, the powerbook is at about 45 minutes, as well).

So, yeah, a 5 year old busted (say, just needs an OS install and maybe a new HD and a RAM upgrade?) Dell for $60? Doesn't sound too unreasonable.

Now, if this was a brand spanking new Macbook Air, yeah, I'd be suspicious.

Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid

[rolfwind]

and abet thieves by being their knowing customers. And at $60, you know that as a recent laptop it's stolen.

So cry me a river.

But still, I don't think it should compromise your right to privacy. Those pics were presumably taken in her home without her permission and should have been destroyed if it didn't add to the case.

Re:Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid

[iggymanz]

did you read article, said laptop had to be repaired first. care to change your point of view, or if not I have $60 thinkpad T23 laptop for you to buy that needs screen, hardrive, memory, networking module and battery pack.

Re:Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid

[rolfwind]

Of course I didn't read the story. Why else would I be on /.?

Re:Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid

[Jonner]

and abet thieves by being their knowing customers. And at $60, you know that as a recent laptop it's stolen.

So cry me a river.

But still, I don't think it should compromise your right to privacy. Those pics were presumably taken in her home without her permission and should have been destroyed if it didn't add to the case.

Photos are pretty useful for positively identifying people. If she didn't take any clothed pictures of herself, the naked ones were certainly important to the case. Otherwise, she could say "it's my nephew's laptop."

Re:Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid

[Jonner]

did you read article, said laptop had to be repaired first. care to change your point of view, or if not I have $60 thinkpad T23 laptop for you to buy that needs screen, hardrive, memory, networking module and battery pack.

It wasn't a good idea to use a laptop which needed to be repaired and had an uncertain history without reinstalling the operating system in any case. Even if it weren't stolen, it was still probably full of malware.

Re:Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid

[YrWrstNtmr]

abet thieves by being their knowing customers. And at $60, you know that as a recent laptop it's stolen.

Oh please. I bought my two current laptops for $50 each. A dualcore Sony VAIO, and a Compaq something or other. The Sony merely needed a wipe and reinstall (all virused up), and the Compaq just needed the dust blown out to allow the fan to run.

Re:Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid

[LunaticTippy]

Lojack resides in BIOS and reinstalls itself even if you replace the hard drive. A wipe does nothing.

Time to add MOTD EULAs to your equipment

[GryMor]

In the old shell style http://www.free-x.ch/pub/FreeBSD-IPFILTER.html (look for warning banner)

ALL PERSONS ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE USE OF THIS SYSTEM CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO MONITORING AND AUDITING.

Also, curse you lameness filter.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[hedwards]

Doesn't matter, it's still a violation of her rights. Just because the original owner authorized it, does not mean that they have the right to violate the wiretap laws involved. And in a case like this, the employees that opted to obtain the extra images ought to be prosecuted for doing the illegal wiretapping. Had they just stopped with the location of the device, they would be fine legally.

I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.

If someone beat those plaintiffs

[unity100]

because they have shared the photos of their naked asses with irrelevant people, they would suddenly start sympathizing, and if not, start considering what other people may feel, think and do.

that there are little repercussions in this society for inconsiderate acts, is encouraging such asshole behavior.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Riceballsan]

The knowingly is the grey area here it can't be proven either way yet, and certainly couldn't when the pictures were taken and investigated. I do have to agree on the borderline legallity of the situation. Tim thief steals a laptop from joe schmoe, imidiately takes it straight to the pawn shop. Joe had software on the laptop to record and send video to himself whenever something happened. Sarah smith buys the laptop from the pawn shop, the software records her undressing in the privacy of her own bedroom. Now Joe and the software vendors for joes software have vouyer videos of sarah, and can now bring the police in to even start unraveling what happened and determine whether or not Sarah had any way of knowing the laptop she bought was stolen.

She could get the pictures pulled...

[Petron]

Via copyright. It has been established that the person taking the photos holds the copyright on those photos. Not the person who owns the camera, or the bought the resources (film, storage, etc), but the person who took the pictures. So if she took the pictures... she could fight to get the images taken down the site, but copyright isn't well respected among many online users (or so I'm told *looks around*). If somebody got the images and redistributed them, it would be very hard to shut them all down.

But yes, she is guilty of owning stolen property and due to the legal issues that may bring.

(not a lawyer here, but recall the whole "Dr. Laura" scandal, and how she lost that case).

Re:She could get the pictures pulled...

[aardwolf64]

How about someone who took a screenshot of someone who was taking pictures? That's more likely what happened here... Or the Lojack software took pictures itself.

Re:She could get the pictures pulled...

[Jonner]

Via copyright. It has been established that the person taking the photos holds the copyright on those photos. Not the person who owns the camera, or the bought the resources (film, storage, etc), but the person who took the pictures. So if she took the pictures... she could fight to get the images taken down the site, but copyright isn't well respected among many online users (or so I'm told *looks around*). If somebody got the images and redistributed them, it would be very hard to shut them all down.

But yes, she is guilty of owning stolen property and due to the legal issues that may bring.

  (not a lawyer here, but recall the whole "Dr. Laura" scandal, and how she lost that case).

I'm pretty sure copyrights don't prevent photos or anything else from being used as evidence of a crime. Thankfully, big content hasn't managed to push through any ludicrous extension to their power that obscene. Obviously, if the photos were on a public web site, it would be hard to argue they were simply being used as evidence. However, the article only mentions that the police officers involved in the case had access to them.

