Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Publicly Shaming Laptop Thieves Catches Bystanders in the Crossfire

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the proprietary-software-watches-you-sleep dept.

Crime 372

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."

cancel ×

372 comments

Pics (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257814)

Pics or it didn't happen.

The summary is totally misleading (3, Funny)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258142)

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 (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258270)

Beware the internet, for it LIES!

Re:The summary is totally misleading (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258338)

Because even the editors don't RTFA here.

Re:Pics (4, Funny)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258334)

You want pics of a 52 year old school teacher?

Evidence (1)

eedwardsjr (1327857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257816)

It is still criminal evidence. Why not use it?

Re:Evidence (4, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257872)

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 (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258136)

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 (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258140)

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 (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257876)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257934)

More importantly, this cnn webpage refers to Obama's uncle as Onyago Obango instead of Onyago Obama(scroll down to see). Racism and lawsuits will ensue, so be sure to have screencaps and the wayback machine handy.

Link. [cnn.com]

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258052)

And if you look on the wikipedia page he's not mentioned at all!

So he must not really be Obama's uncle.

Re:Evidence (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258024)

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 (3, Interesting)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258132)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258248)

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.

But there are laws to limit you from doing it to other people... Oh and it varies state to state... In some states you would need a PI license to pull off what happened here...

Re:Evidence (1)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258152)

"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 (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258298)

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 (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258166)

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 (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258294)

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 (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258302)

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 (5, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257960)

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 (2)

gshegosh (1587463) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258178)

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

Pics or it didn't happen! (1)

myurr (468709) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257818)

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

Possessing stolen goods == crime (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257824)

Regardless of what she did with the laptop, it was definitely stolen. So, because of this, knowingly possessing stolen goods is a crime almost anywhere.

She is either completely clueless, or just whining because she got busted when she failed to wipe the laptop before using it.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257922)

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.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

Rehnberg (1618505) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257966)

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

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258060)

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.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258226)

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.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258228)

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.

It is different, at least legally. Cameras in places where people have the expectation of privacy are explicitly prohibited by statute in several states. See The First Amendment Handbook [rcfp.org] under "State hidden camera statutes."

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.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258310)

Cameras in places where people have the expectation of privacy are explicitly prohibited by statute in several states.

I should add that Ohio, where the woman worked, does not seem to be one of those states. Nonetheless, my point still stands.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

MakinBacon (1476701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258330)

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 (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258100)

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.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258342)

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:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258176)

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:Possessing stolen goods == crime (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258078)

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.

Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258322)

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.

Seriously? $60? (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257830)

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

Can I get a copies of the pics?

Re:Seriously? $60? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257912)

From the article, the woman in said pics is 52 years old...

Re:Seriously? $60? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257996)

I know.
Whenever my friends and I sold stuff at school (never stolen) we made sure to sell it for more than it was worth.
Bought digital cam for $100? Sell next year (used) for $150.
Why did people pay those prices? Because import taxes would amount to the same and then you still have the stores profit margin.

Re:Seriously? $60? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258044)

While working as a substitute teacher at an “alternative high school” in Ohio in 2008, Clements-Jeffrey purchased a laptop from one of the students for $60.

That is why you don't release those pictures but first go after the perp the right way. Clear cut case of stolen property. If you don't get justice (like the judge smoked "a fattie" and thinks it's perfectly groovy to buy a $60 laptop from a student) you can always "leave your WiFi open" and wait for those pictures (located in your Trash bin) to hit the Internet.

Re:Seriously? $60? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258182)

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:Seriously? $60? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258120)

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

Re:Seriously? $60? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258146)

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.

Re:Seriously? $60? (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258286)

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

Let /. Decide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257832)

Where are these photos? (Fap hand ready)

Karma's a bitch (3, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257836)

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 (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257870)

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

Re:Karma's a bitch (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258004)

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 (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258068)

Some people know how to re-install an OS.

Re:Karma's a bitch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258096)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258240)

Spoken like a true geek, whose first worry is the quality of the device and second, maybe third, the legality of the deal.

Actually I don't do it either for the same reasons, but I've met people who regularly buy these things, and most of all find some hidden issue sooner or later. For phones it's usually bad batteries, or hard to find chargers.

