Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IT Repair Installs Webcam Spying Software

CmdrTaco posted about 6 years ago | from the i-look-hot-undressing dept.

Privacy 606

Vapon writes "A lady noticed her computer was running slower after she had brought her computer in to be repaired. She took the computer to a second repair shop where they found that one of the problems was that her webcam would turn on whenever it detected her around and was taking photos and uploading it to a website. The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 women and has photos of at least one undressing."

cancel ×

606 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If you've got nothing to hide... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511069)

...you've got nothing to fear.

Re:If you've got nothing to hide... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511195)

5318808!

Re:If you've got nothing to hide... (2, Informative)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 6 years ago | (#24511337)

Here in the UK, "bobbies" is a slang term for policemen

Re:If you've got nothing to hide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24512141)

Maybe he spelled it that way on porpoise!

First question is... (5, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | about 6 years ago | (#24511085)

Does this count as being a private dick [slashdot.org] ?

Second question is... (5, Funny)

XanC (644172) | about 6 years ago | (#24511493)

Will anyone dare to click on a link labeled "dick"?

Re:Second question is... (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | about 6 years ago | (#24511925)

yes, with the [slashdot.org] proving that it is from ... well ... slashdot.

Lawsuit! (1)

Missing_dc (1074809) | about 6 years ago | (#24511101)

I smell a lawsuit.

Unless of course they share the photographic proof.

Just undressing?

Re:Lawsuit! (3, Informative)

SYSS Mouse (694626) | about 6 years ago | (#24511249)

not just lawsuit.. It is criminal offense that the technician will go to jail.

Re:Lawsuit! (1, Flamebait)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | about 6 years ago | (#24511439)

Do we have the legislation to make that happen? "Violating my privacy" is not something I'd like to happen and what the technician did was wrong, but "privacy" is never explicitly stated as a right in any law or amendment, so what law did he break? It looks like her recourse is the Better Business Bureau.

Re:Lawsuit! (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | about 6 years ago | (#24511545)

Not sure about the actual laws applicable but I can imagine that this could amount to cases of hacking (Most places define it as "unauthorised access" and being allowed to repair it doesn't make him allowed to install spy software) and/or stalking.

Re:Lawsuit! (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | about 6 years ago | (#24511657)

It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes (reasonable expectation of privacy). If you install a little camera in your neighbor's ceiling, you can bet you'll end up in jail. This is the same.

On top of that, there is the computer hacking, not performing the correct service (after all, by "fixing" the computer he made it slower)

And while there is no "right to privacy" explicitly state in American law, the Supreme court essentially created it in rulings during the later half of the 20th century (I want to say this was Roe v. Wade, but it may have been before).

Even if there is no criminal case (which, as I stated above, I'd be quite sure there is) she could always go civil. After all bugging someone else's computer and posting pictures of them undressing on the internet without their knowledge is definitely something you could get a civil judgment for. If that isn't intentional infliction of emotional distress, I'd be pretty surprised.

Re:Lawsuit! (5, Informative)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | about 6 years ago | (#24511933)

Right to privacy, as a conjectured right, dates back to the 1890s. The Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965) established the idea that a "right to privacy" did exist. But (and this is true for Roe vs. Wade as well) the privacy spoken of there (however you feel about the rulings) has to do with the right of a citizen to have privacy from the government. The only laws which may have been violated may have been anti-stalking laws (enacted in the early 1990's) and (to cite California's) this does not seem to fit, "alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose" as "two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose." As to civil suit, well, they have to prove damages. As far as I can tell, that could be solely dependent on what happened with the images. Those who had their computers trespassed upon would be lucky to get even a small amount of compensation.

Re:Lawsuit! (4, Insightful)

timster (32400) | about 6 years ago | (#24512015)

A little offtopic but I don't understand why people say there is no explicit "right to privacy" in American law. I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point that filtered out into the mass consciousness somehow.

Anyway, Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The word "privacy" is not used but this is a right to privacy in a large sense, isn't it? That the government can't search you, can't search your house, can't go through your papers, without a warrant?

This particular case is more of a civil action since the government didn't do it, but I find it a little unreasonable to say there is "no" right to privacy or that the Supreme Court "created" all our privacy rights, when there is clearly at least some privacy explicitly written in the Constitution.