Re:She could get the pictures pulled...

[jrumney]

The screenshot was taken remotely by the theft recovery company, so the copyright argument doesn't work.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Archangel Michael]

If you read the story, the person who bought the laptop, bought it from a student at her school. The problem was, the school was "alternative education" school, which in many cases is for young criminals and delinquents. If it is as I suspect, the teacher should have EXPECTED it to be stolen, and reported it. Secondly, the teacher should NEVER have bought the laptop from a student, as that is a breach of propriety and proper boundaries between student and teachers.

Because they are attention seeking exhibitionists

[SonofSmog]

I agree. If you take a nude picture of yourself it is DESTINED to end up on the Internet. Let's face it. If you take a nude picture of yourself your're an EXHIBITIONIST to a certain degree, and being (literally) EXPOSED as such should not be a surprising outcome.

Re:Seriously? $60?

[Osgeld]

I bought a legit laptop for 60 bucks ... sure it was a 256 meg 1.8ghz P4 with a 14 inch screen but it works fine with a little upgrading

The summary is totally misleading

[mvar]

Naked/nude photos are mentioned twice in the summary but there aren't any in the linked articles. How did this story make it to the front page?

Re:The summary is totally misleading

[jhoegl]

Beware the internet, for it LIES!

Re:The summary is totally misleading

[TheRaven64]

Because even the editors don't RTFA here.

Re:The summary is totally misleading

[Kittenman]

You answered that one yourself.

Naked/nude photos are mentioned twice in the summary but there aren't any in the linked articles. How did this story make it to the front page?

Re:Seriously? $60?

[rubycodez]

from the article, the laptop was in need of repair before being usable.

many of us troll ebay for "junk" computers in need of some parts to magically become worth ten times more.

Stupidity has no limits

[aglider]

While intellicence do.
I'm not sure whether this applies to the girl, the cops, the software house or all of them.
Sure, all of them, no exception.

Re:Stupidity has no limits

[Daniel Dvorkin]

While intellicence do.

I'm just going to let that sentence sit there by itself for a while, in all its lonely glory.

Re:Stupidity has no limits

[Nimey]

What a moran.

Re:Stupidity has no limits

[aglider]

Can you do statistics about intelligence and typos?
I can about intelligence and slashdot comments, anyway.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[afidel]

No, it's not an illegal wiretap as it was authorized by the legal owner of the equipment, just like your employer most likely monitors all activity you perform online and is within their legal right because you are using their equipment. Furthermore ignorance is not a defense against receiving stolen property in all jurisdictions, only some.

Re:Seriously? $60?

[hedwards]

Which is excellent if you don't mind doing time for contempt of court and evidence tampering. Not to mention wiretap violations. When it comes to matters like this, you have to turn over all the evidence, not just the subset that makes your client look good.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[TWX]

It isn't that the original owner authorized it, it's that the owner authorized it.

Every bit of data (in the literal sense) on the computer is potentially evidence of the crime and the criminals.

As to your line, "this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment.", your argument is a straw man. It's a more accurate analogy to say that a landlord or property owner put a camera in their own space that no one else was entitled to live in, and then that camera caught proof of unauthorized (and thus illegal) occupation. That is perfectly legal and has lots of court precedent to back it up.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"But Still"?

[iggymanz]

you did read the part of the article where the laptop needed fixing before it would work? plenty of broken laptops "for parts" on ebay, for $30, some of those could be fixed.....

Re:Seriously? $60?

[Skidborg]

You know there are plenty of laptops around these days that aren't worth even $60. Technology marches on and all that.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[jtownatpunk.net]

Pretty much came here to say the same thing. There is no way a reasonable person would think that there wasn't something fishy about buying a working laptop from one of their students for $60. Especially when you work at an "alternative high school". That's feel-good code for a school that has a student body made up of juvenile delinquents. I know a few teachers in that career path and none of them would be dumb enough to buy anything at all from their students. If one of them tried, they'd say, "Dude, don't bring your stolen shit to school. Do it again and we'll be having a talk with your PO."

Either she was trying to take advantage of the student by purchasing a laptop at 1/4 to 1/3 of its actual value (I'm guessing it was one of those $250 specials or a couple years old) or she assumed she was a step or two removed from the actual theft. Or she's too naive to be working with a bunch of little thugs.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[MakinBacon]

Doesn't matter, it's still a violation of her rights. Just because the original owner authorized it, does not mean that they have the right to violate the wiretap laws involved. And in a case like this, the employees that opted to obtain the extra images ought to be prosecuted for doing the illegal wiretapping. Had they just stopped with the location of the device, they would be fine legally.

The owner of the device authorized lojack to gather evidence by accessing the owner's device. Just because somebody else possessed the device doesn't change who the owner is. And these photos were legitimate evidence because they were pictures of the people who possessed the stolen laptop.

I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.

Totally different. When I rent an apartment, I sign an agreement with my landlord which basically gives me the right to treat the apartment as my own so long as I do not damage it, bother the neighbors, etc. A more appropriate analogy would be if I broke into somebody else's house and then complained of wiretapping because his security camera recorded video of me.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[sneakyimp]

Mod parent up. Fuck that girl. She screwed up a) for buying a $60 laptop, b) for not wiping the laptop clean before using it, c) for putting nude pics on said unwiped laptop, and d) for suing someone over this whole thing which is only going to make more people interested in the pics.

