Slashdot Mirror
Publicly Shaming Laptop Thieves Catches Bystanders in the Crossfire
nonprofiteer writes "Embarrassing thieves by exposing them using laptop recovery software makes for fun tech stories, but what about a case of a person being literally exposed after cops and a software company got their hands on naked photos she exchanged with her long-distance boyfriend, not realizing the machine was stolen? (She bought it for $60 so she should have known, but still). The case is going to trial in Ohio in September. The plaintiffs argue that the software company had the right to get the computer's location in order to recover it, but that it should not have intercepted the nude photos and shared those with the cops. Seems like a legitimate complaint and the plaintiffs are especially sympathetic in not realizing the device was stolen."
Pics or it didn't happen.
You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned. About as dumb as people who download hacking binaries.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
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.
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.
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:
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 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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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?
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.
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.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They lied about having a warrant.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/03/03/Stolen_Laptop_Led_to_False_Arrest_Woman_Says.htm
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.