Re:Lawsuit! (3, Informative)

maxume (22995) | about 6 years ago | (#24512125)

The constitution doesn't grant anything. It enjoins the government from taking certain actions.

Re:Lawsuit! (3, Informative)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | about 6 years ago | (#24512249)

Absolutely backwards. The Constitution grants powers to the government. Anything that's not in there, they can't do.

Re:Lawsuit! (1)

Frizzle Fry (149026) | about 6 years ago | (#24512251)

I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point

The reason is that the Roe v Wade decision rested on the idea that we have a right to privacy and anti-abortion laws violate it.

Re:Lawsuit! (2)

MoHaG (1002926) | about 6 years ago | (#24511683)

Around here it would probably have been Crimen Injuria [wikipedia.org]

And in some countries it is mentioned in law [info.gov.za] .

Re:Lawsuit! (1)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | about 6 years ago | (#24512225)

But the three women mentioned live in Florida.

Re:Lawsuit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24512115)

Uh, yeah, we have plenty of laws to cover this. It's not in the constitution or anything, but I've read plenty of stories of people arrested for "being a peeping tom." Which is to say, of course, that I have no idea what the legal definition is or what the names of the laws are. But this will be prosecuted no differently than someone who plants a camera in a ladies restroom.

Re:Lawsuit! (3, Insightful)

rjhubs (929158) | about 6 years ago | (#24512177)

Perhaps what I say next will end this 'privacy' argument once and for all, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

First you are combining two separate ideas, the common argument that the word 'privacy' is not in the constitution is true. HOWEVER, you say that privacy is never explicitly stated in any law, this is wrong. There are certainly many privacy laws that various states have that use the word privacy. Such as privacy laws to protect your medical records, financial records, some court records, etc.

Yes it is true that privacy is never explicitly stated as a right. But there is a reason for this. Privacy was not part of the venacular in 1700's colonies. Most writings during that time do not contain the word 'privacy'.

However, idea of privacy is certainly prevalent. Wouldn't you consider the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" very similar to the idea of privacy?

And I also must add, the Bill of Rights is only a list of some rights that we have, not the ONLY ones we have. Plus the ninth ammendment also states we have rights to things not specifically numerated in the constitution.

Re:Lawsuit! (4, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 6 years ago | (#24511537)

"not just lawsuit.. It is criminal offense that the technician will go to jail."

Depends on the state and its laws.

A few years ago...in L.A. we had a guy that was sneaking video cameras into peoples' homes, and video taping them doing pretty much everything.

Turns out, they could not prosecute him since there was no law on the books against it. He got off scott free, but, they did pass a law down here making it a crime.

I dunno what the exact wording of the law was, but, if it specifically mentioned video taping equipment...the computer trick might be legal?

Anyway...it depends on the states laws as to if this will be illegal or not. Unless the Feds try to get in on it...if they try to argue that the signal over the internet might cross state lines or something....hmm.

Re:Lawsuit! (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 6 years ago | (#24511559)

Oops...didn't mean to put the '.' in the state abbreviation. It should be just LA = Louisiana.

Re:Lawsuit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511613)

L.A. is the proper abbreviation for Lower Alabama.

Re:Lawsuit! (5, Informative)

Apatharch (796324) | about 6 years ago | (#24511579)

Speaking as someone who actually RTFA...

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

Re:Lawsuit! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 years ago | (#24512167)

Couldn't they charge him with tresspassing? What about breaking and entering? If he was doing neither of these, how did he get the cameras installed?

WTF (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | about 6 years ago | (#24511109)

Why on earth would he go to all this trouble when there's any number of friendly Filipino women out there willing to do the same at a low-low cost?

Re:WTF (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 6 years ago | (#24511365)

Because people like him get off on their victims being unknowing and unwilling. I pray that I catch somebody installing a hidden cam [videostopper.com] in my house, as I have a bullet with their name on it.

Re:WTF (2, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 6 years ago | (#24511585)

So let me get this straight.... you *WANT* to catch somebody installing a hidden cam in your house? Wouldn't you rather nobody ever tried?

Re:WTF (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 6 years ago | (#24511783)

Catching them would be impossible if they didn't try. GP's statement therefore cannot be interpreted as a response to the situation where someone doesn't break in. If they do, and he wants to catch them.

In other words, your response is about as logical as assuming "I hope to die peacefully in my bed" means I'd like to be poisoned in in my sleep tonight.