Re:"But Still"?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

She was told that it wasn't working, and it wasn't. I wouldn't hazard even that much on a non-functioning computer which may only turn out to have scrap value.
I've also seen people give away machines which they think are broken beyond repair (and so only have scrap, or cannibalisation value) which actually only have one broken component, and replace them with new ones.

I conclusion I can quite see someone thinking their machine is broken, buying a new one (or having a new one bought for them), and trying to flog the old one for $60. The only thing I don't really see is someone actually paying that for a broken laptop on the off-chance they could get it working. But not thinking "that's awfully cheap for someone to be selling a broken laptop, it's probably stolen".

Caveat Emptor

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>(She bought it for $60 so she should have known, but still).

No "but still" allowed here. The word for this chick is not "victim," it is "fence." She knew or should have known that she was accepting stolen property.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[compro01]

So, how much would you pay for a non-functional laptop in need of repairs?

Re:Caveat Emptor

[nosferatu1001]

..from a student at a school for kids who steal stuff?

Nothing, as a reasonable person would conclude it has a high likelihood of being stolen.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Riceballsan]

Your employer also requires you to sign a waver saying that you aknowlege that anything you do can and will be monitored by the company on their machines. Most companies even have the message pop up via the login script saying the same thing. There is a reason for it, you can monitor people all day long, as long as they are aware of it. If they have no way to know the computer isn't really theirs, you don't have those rights. If your company gave you a laptop, told you it was a perk and no information of it belonging to the company, they would be at fault, the same way the schools were in the wrong when they gave out the laptops, and monitored their webcams.

Shared with those who NEED to know only

[davidwr]

Up to the time you know the person in the photos is a bystander:

Share with the cops investigating the case. As long as the person is a suspect, anyone investigating may need to see them as evidence.

After that:

Share with those who have a demonstrated need to see them.

Never:

Share with the general public - this is for the public's own protection. My eyes! They burn!!!! Make it stop!!!!!!!

Re:Shared with those who NEED to know only

[cowboy76Spain]

I find it that they have little standing against the company that did steal the photos; AFAIK they just used it as evidence and just sent them to the proper authority (the cops), without doing something stupid like posting them in youtube.

On the other hand, a police officer allowing himself to denigre a dettainee without need, just for the sake of it (am I the only who thinks that he would not have said the same, had the suspect been a 20 year old hot blonde?)... well, I hope the plaintiffs good luck with the trial.

$60 isn't that outlandish

[damn_registrars]

Being as a pawn shop or other used hardware store would likely pay the owner of a laptop about that much for a used machine, it isn't necessarily odd that a private seller would ask that of a possible private buyer.

Stupidity

[Arancaytar]

The ethics of paying for a device suspected to be stolen aside, buying a system and not wiping it is practically criminal negligence. Even if everything about the purchase is completely legitimate, it may have been equipped with all sorts of surveillance software by its previous owners, whether deliberately or through malware infections.

Re:Stupidity

[Bucky24]

You know that, and I know that. I strongly suspect the average school teacher does not.

Re:Stupidity

[Sloppy]

Actually, even laymen have heard the word "computer virus" and tend to blame any malfunction on it. It's become fairly common knowledge that even a brand new machine right out of the shrinkwrap may have things installed which work to advance the interests of parties who are adversarial to the user. People don't phrase it that way, but they know.

How many people really still don't know that you can't just simply install software on iPhones, or that some carriers disallow tethering, and that some media players' fast-forward buttons don't work during certain parts of a DVD or Blu-ray? "Gray" malware preloaded on new machines has been fairly commonplace for over a decade now.

When you get to used machines, the chances are even higher that it could have any sort of malware (whether it works for the previous owner, or working for someone else, doesn't really matter) and laymen are very aware of this (they are the ones who pay the most for it). Pretending to deal with the problem has become a multi-million-dollar business, siphoning a portion of the economy away from productive uses to everywhere from Best Buy to McAffee.

I'm not going to throw around the word "stupid" or "criminal negligence" but it is negligence, and overtly high risk behavior which even common sense should be aware of. This is not Slashdot-geek knowledge.

You buy a computer, especially used, and you either take your chances or you fresh-install it. And taking your chances is certainly an option, but you don't fucking complain about it, especially to an innocent party (i.e. the person from whom it was originally stolen).

Re:Seriously? $60?

[jtownatpunk.net]

TFA said nothing about it _needing_ repair. The seller claimed it was "messed up" and his parents had given him a new laptop but we already know he's lying because he's presenting the stolen laptop as his own property. The teacher was clearly able to use it without much repair work because the theft-recovery software was still installed and functioning. I have no trouble believing that she was either aware that it was stolen or she thought she was taking advantage of the student by getting an incredible deal. It's downright shady and gets even worse when you factor in the school's "alternative" status. She should have known the deal wasn't kosher and she should have been glad to dodge the bullet when the charges against her were dropped. (You know, the whole "receiving stolen property" thing.) She's trying to make this into a "righteous anger" thing but anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows there's nothing righteous in her involvement.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Nethemas the Great]

Stop sense, the legal system is no place for rational though.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Nethemas the Great]

With respect to employers, to my understanding they cannot legally monitor you absent consent. Typically you would agree to this activity as a part of your terms of employment.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[PCM2]

As to your line, "this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment.", your argument is a straw man. It's a more accurate analogy ...