Re:Karma's a bitch (5, Funny)

randomaxe (673239) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258066)

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 (5, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258080)

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 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258196)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258320)

How is $60 too little? Unless you are able to diagnose/troubleshoot the equipment, you very well may be in for more than that in repairs. If repairs would be feasible. $60 seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Re:Karma's a bitch (2)

Technician (215283) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258370)

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

Hmmm, children naked photos (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257846)

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?

"she should have known" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257854)

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" (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258168)

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" (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258234)

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" (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258288)

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" (1)

xmundt (415364) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258380)

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!

Why do people still do this? (2)

godless dave (844089) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257856)

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.

Because they are attention seeking exhibitionists (1)

SonofSmog (1961084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258110)

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.

Prude police officer? (2)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257914)

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? (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257974)

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

Re:Prude police officer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258020)

How about *YOU* keep your thoughts to yourself? The same principle that allows you to express your opinion about the cop's remarks is what also enables the cop to express his opinion as well.

And no, she isn't being prosecuted (RTFA), so need to explain your point that she did nothing illegal.

Re:Prude police officer? (2)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258304)

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? (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258252)

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.

This is classic (2)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257940)

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 (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258260)

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

Re:This is classic (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258268)

> 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.

How is $60 unreasonable? (5, Insightful)

wall0645 (1665631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257954)

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258118)

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? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258278)

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

Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257968)

not realizing the machine was stolen? (She bought it for $60[...])

Utter bullshit.

"But Still"? (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257976)

There is no "But Still". At $60 it's not even a grey area, she deserved to have the swat team burst into the house and drag her off to jail until she cleared up she was not the actual thief.

If people keep buying $60 laptops then criminals will keep stealing them; if it becomes harder to sell stolen good thieves will be less likely to steal. She is an accessory to the crime almost as bad as the person who took it.

Re:"But Still"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258112)

guilty until proven innocent huh. fuck you.

Re:"But Still"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258148)

Wow .. you really are an idiot..

I can recall some bullshit about some school district in VA dumping a shit load of PowerBooks @ $50 .. Are you saying that anyone that bought one of them should have assumed it was stolen ??

Re:"But Still"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258158)

There is no "But Still". At $60 it's not even a grey area, she deserved to have the swat team burst into the house and drag her off to jail until she cleared up she was not the actual thief.

Last time I bought a new laptop I paid $200 dollars for it at Walmart. This was two years ago. How much do you think it is worth now?

Re:"But Still"? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258276)

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.....

Where are the nude photos? (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257978)

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? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258094)

Yeah, pics or it didn't happen :)

Get real. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37257984)

I hope they resurrect the charge of receiving stolen property. $60 for a laptop? Get Fucking Real. Unless they can show she rebuilt the damn thing that isn't just a good deal, that was an amazingly good deal. One an educated person would be suspicious of.

I'm innocent officer I swear (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37257988)

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 (4, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258124)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258274)

>$800 laptop with no manuals or documentation

So? My wife's brand new $1300 laptop didn't come with manuals or documentation.

Re:I'm innocent officer I swear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258374)

Why should we trust you when you didn't even RTFA?

Re:I'm innocent officer I swear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258376)

Thank you for doing your part to destroy that whole "innocent until proven guilty" relic.

Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258000)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258204)

not true, I had a co-worker buy a laptop (she had me help her pick it out) and 7 months later was hurt for cash and offered me the laptop for $150, mind you this was a $1200+ laptop because she didn't want to have her whatever shut off and needed money ASAP.
Now if I didn't know her, I would have been suspect.

I guess the teacher in the story was naive in believing her students that the stolen laptop was just a spare or whatever but I have seen people throw away perfectly good desktops after 6 months due to malware / virii and it ticks me off they are usually THROWN on the curb and any chance to fixing is out the window.

Re:Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258222)

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.

Time to add MOTD EULAs to your equipment (1)

GryMor (88799) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258016)

In the old shell style http://www.free-x.ch/pub/FreeBSD-IPFILTER.html [free-x.ch] (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.

If someone beat those plaintiffs (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258062)

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.

I'm not sure what to think... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258064)

...I'd have to see the photos first, of course.

She could get the pictures pulled... (2)

Petron (1771156) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258082)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258164)

The photos were taken by the owner of the laptop, with a webcam he owned, so the copyright belongs to him.

Stupidity has no limits (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258156)

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 (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37258236)

While intellicence do.

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

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37258200)

You want to buy this iPad?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/swindled-by-wooden-ipad-859632

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...