Re:WTF (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 6 years ago | (#24511983)

Saying you want to die peacefully is not saying anything about wanting to die in particular, since dying is a certainty, whether one wants to die or not. Unless you are suggesting that invasions of privacy such as what the previous poster wanted to catch somebody doing are inevitable for everybody on the planet at some point in time, I'm not sure I see your point.

Re:WTF (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 6 years ago | (#24512233)

Showing how my analogy was bad doesn't prove your point or disprove mine. It just shows that I used a bad analogy.

If you somehow missed my point, I'll just refer you back to my first paragraph, which I regrettably seem to have proofread less thoroughly than I should have. Strike the superfluous "and"... that's what I get for re-phrasing without re-proofreading.

Re:WTF (1)

Malevolyn (776946) | about 6 years ago | (#24511829)

Not a fan of Pulp Fiction? "It'd been worth him doing it just so I could've caught him doing it."

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24512179)

That's why I didn't let you catch me those times.

It's a valid question (5, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | about 6 years ago | (#24511509)

I see it got modded off-topic, but it seems to me like a valid question. What the heck was this guy thinking? Or the recent story on The Register [theregister.co.uk] , where a 47 year old techie got jailed for a similar stunt, except he also tried to blackmail a 17 year old girl into underessing in front of the camera. (Which is how he got caught.)

I mean, seriously. What. The. Fuck.

Didn't these guys find enough photos of naked women on the internet? I mean, seriously, how did that train of thought go? "Man, if only I could see some photos of women at least partially undressed... Nah, surely nobody publishes something like that. I guess I'll just have to bug someone's web-cam." Or what?

Or was it just a psychopath's power game?

Since the story is about him, it doesn't seem to me offtopic at all. No, seriously, I want to know. What goes in the head of that kind of idiot? How do you recognize one?

Re:It's a valid question (4, Insightful)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | about 6 years ago | (#24511627)

Most of the time in cases like this it makes them feel much better knowing that they have some kind of power over the victim. He could have of course found regular porn, but maybe in his mind regular porn is too boring?

Re:It's a valid question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511995)

Man, if only I could see some photos of women at least partially undressed... Nah, surely nobody publishes something like that.

I believe Sears and JCPenney still have catalogs.

Re:It's a valid question (0, Troll)

phio gistic (1340467) | about 6 years ago | (#24512099)

Didn't these guys find enough photos of naked women on the internet?

Maybe all that porn watching addled his tiny mind. Maybe he believes he is allowed to do anything he wants to any woman he wants. That's what porn teaches you, isn't it? Porn consumption is all about a power game. This is a natural progression, taking what you learn out into your neighborhood.

Re:It's a valid question (5, Insightful)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | about 6 years ago | (#24512245)

Not really that. And it's not totally a power trip thing, either. It's different seeing someone naked when you've had some personal interaction with them. While I've never done anything like this, I know there's quite a few slashdotters out there who watch porn, half-hoping they find some girl they knew in high school, or find out the woman down the street has her own website. This is the same kind of thing.

Re:WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511693)

Why is this offtopic? He has a point!!

Oh for the love of Pete . . . (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | about 6 years ago | (#24511157)

Next up,

repaired tv's that can see you.

In Soviet Florida... (2, Funny)

AnalogyShark (1317197) | about 6 years ago | (#24511687)

...laptop watches you!

In Republic of Ireland... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511849)

You just watch the laptop.

Link to video? (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 6 years ago | (#24511163)

Not that I would watch it, of course.

Re:Link to video? (5, Funny)

mattwarden (699984) | about 6 years ago | (#24511501)

I am concerned about the validity of this story, and I agree that seeing the video would help lend credibility.

Re:Link to video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24512105)

Can you say "This thread is worthless without pictures"

undressing? (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24511165)

I need to see a naked girl to shit in a cup, eat vomit, or get double stuffed to get hard thes days.

Re:undressing? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511203)

Replace "or" with "then".

Re:undressing? (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 6 years ago | (#24511237)

I need to see a naked girl to shit in a cup/i>

You can't shit in a cup without seeing a naked girl? Not to mention the other two items.

You have issues.

Re:undressing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511413)

No I don't.

Re:undressing? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511953)

larry bagina's issue is adding "to" between girl and shit.
MyLongNickName's issue is forgetting "<" when closing a tag.
Now be friends.