The term "straw man" refers to a logical fallacy, not an inaccurate analogy. In this particular case, whether the analogy proves accurate or not seems to be a matter of law, to be decided by the court.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I believe cameras covering secured areas are known as "security cameras". It would certainly be a surprise if it turned out they were illegal!

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[PCM2]

The owner of the device authorized lojack to gather evidence by accessing the owner's device. Just because somebody else possessed the device doesn't change who the owner is. And these photos were legitimate evidence because they were pictures of the people who possessed the stolen laptop.

Suppose somebody else didn't steal the device. Suppose the owner loaned it to them, then used LoJack to take pictures of them in their bedroom. Sounds pretty illegal to me -- just because the owner "authorized" LoJack to take the pictures doesn't mean it's not an illegal wiretap.

It's unclear whether the theft of the laptop changes this. If I setup hidden cameras inside your house because I think you're the neighborhood thief and I want to catch you coming in the door with a stolen TV, that's pretty definitely illegal. On the other hand, if the stolen thing itself is what's taking the pictures, weeellllll.... that might be different. Or it might not; I'm not a judge.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[PCM2]

Aw, being gullible isn't a crime. She probably should have known it was shady (and maybe she did know it was shady), but the court let her off the hook. That part of the story is over.

Re:got it fixed?

[SpacePunk]

They fixed her shit, they got paid. Expecting all that other crap without explicitly asking for it would be like expecting a mechanic to steam clean your upholstery after fixing a fucking alternator.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[demonlapin]

this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment.

Of course it is; every apartment I've ever rented has had a lease that guaranteed me certain rights in return for paying rent, one of which rights is the exclusive use of the property with exceptions for emergencies and cases where the landlord requires access in order to perform maintenance (where notice must be given). If the kid that sold it to her had given her a bill of sale and included the original receipt where he was shown to be the original purchaser, then perhaps she would have had the kind of iron-clad case you believe she has. As it is, reasonable people can disagree about whether or not she had reason to believe that the laptop was a legitimate purchase; that's part of why the defendants lost their petition for summary judgement (which you can win basically only if you would win even if every disputed fact in the case were read as negatively against you as possible).

I'd much rather have a federal judge on my side than not, and this one appears to be on her side, but it's up to a jury to decide.

Re:got it fixed?

[SoCalChris]

You really expect a PC repair shop to run a full malware scan and reinstall the OS when fixing a broken computer for someone? People take the machine to a repair shop so that they can have it fixed without having to backup/restore their data, reinstall updates, etc...

What the repair shop should have done, is exactly what it sounds like they did. Repaired the laptop so that it's working properly.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[amRadioHed]

Right, and the judge ruled that the woman did have an expectation of privacy. She was using the laptop in the privacy of her own home.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Imrik]

To use security cameras in non-public places you are generally required to post the fact that the area is monitored by camera, anyone entering the area gives implicit agreement to be filmed.

Could have helped with identification...

[macraig]

... you know, if they broke down her door whilst she was in the shower or lounging poolside at the Beverly Hilton.

A chain of liability.

[wickerprints]

Most comments have focused on the question of whether or not a reasonable person could consider $60 an appropriate price to pay for a used laptop, and whether the device was functional at the time of sale. Indeed, even the defendants raised this point. However, I think this is not really getting at the heart of the matter.

While I don't know how the legal system actually handles such cases, I think that the proper outcome is that the plaintiff (the woman) should win her case against law enforcement (but not the recovery company), and be entitled to damages. Then I think the recovery company and law enforcement should win the case against the thief who stole the laptop. But I also think they should win an additional claim against the thief for reselling a device with monitoring software on it, thereby exposing the woman to this situation. If there isn't a statute to cover this, there should be. It should go a bit like this:

1. If you steal an electronic device and resell it, you are 100% liable for any invasion of privacy that results from that sale due to attempts to track and recover the device, regardless of whether or not you are aware of any recovery software on the device.
2. If you own a device and resell it, you are 100% liable for any invasion of privacy that results from that sale if you installed tracking/monitoring/recovery software.
3. If you own a device and resell it, you are NOT liable if someone else has installed monitoring software without your knowledge.

The reasoning as to why we would want to (partly) indemnify parties using the remote tracking software in the course of recovering a device, is because they need to gather as much identifying information as possible, and that includes private, personal information. The tracking company in this case acted appropriately given the circumstances, because while the plaintiff didn't know the laptop was stolen, the company had every reasonable suspicion that she was the thief. Relaying whatever evidence they could find--including nude images--is the logical consequence of that investigation. What would be unreasonable is if the tracking company published the images on the internet as a way to shame the thief--to my understanding, this did not occur. The problem in this case is that law enforcement behaved inappropriately by commenting on those images.

Evidence

[Faux_Pseudo]

The pictures had to be shared with the cops. Doing otherwise would have been destroying or withholding evidence.
Don't you see, the cops /had/ to look at those pictures. If they didn't we would accuse them of being incompetent.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Vegeta99]

But she was USING the camera! It wasn't hidden.

Re:Seriously? $60?

[geekoid]

Wow, that's a quite blinding myopic view you have, jerkwad.

Well it's an alternative school so clearly everything is stolen, and no one is trust worthy.

"Clements-Jeffrey, 52, got the laptop fixed up and then started using it to correspond with her long-distance boyfriend."

So yeah it need to be fixed, and clearly the fix either didn't require a wipe, or whoever fixed it backed it up and then restored.
Contrary to what ignorant people like you think, you don't have to do a complete OS reinstall every time you fix a computer.

And of course, every seem to overlook that a company can just hand over a doc and the police will blindingly follow, without any evidence gather procedures. And that the police called her stupid and disgusting.

Re:You don't want those pictures

[digitig]

There are specialist websites for that,,,

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[gmhowell]

Here's an analogy: Drinking is legal. Driving is legal. Doing both simultaneously is not, because it's explicitly legislated against; the which fact does not invalidate the legality of drinking or driving generally.

You should have gone George Carlin with your analogy: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal..."

Re:"But Still"?

[SuperKendall]

So at what price does it become reasonable to believe that it isn't stolen?

If you can go on eBay, and find the thing selling for an order of magnitude more than what you are going to pay, it is stolen.

You are all just making excuses. Come on, even being "broken" something was up here. Would you HONESTLY not think this was stolen if you were in the same situation? Really?

deatail the story negletcts to say

[geekoid]

They lied about having a warrant.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/03/03/Stolen_Laptop_Led_to_False_Arrest_Woman_Says.htm

Re:deatail the story negletcts to say

[rahvin112]

Cops Lie. News at 11.

I mean come on. Who doesn't know that cops lie all the time and that you don't believe one fucking word they say without written confirmation. Not only that but the Supreme court has ruled numerous times that Cops can lie all they want as long as they don't engage in the very specific situation of entrapment.

Re:deatail the story negletcts to say

[swillden]

Their freedom to lie isn't quite that broad. If they make claims that they're giving you lawful orders which they do not in fact have the authority to give, then the results of those orders are tainted. If they step far enough over the line, they can even be prosecuted for civil rights violations. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

In this case, if the officers told her they had a search warrant, then they were telling her that she was required to submit to the search. That means the search was not voluntary, because she believed she was obligated to comply with a court order. And an involuntary, warrantless search is unconstitutional and the results of any such search can and should be inadmissible in court.

Re:deatail the story negletcts to say

[syousef]

Cops Lie. News at 11.

I mean come on. Who doesn't know that cops lie all the time and that you don't believe one fucking word they say without written confirmation. Not only that but the Supreme court has ruled numerous times that Cops can lie all they want as long as they don't engage in the very specific situation of entrapment.

And then if they do have the warrant and you don't comply because you ask to see it first you get charged with resisting arrest and obstructing justice.

Some lies being told to a suspect, I'm fine with, but lying about having a warrant crosses the line.

Can you tap a phone just because its stolen?

[brillow]

This is actually a really interesting legal case about data ownership and privacy. What expectation of privacy do you have while using someone else's computer? Do I have the legal right to intercept data when my friends use my computer with my permission? Do I need to offer them a EULA?

I'd think you have no right to intercept data, even if they computer is stolen (assuming this is not an employment scenario). Afterall, you don't have the right to record phone calls between two other parties just because the phone is stolen, or not the property of the phone owner.

Re:You don't want those pictures

[reboot246]

My condolences to her boyfriend . . . . and the police.

Oh please

[tsotha]

Sixty bucks and she didn't know it was stolen? Oh please.

Seems like a legitimate complaint and the plaintiffs are especially sympathetic in not realizing the device was stolen.

Nope. Seems like a good reason not to put naked pictures of yourself on someone else's laptop.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[shadowfaxcrx]

FTA: "While working as a substitute teacher at an âoealternative high schoolâ in Ohio in 2008, Clements-Jeffrey purchased a laptop from one of the students for $60. "

She knew. "Alternative high school" is a euphemism for "holding tank for budding felons." It's where they send all the kids who are too disruptive and out of control for regular school, but who don't quite cross the line far enough to get expelled.

She buys something that should be several hundred bucks for the price of a tank of gas, from a kid who is in a school where they send kids who are too criminalistic to remain in the regular school system. She either knew, strongly suspected, or is entirely too stupid to be a teacher. And we won't even go in to the stupidity of storing and sending naked photos of yourself with a laptop that used to belong to your student, who might have put some sort of snoop software on there for just this purpose.

All that said, whether the naked pictures were of the actual thief, or of the person who got possession of the stolen property, they led the original owner to the stolen property. Fair game, as far as I'm concerned. Don't like it? Don't buy laptops for 60 bucks assuming it's all on the up and up.

Don't agree with "should have known" over price.

[flimflammer]

Original offender claimed the machine was broken. People commonly just want to get rid of their old broken electronics and don't really care about the price so long as it is gone. I mean hey, it's broken and they're getting rid of it so they don't have to recycle it, and they're even getting some money out of the deal. (It's a win-win)

I've bought several laptops and computers from friends and family that were really good machines but were broken in one way or another but already replaced them (ones screen was cracked, one had a faulty hard drive, liquid spilled on one and wouldn't start anymore, fried memory) and once you fix them, they're good as new.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[MakinBacon]

Suppose somebody else didn't steal the device. Suppose the owner loaned it to them, then used LoJack to take pictures of them in their bedroom. Sounds pretty illegal to me -- just because the owner "authorized" LoJack to take the pictures doesn't mean it's not an illegal wiretap.