Oblig. South Park (5, Funny)

MarkovianChained (1143957) | about 6 years ago | (#24511437)

Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other's mouths, you can't exactly go back to Playboy!

Re:Oblig. South Park (5, Funny)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about 6 years ago | (#24512253)

Once I read this I don't think I can go back to my lunch.

Speaking of technicians doing things.... (5, Interesting)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | about 6 years ago | (#24511213)

a friend of mine is real paranoid. So when he took his computer into a large Office Supply Store Chain for optimization, he wrote the serial number down. When he got his machine back the serial numbers didn't match. But it did match for the "new" display model. The techs swapped his machine for the display model. He got his money back. I had egg on my face and now I wear tin foil hats too.

Lesson. Whenever taking your machine into those places, write down the serial numbers. Unfortunately, if you buy a new machine, repairing it yourself is not an option if you want it done under warranty.

Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions.

Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions. (2, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | about 6 years ago | (#24511293)

Unless you own an iMac, mine is in the shop (AGAIN!) for yet another circuit board and possibly new video card.

So that was the best $169 I ever spent.

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (1)

joshtheitguy (1205998) | about 6 years ago | (#24511387)

I got an extended warranty on my the last monitor I bought, had it repaired three times and replaced once at no cost, sounds like an exception to me.

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 6 years ago | (#24512069)

I got an extended warranty on my the last monitor I bought, had it repaired three times and replaced once at no cost, sounds like an exception to me.

I got the same services on a Samsung CRT monitor without buying the extended warranty. They replaced it - free shipping and all - 30 months after I bought it.

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 6 years ago | (#24511389)

Agreed. Extended Applecare saved my butt twice in the past six years. I suppose whether or not the warantee is worthless would depend upon your vendor though.

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (0)

Macman408 (1308925) | about 6 years ago | (#24511457)

Unless you own an iMac, mine is in the shop (AGAIN!) for yet another circuit board and possibly new video card.

So that was the best $169 I ever spent.

I've got news for you - they wouldn't sell them if they were unprofitable. On a large scale, it's always a better deal for them than it is for you. But, for the individual, paying a couple hundred dollars might be better than the uncertainty.

But that doesn't stop me from pretty much always buying AppleCare. Though my Macs are also on the high end, and therefore more expensive to repair or replace. I'm not sure that would be true if I bought cheap Macs.

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (3, Funny)

cwAllenPoole (1228672) | about 6 years ago | (#24511527)

Yes, well, Macs are special [absurdnotions.org] ...

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (5, Informative)

Dekortage (697532) | about 6 years ago | (#24511691)

Apple's warranties are absolutely worth it. The three year extended warranty is dirt frickin cheap compared to any repair you might need down the line. Hard drive failed? Replaced. Keys fell of your keyboard? Replaced. Little rubber feet come off the bottom of the laptop? Here's a sheet of extras, just in case they come off again in three years.

Seriously, if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty.

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (3, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | about 6 years ago | (#24512207)

Do you think Apple is losing money on the extended warranties?

(They could still be worth it; spending $250 now may well make a lot more sense than facing the possibility of spending $500 tomorrow; the point is that Apple sells them because they are profitable for Apple, so on the balance, they aren't profitable for Apple customers.)

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (5, Interesting)

CapnStank (1283176) | about 6 years ago | (#24511327)

Did the swapout comp at least work? I knew a guy that took his PC into "BigBoxStoreA" for repair becuase the thing 'squealed' and then stopped. They returned it a few days later stating they couldn't find the issue and ultimately determined the mobo had fried. He took it to a different repairshop for a second opinion. Turns out a mouse wiggled his way ontop of the HDD and chewed through the IDE cable; squeek; crash. BigBoxStoreA didn't even open the case, LAME.

Heck for ranting on terrible repair shops, someone else I knew bought a computer from BigBoxStoreA (Yes, same company) which bust in a week. He took it back, they neglected to repair it for two weeks and ultimately voided the warranty on the HP machine because they were not licensed to repair those PCs.

I got more, and I'm sure everyone else does. Computer repairmen are becoming the new age Mechanics. Yes, they can do it, some are sketchy, and a lot will rip you off. The simple answer is to learn on your own and know exactly what to look for.