I'm unsure as to whether or not that's illegal or not (definitely unethical), but it doesn't matter because it's a different circumstance, and what's legal can change depending on the circumstances. For example, it would be illegal for me to pull out a knife and stab somebody under normal circumstances, but if I can prove that I was defending myself then it's alright. In a similar vein, borrowing a computer from somebody is different from stealing it because somebody who borrows a computer has the owner's knowledge and consent.

computer geek bias.

[bussdriver]

Any of us can buy some old laptop cheap from somebody who doesn't know much about computers. Somebody who knows little of computers, probably doesn't realize how old the laptop is to know just how great of a deal it is. It may be too good to be true, but how is an average consumer supposed to know that??

Are they supposed to research it? People don't research cheap purchases that much; even many geeks do not if its outside their interests. Plus you have rationalization; it might seem shady but its so cheap why bother to question it? That is, a threshold exists where bias can extend the safe zone a little further simply because the person themselves gain-- which would show if you asked their opinion about another's deal vs one offered to them-- the numbers are likely to differ because of such a bias kicking in. If the item looks used and battered a little... an ignorant customer might assume its worth less by appearance.... Bet power tools would be a good example here-- I'd take the really old beaten up ugly one over the new shiny plastic one - but a typical consumer will think the pretty new one is more valuable.

Re:computer geek bias.

[tsotha]

It may be too good to be true, but how is an average consumer supposed to know that?

The same way you know that stereo you bought off the back of a truck is stolen. There's a limit to how stupid you're allowed to be before it gets you into legal trouble.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[PCM2]

In a similar vein, borrowing a computer from somebody is different from stealing it because somebody who borrows a computer has the owner's knowledge and consent.

You should have kept reading through my second paragraph. There I acknowledge that the two things are different -- but that I don't know whether the difference is sufficient to negate the right of the person in possession of the device to not be photographed without their knowledge. If someone steals your car, you are the victim of a crime and you have a legal right to justice; you don't have a legal right to hunt the thief down and kill him. You also don't have the right to camp out in his backyard and take photographs of him through his windows. Hence, there are laws, and neither of us seem to know what the laws are in this specific case. In fact, I suggest that it's going to take a judge to sort it out.

Re:Seriously? $60?

[jtownatpunk.net]

What's your problem? You act like I broke into your house and pissed on your sofa. I didn't call you names.

Re:Seriously? $60?

[varmittang]

Yeah, probably had a username and password the kid didn't have so the laptop was a brick without a reinstall disk he didn't have. So he sold it to the teacher who reformatted it by buying a disk most likely. That isn't unusable, it just not suppose to be used by anyone that is unauthorized, which was the both of them.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Tacvek]

Please read the actual law: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2933.52

Intercepting a private electronic communication without the consent of one of the two parties, and without a warrant is illegal

However, in this case, I suspect that no wiretapping actually occurred. Instead the company most likely accessed the device, and found a copy of the pictures. Since that copy of the communication was made with the consent of the sending party (as a side effect of actually sending the pictures), it was entirely legal. The actions would have been computer trespass, except that they were done with the permission of the lawful owner.

Thus the only crimes potentially committed were of how the pictures were used by the company after they were obtained.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Travelsonic]

... Just because the legal owner authorized it doesn't mean the laws don't apply or that they didn't break them in authorizing it.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[517714]

To state that something that generally applies is true in spite of the fact that it is not universally true is ridiculous. It does not apply in this case, it is not true. backpedalling on this doesn't make it less untrue.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[517714]

The court did not let her off the hook, the charges were dismissed. TFA does not indicate that they were dismissed with prejudice, if not, the charges against her could be reinstated.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[snowgirl]

Doesn't matter, it's still a violation of her rights. Just because the original owner authorized it, does not mean that they have the right to violate the wiretap laws involved. And in a case like this, the employees that opted to obtain the extra images ought to be prosecuted for doing the illegal wiretapping. Had they just stopped with the location of the device, they would be fine legally.

I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.

Wiretapping only applies to communication, it does not apply to pictures. A landlord putting a secret camera in your apartment is a violation of your expectations of privacy, and not a wiretapping issue.

Re:Seriously? $60?

[sjames]

However, benefit of the doubt goes to the (potential) defendant and it's also not hard to believe that she bought a used "messed up" laptop for $60, had the Geek Squad or equally "trustworthy" service "fix" it and so got what she thought was an OK deal by spending $260 for a used laptop.

In fact, she was initially charged with receiving stolen property, but the charges were dismissed, most likely because it was quite easy to believe an innocent explanation. So, as far as the case at hand is concerned, she is innocent of receiving stolen property and must be treated accordingly.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[SecurityGuy]

Counter argument: You cannot conduct "private electronic communication" on MY laptop, especially when you're doing so without my consent.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[syousef]

I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.

The difference is the landlord rents the property to someone, and gives up some of his rights on his own property in exchange for the rent. She wasn't renting it. Her boyfriend wasn't renting it.

Actually it's more like a man with property puts a security camera on it, and catches someone partying (in a sexual way) at the property, then his security company gives the police the footage. Then that person, caught on the property illegally whines because she was invited to go there by her boyfriend.

In Australia you can be charged and convicted of receiving stolen goods if the average "reasonable man" would suspect it was stolen (low price, off back of truck etc.)

The police were however heavy handed and wrong to comment on the morality of private sex videos or how disgusting they or the defendant is. Personally I think they should be reprimanded and perhaps docked some pay, but that ain't going to happen. The woman should definitely be charged with receiving stolen goods.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[syousef]

Aw, being gullible isn't a crime. She probably should have known it was shady (and maybe she did know it was shady), but the court let her off the hook. That part of the story is over.

I don't know the exact detail of the law in the US, but in Australia if the "reasonable man" would expect that something they received is stolen, and then keeps it, they can be charged with receiving stolen property. Likewise if someone finds money on the street or anything else of value and does not report it they can be charged with "stealing by finding". Adults, unless they have diminished capacity due to illness or the like, are responsible for their own actions under the law. (That is as it should be since no one else can be held responsible). Gullibility is not a defense.

Re:Because they are attention seeking exhibitionis

[syousef]

I agree. If you take a nude picture of yourself it is DESTINED to end up on the Internet. Let's face it. If you take a nude picture of yourself your're an EXHIBITIONIST to a certain degree, and being (literally) EXPOSED as such should not be a surprising outcome.

Yes, and for the very same reason we should all have sex in the dark with our clothes on!

Don't be a narrow minded idiot. Capturing a picture does not mean you wish to share it publicly. No more so than removing your clothes to take a shower means you should expect everyone will eventually get to see you naked.

Police Warrant

[protektor]

I would bet that she would have normally lost this case on every count if it were not for the issue of the police lied about having a warrant for her arrest. I believe the police can lie about a lot of things to catch a criminal but I do not believe that they can lie about a warrant to gain access to a home to search it for stolen material. That is the part of this case that is going to be the problem. Not that they had nuddie pictures of her. Sounds like the police jumped the gun and should have gotten a warrant from the prosecuting attorney to search the residence but didn't bother to wait for one and just tried to pressure her in to letting them in, which may have been illegal. That is going to be the main issue here and I would bet money that is why the judge didn't just simply throw out her case. She is probably going to loose on the privacy grounds but how the police searched her place and ended up arresting her, is probably going to be the big problem for the police.

The security firm has absolutely nothing to fear from her. They were acting in good faith on behalf of the actual owner of the laptop. They had no idea that she wasn't the one who stole the laptop. So them collecting documents and pictures of her, the user of the laptop, is all within the scope of finding out who is using the stolen laptop that is probably the thief and where the laptop is. Why isn't she suing her ISP for telling the police that she was the one with that IP at that time so that is where the police needed to go look? Unless the laptop had built in GPS the ISP had to tell the police exactly where the laptop was being using . There isn't some magic thing that automatically tells you the exact GPS location of every assigned IP address.

Not punishment - victim

[Roger W Moore]

She is being punished, her private pictures are being distributed around without her permission.

She is not being punished, she is just another victim of the original criminal who stole the laptop (assuming that she genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with a $60 laptop!). Rather than sue the police and software company - who had the authorization of the legal owner to access the laptop - she ought to be suing the person who stole it in the first place because his criminal act caused her to wrongly believe the laptop was her property and therefore to give her a false expectation of privacy.

Effectively she stored naked photos of herself on some random stranger's laptop. In these circumstances there can be no expectation of privacy. The reason she did this was because she was deceived by a criminal: nobody else has done anything at all unreasonable.

Re:Not punishment - victim

[AmiMoJo]

Effectively she stored naked photos of herself on some random stranger's laptop. In these circumstances there can be no expectation of privacy.

Except that she believed it was her laptop. The tracking company should not have shared revealing pictures of her. Other information to help the police is fine, even pictures of her face, but instead they decided she was obviously a criminal and therefore sharing her nude pics was fine. It isn't.

Re:Not punishment - victim

[xaxa]

The tracking company should not have shared revealing pictures of her. Other information to help the police is fine, even pictures of her face, but instead they decided she was obviously a criminal and therefore sharing her nude pics was fine. It isn't.

1) Get naked
2) Rob a bank. The bank won't be allowed to look at the CCTV, because this is America and nudity is evil
3) Profit.

Re:Not punishment - victim

[Roger W Moore]

Other information to help the police is fine, even pictures of her face, but instead they decided she was obviously a criminal and therefore sharing her nude pics was fine.

Given the circumstance this was a perfectly reasonable assumption for the police and company to make. Yes it possibly turned out to be wrong in this case but nevertheless it was the original criminal who caused both her and the police to jump to unwarranted assumptions so surely the correct thing to do is go after the criminal if she has been damaged by the resulting, perfectly reasonable, behaviour of those involved?

Re:Not punishment - victim

[AmiMoJo]

What was gained by sharing those pics? Why not simply share the non-nude ones? It seems unlikely that images of her naked body would have helped track down or catch her.

Re:Not punishment - victim

[Roger W Moore]

If you illegally use a stolen device, knowingly or not, there will be consequences. Why should there be any expectation on a security company to screen and evaluate the data they obtain? They have permission to access data on the device from the legal owner and to give that to the police. Supposing they had written important data to the device and the real owner had recovered it and deleted that valuable data would they then be able to sue the owner for the missing data? It is insane to give an illegal user of the device any rights to privacy or safety of their data - if something embarrassing like this happens they should be regarded as another victim of the crime and should have no rights to sue the original owner otherwise it will hugely hamper the ability to use data to catch criminals which is very much against the public interest.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Dhalka226]

There's really no part of your post that is accurate.