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 years ago | (#24511535)

The problem with cars is that they have gotten so complicated, and so proprietary, and require so many specialized tools, that it makes it almost impossible for the owner to diagnose and fix problems. Computers seem to be the exact opposite. A small (1 week of evenings) course in computer repair and maintenance, along with a couple good books could give most people all the knowledge they need. And things don't change much over the years. The connectors change and what not, but the basics still remain the same.

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (5, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 6 years ago | (#24511805)

    Cars, like computers, require a certain level of knowledge, and the required tools.

    PC's have come to the point where they don't even require tools. I always bring my phillips screwdriver with me to fix a computer, and have realized that I rarely use it any more. The tools required are more likely anti-virus and anti-spyware cleanups, followed in popularity by hard drive replacements (and data recovery tools), and CPU fan cleaning.

    For a car, there are more tools required, but the parts on different cars do the same thing. They may not be interchangable, but they look similar, and act identically.

    Despite the "complexity" of the computer system, that's usually the rarer of parts to fail. If you can just follow a simple flow chart, you can repair a car. Does it start? No. Does it get air? Fuel? Spark? No. Repair the source for this component.

    People have mystified the working of an automobile so much that it seems like black magic, but as we work on computers, others see our work as black magic too. Oh my gosh, you type on the keyboard, and stuff happens? Wow. It's not that dissimilar to turning a wrench and making a car work again. You just have to understand the underlying technology, and the rest falls into place.

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (1)

ckthorp (1255134) | about 6 years ago | (#24511905)

Even better -- modern cars can often tell you what is wrong. A manufacturer-proprietary-compatible scan tool is worth it's weight in gold (not a generic OBDII one, but a full-on scan tool).

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (1)

jockeys (753885) | about 6 years ago | (#24512071)

this is by far the most down-to-earth, common sense post I have EVER seen on /. ever. I thank you for writing what will no doubt be the best thing I'll read all week.

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (2)

Thelasko (1196535) | about 6 years ago | (#24512023)

The problem with cars is that they have gotten so complicated, and so proprietary, and require so many specialized tools, that it makes it almost impossible for the owner to diagnose and fix problems. Computers seem to be the exact opposite.

Ironically, what most people find complicated about a modern car is the computer. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (1)

Katmando911 (1039906) | about 6 years ago | (#24511825)

If I bought a new computer "which bust in a week" then I'd be taking it back for a refund or exchange instead of a repair.

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (4, Insightful)

Thelasko (1196535) | about 6 years ago | (#24511381)

Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions.

so are "optimizations"

Whenever taking your machine into those places

Never take your machine to one of those places, no exceptions.

Unfortunately, if you buy a new machine, repairing it yourself is not an option if you want it done under warranty.

That all depends on where you bought it in the first place. If you built it yourself, you have nothing to worry about.

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (2, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#24512021)

Great idea! Can you tell me how I can build my own laptop?

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (1)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | about 6 years ago | (#24511765)

ahh. recently I've bought a new PC, and over the course of two weeks, have had some parts upgraded and now a new problem is being diagnosed; throughout the whole process, I'd notice the BIOS settings changing every time, and once a CD-ROM (disc) of mine never came back, when there was no reason to even take it out of the drive!

I decided to disregard my impulsive imagination trying to convince me that I wasn't getting the same parts back with each visit; I'd simply check the specs and figured that as long as I got what I'd paid for, the potential rotations were best ignored.

I guess I simply haven't been a "customer" in a long time.

Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about 6 years ago | (#24511945)

I have found that the cost of the extended warranty is roughly equal to the cost of any repairs that would have been needed over the same time. One exception was a Dell machine that kept eating power supplies. The cost of the 3 year warranty was about 3/4 what the cost of power supplies would have been. Of course, I had to deal with Dell support, so there was a non-monetary cost, too.

Where they are worth it to me is when a computer is being taken to college by the kids. I would rather be able to call Dell or Apple and say "Fix it" than have the kids trying to get it repaired. Its a peace of mind thing.

But, when Radio Shack wants an extra $10 to extend the warranty on a $30 item, yeah, that is a ripoff - no exception.

Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 6 years ago | (#24512035)

"a friend of mine is real paranoid."
Really?
"So when he took his computer into a large Office Supply Store Chain for optimization, "
Not paranoid enough I would say.
1. optimization? What the heck is that?
Run a virus scan, run adaware, remove any crapletts, run chkdsk /f, and disk defragmentor?
Oh and empty the recycle bin.. And get charged $50 or more for it.

Sorry but those PC Tuneups just tick me off. I guess it is better than just trashing the system but good grief it is just evil.
Maybe I should cut a deal with Adaware and create a Linux boot CD that has a linux version of adaware and Clam AV. Call it Computer Draino and sell it for $29.95 and offer free updates.

This thread is useless without pics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511263)

What the subject says.

FBI and DHS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511289)

FBI Agent: Why didn't we think of this?

DHS Agent: Because we already did.

Re:FBI and DHS (1)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#24511597)

EXACTLY! That is all the reason I need to continue building my own machines. meh

Re:FBI and DHS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511705)

FBI Agent: Why didn't we think of this?

DHS Agent: Because we already did.

EXACTLY! That is all the reason I need to continue building my own machines. meh

Going to make all the chips, boards, drives and peripherals yourself too?

Re:FBI and DHS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24512039)

Now I'm glad I got the cheapest lowbid chinese bootleg webcam I could find.

If the drivers are this unstable when *I'm* trying to use it, it'll be a wonder if it manages to get off -one- picture for anyone else before bsod'ing!

Shoot him (0, Troll)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 6 years ago | (#24511379)

I'm done with people making excuses for why they do things like this. There comes a time when you just have to do what is necessary and remove the cruft from society.

This wasn't a case of doing something silly (writing on your drunk friends face with magic marker), or being mistaken (going down the wrong way on a one way street), this was a deliberate, conscious act undertaken with full knowledge of what would happen when this was done.

We can't keep wasting tax dollars on court cases for stupidity, which is exactly where this case will go. Just shoot him and be done with it.

Re:Shoot him (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511747)

Death for a PC? If you take my parking space can I shoot you?

Re:Shoot him (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24511789)

I have deemed you cruft. Get on your knees.

Re:Shoot him (4, Insightful)

cerberusss (660701) | about 6 years ago | (#24511795)

We can't keep wasting tax dollars on court cases for stupidity, which is exactly where this case will go. Just shoot him and be done with it.

Hmm it seems I landed in a pub. Have you ever driven beyond the speed limit? I suggest you be shot as well.

Re:Shoot him (1, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#24512063)

That's an unfriendly comment. You are so dead. I mean literally.

Re:Shoot him (0, Troll)

fm6 (162816) | about 6 years ago | (#24512133)

There comes a time when you just have to do what is necessary and remove the cruft from society.

If I were German, I'd say, Been there. Done that.

Re:Shoot him (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | about 6 years ago | (#24512169)

Then get him some therapy and get him back on the streets as soon as possible to be a constructive member of society. Killing them would waste all the taxpayers' money that has been invested in him to get as far as he did. I hope when you have psychological problems no-one calls for your death. I bet your family would rather you be helped than executed.

Re:Shoot him (1)

realsilly (186931) | about 6 years ago | (#24512243)

I can't condone the "Just shoot him and be done with it." logic; however, this is to a blatant outright crime and these are getting to be ridiculous. I'm afraid to hear what the lawyers will use as a defensive argument.

I wish our society would become more responsible for one's actions once again. AUGH. But until we do, we either have this legal process, which sucks, or vigilantyism (which I'm not condoning).

9 people brought their own computers? (1)

catbertscousin (770186) | about 6 years ago | (#24511393)

I wonder if he made sure it was her personal computer. She could have been bringing her husband's computer in instead of her own. Now that would have been amusingly ironic.

Re:9 people brought their own computers? (1)

AnalogyShark (1317197) | about 6 years ago | (#24511615)

Can I get a link to that video?

Woman? (5, Funny)

The Gaytriot (1254048) | about 6 years ago | (#24511707)

"The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 woman and has photos of at least one undressing."

I believe the correct word is womans, duh it's plural.

Credit where credit is due... (5, Informative)

DenaliPrime (6153) | about 6 years ago | (#24511713)

Ars Technica had this first. They should get the credit. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080805-high-tech-peeping-tom-rigged-laptop-webcam-to-snap-nude-pics.html [arstechnica.com]

Re:Credit where credit is due... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24512185)

Way too much slashdot content comes unattributed from Ars these days. /weaksauce

what a dirty bastard (1, Funny)

polyp2000 (444682) | about 6 years ago | (#24511823)

the sheer cheek of it!

N.