1. She was a substitute teacher. Nothing at all says that this is the type of school or the type of student she typically deals with.

2. The laptop was not working. The article does not go into detail about what was wrong with it, but it does explicitly state she was told it was "messed up" and then "got it fixed." The second article states it was "non-functioning."

3. You state that you "guess it was one of those $250 specials or a couple years old," but don't seem to entertain the possibility that it is a couple years old version of one of those $250 specials. That would make $60 a good price but hardly enough to trigger "boy, I bet this is stolen!" in reasonable peoples' heads. Combine that with the fact that something about it was broken and needed repair and suddenly it's not unreasonable at all.

The specific legal merits of her case are, to quote the attorney for the respondents, "fascinating," and one he is (and I am) am eager to see a jury decide on. But all these people jumping up and down on this woman for buying a $60 laptop without even having the facts are getting disgusting.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[hedwards]

It's perfectly accurate. The woman was acting as owner. It turned out later that the item had been stolen and as such she wasn't the owner. However, the court did rule that the normal expectations of privacy were reasonable in both the objective and subjective sense.

As such it's a perfectly reasonable analogy to draw. In both cases you have an illegal wiretap operation going in a place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy and in both cases there is a violation of wiretap laws. The only significant difference is that in this case it's governed by federal wiretap law whereas in my example it would be state wiretap law.

However, in both cases you'd expect to go to prison, it's just a question of state or federal prison.

And note, that's the conclusion that the judge in the case came to that there was a clear violation of federal wiretap laws.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[hedwards]

Right, but this was a federal offense, the wiretapping was done across state lines making it a federal offense rather than a state offense. On top of that, the judge already ruled that the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy in both the objective and subjective meanings and came down hard on them for knowingly violating federal wiretap law.

That was from the federal judge in the case.

In Liberaian China

[Dainsanefh]

this bullshit will not happen.

No wonder why the USA is going down. Too many self-righteous people here.

The New civilizations requires no laws, and shall have no laws.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[hedwards]

They violated the ECPA according to the court when they went beyond recording the location of the laptop and went on to intercept communications for which the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This isn't a case of state law, they fucked up by committing a crime across state lines without bothering to comply with federal law relevant to this type of investigation.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[PCM2]

She was charged, but the charges were dismissed. She is not guilty of anything.

Were communications intercepted?

[dotbot]

Did Absolute actually intercept communications? Is gathering data from a laptop 'intercepting communications' according to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)? The second article says

In this process, one of Absolute’s employees obtained real-time access to what was happening on the stolen computer. He was able to collect keystrokes of the sexually explicit communications, and gather three screen shots of plaintiff and her boyfriend, both naked, fooling around on the webcam.

If you are gathering data from a camera/keyboard on a stolen laptop, does that suddenly become illegal when the camera/keyboard starts to be used for a live chat? What if the user saves a file that is emailed a few days later but downloaded in the intervening period. Is that a communications interception?

I really don't think you (or your representative) should be done/sued for gathering data off your stolen laptop that you have tracked down, even if that data then goes on to be communicated, when the purpose is simply to recover stolen goods. This is surely common sense but, I suppose, that isn't law. I hope some lawyer ends up out of pocket to reduce this nonsense happening in future. In the case of this unfortunate couple, they should just accept that it was bad luck.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[Tacvek]

I find it hard to believe that they actually intercepted any communications in transit. While it is possible for them to have done do, it is far easier to simply capture the semi-permanent record of the communication (the copy in the "sent items" folder, or equivalent) after the fact.

The ECPA is actually a very similar law to the Ohio wiretapping law, so I still tend to doubt that they actually violated that law either.

If of course they had intercepted live communications, such as by way of using a packet sniffer, or keylogger, or screen captures, then I would agree that the violated the ECPA.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Info re: laptop resale values

[_0xd0ad]

If the work the laptop needed to sort it was done by a shop, that shop should have found the LoJack software and checked if it was the customer's

Found the LoJack software, yes, they should have, but of course it's pre-installed on most computers and the process runs even if the user doesn't register for LoJack monitoring. So finding the software means little if anything.

How would the shop check to see if it's the customers, though, or check to see if it's been reported stolen?

IP addresses don't identify people

[PeterJFraser]

There has been constant complaints about the music industry using IP addresses to sue people, and I believe the problem is the same when accusing someone of theft. You have to identify who has the stolen laptop. If it is decided that one cannot peer into a stolen computer to identify who has it, then stealing computers will be a lot easier. I do believe that they should have been allowed to peer inside, but I also believe they should have just given the police just enough information to carry out the identification.

Thank you

[HalAtWork]

Just because the cops don't know how to get a good deal doesn't mean nobody else should.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime

[virg_mattes]

Counter argument: You cannot conduct "private electronic communication" on MY laptop, especially when you're doing so without my consent.

Not a valid counter, because the "MY laptop" part is the point of fact in dispute. The company argued as you did, and she argued that she had a reasonable belief that it was her laptop, and the judge decided that this dispute of fact was enough to allow the case to proceed. It's up to the jury to decide whether she was reasonable in her belief, and if they decide in her favor, then your counter becomes factually inaccurate to the law.

Virg