Webcam lights... (2, Interesting)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | about 6 years ago | (#24511875)

Isnt that the point of having a light on your camera? So that you can tell when it is taking pictures of you?

pedant alert (4, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | about 6 years ago | (#24512089)

She took the computer to a second repair shop where they found that one of the problems was that her webcam would turn on whenever it detected her around and was taking photo's and uploading it to a website.

Vapon and Taco, meet Bob [angryflower.com] .

I got nothing to fear (5, Funny)

Lord Apathy (584315) | about 6 years ago | (#24512131)

A webcamera is one of the things that I will never again attach to my computer. I rigged up a webcam to my computer once so while I chatted with some chicks they could see me. My sister used my computer while I was away for a week. Looks like she would just invite some random lusers to use the webcam.

Well a message popped up one afternoon and it was from some luser telling me I was cute. I ask him how he know he said my webcam was on. Then he ask me if I would get naked for him. And it was a guy.

Camera in box.. box back to store. Now when some chick wants a picture I just direct her to a website where I have a picture of J. Random. Hunk.

Works for me.

What's the point? (2, Funny)

barnyjr (1259608) | about 6 years ago | (#24512135)

Bow-chicka-bow-wow!

Seriously though... unless the woman has the system in her bedroom, what are they hoping to see?

If they did it on my system, they'd just get web-cams of me reading slashdot and playing WoW in my underwear...

DIY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24512175)

Two key things I've seen mentioned

- The light on the camera, there is a REASON for this light, and it's to let you know it's ON. This is the same reason camera phones do it as well. To let you, and anyone you are taking photos of that you are pointing a camera at them.

- Repair. DIY. You can't do this with a laptop. Laptops are generally not user serviceable without at least having the system restore media and the nintendo screw driver (you know what I'm talking about.) The woman did the right thing and took it somewhere else. Hell, the alternate ending to this story would have been reporting the first tech, but installing his own spyware that didn't flip the light. Chances are the first tech had been doing this a long time, and this woman only noticed probably because she had dial-up and hence a "slow" computer.

I've tested the 'recording' aspect by taping over the LED on the camera... amazing thing is, nobody questioned why the LED was taped over. Second, this was an oldschool webcam that was an actual NTSC fixed focus camera, so it was "ON" all the time unless it was unplugged. However the LED, had it been visible would have at least drawn the attention to turn the camera away if you are not going to use it.

Back in the day of Win95, it was really easy to get all manner of spyware on dialup users, for simple fact that few had antivirus software that was updated (indeed a lot of malware was installed by pirated antivirus software) A local ISP had the same malware on their server, so put two and two together (owners of said ISP sold the ISP to someone else and then broke in later and stole the equipment so the new owners came to an empty building.)

And how is this possible? (1, Interesting)

ratboy666 (104074) | about 6 years ago | (#24512209)

To preface this: I am not a Windows (tm) user.

After all, the Tripwire program (Kim and Spafford) was created in 1992. That would have been in the Windows 3.1 era. Windows 98 doesn't include it (My wife uses that product), but it should be a standard part (or option) in later versions. I always presumed that it (or its underlying concept) is a standard part of "anti-malware" software. I do have an instance of Windows XP SP2 running, and it complains ON EACH BOOT of missing an approved anti-malware program. Mind you, since I don't run anti-malware, or a firewall, the XP instance is run in an isolated virtual container.

Of course she didn't trust the technician; why didn't she apply the obvious measures?

Don't the commercial anti-malware programs or Windows incorporate this protection?

Now, it would be difficult to defend against boot-sector attacks (I was reading an article on Microsoft Vista, and it's defense against this -- also ref. /. and its recent article on the subject), but that would take considerably more skill than the typical PC jockey has. Typical prevention of this would be (at least with the COMMERICIAL anti-malware programs), should be a boot and scan from CD-ROM. Something easily mentioned in the anti-malware instructions (Note that my Windows 98 CD doesn't boot; a boot floppy is required, making this defense difficult in THAT environment. But, like I said, I *know* Windows 98 doesn't offer this protection. Windows XP? Certainly should, but with the warning about not running anti-malware, maybe it defers this function to external software. Which is ok, after all Tripwire is external software for Unix as well).

I have a hard time actually believing that Windows could be such a security clusterfuck, that a vendor default installation could suffer from problems like this.

About the only thing I can say is: Class-action suit hammer time! This is SO basic -- it's like seatbelts.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>