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!

Stolen Cell Phone Shares Thieves' Photos?

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the maybe dept.

133

eastbayted writes "A man from Berkeley, Calif. had his cell phone swiped. Soon after, the ShoZu starting uploading pictures to his Flickr account taken by the thieves — for the world to see. There's one of an unidentified woman eating something chocolatey, and a couple of either a chihuahua or a large rat. Seems this guy had installed some software on his phone to automatically perform those photo uploads, and whoever took his phone didn't realize it That's his story, anyway ... some people doubt it. He's a Yahoo employee. Yahoo owns Flickr. This is all pretty good PR for the photo site, no? He claims: 'People assume I'm doing it for self-promotion, marketing, a hoax or something like that. I'm talking to you because I want it to be known that it's not a hoax. I'm just too ordinary. I'm just too unclever for that.'" Update: 09/02 05:48 GMT by Z : Made the quote more obvious.

cancel ×

133 comments

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

did anyone else read the summary amd think... (5, Funny)

dknj (441802) | about 8 years ago | (#16028649)

what the fuck?

Re:did anyone else read the summary amd think... (1, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about 8 years ago | (#16028671)

Yeah, it requires a couple passes because the writing is bad. The different perspectives should have been seperated into paragraphs at least, perhaps with attributions on who said what.

Re:did anyone else read the summary amd think... (2, Funny)

kantier (993472) | about 8 years ago | (#16028678)

what the fuck?

I'd say "what the flickr?"

(couldn't resist posting it...)

It's in the article (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 8 years ago | (#16028680)

Summary admittedly doesn't make a lot of sense, and the Flickr page is down, but the InfoWorld article isn't too bad.

Apparently the guy (allegly -- assuming you don't believe it's all some sort of elaborate PR hoax) had some software on his phone that caused photos taken to be automatically posted to his Flickr account. This is pretty reasonable, actually: Flickr lets you post photos via email, so it would just involve programming the phone to automatically send photos to an the address for this. His phone was stolen, and a while later, photos of random people started showing up on his Flickr page, taken by the thief, we assume.

The real interesting part of the story is not all this, though, it's how it turned into an Internet phenomenon and in particular how a lot of people really tore into him for being a PR flack. Personally I think that the story is probably legit, particularly in hindsight, but a lot of people didn't.

Apparently after he took so much crap about it being a stunt, he disabled the software and has written off the phone.

A crappy ending to what could have been a pretty neat story, if you ask me.

Re:It's in the article (1)

in2mind (988476) | about 8 years ago | (#16028748)

Thats quite interesting

Assuming that phone does actually have the ability to post pictures to flickr, The pics of the thief & his friends could have also got posted at Flickr - if only the owner had'nt disabled the software.

Re:It's in the article (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028848)

Oh, ya think?

Re:It's in the article (1)

sammy baby (14909) | about 8 years ago | (#16029321)

Any cameraphone capable of sending an image via e-mail can upload to Flickr. Once you have a Flickr account, you can generate an upload-by-email address [flickr.com] in the Flickr domain. That's how I post from my phone.

By extension, anyone who knows your upload-by-email address can post to your photostream too, so make of that what you will.

Re:It's in the article (2, Funny)

sharpestmarble (875443) | about 8 years ago | (#16028821)

>... A crappy ending to what could have been a pretty neat story, if you ask me. -- If only we could make stupidity more painful... "I knew there was a reason to leave .sigs on. Is it me or is this .sig funny in this context?" OK, maybe not funny, but interesting nonetheless...

Re:It's in the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028855)

Flickr lets you post photos via email, so it would just involve programming the phone to automatically send photos to an the address for this.

That does allow a non-hoax explanation for how the stock Chevelle photo got there - the submission email address was compromised, and someone else emailed that photo to it. Seems like an unlikely coincidence that it would happen independently, though, and I doubt the thief would be deliberately emailing photos of any sort. I think this is a hoax.

The Rise of the Conspiratorial Class (2, Interesting)

CHESTER COPPERPOT (864371) | about 8 years ago | (#16028890)

The real interesting part of the story is not all this, though, it's how it turned into an Internet phenomenon and in particular how a lot of people really tore into him for being a PR flack.

Yeah, I don't know if anyone else has noticed but there seems to be a rise in the general "OMG it's a conspiracy" reaction for every news worthy event these days. I find it bothersome that if a real world anomaly pops up the automatic reaction is for it to be either a government or business conspiracy. What happened to enjoying stories like this one for what they are worth? It's a pretty cool story IMO. Those vanguard conspiracy types are the first to admit to being "critical thinkers" and "heroes of truth" yet they are the first to destroy a critical element of humanity - the story.

Re:It's in the article (1)

someone1234 (830754) | about 8 years ago | (#16029101)

If i were that guy, i wouldn't care about the PR crap and would try to pursue the thief (with the phone still plugged in). Of course IF i did a PR stunt which backfired, i would stop it. Granted, i'm not the same guy...

Re:It's in the article (0, Troll)

Smallpond (221300) | about 8 years ago | (#16029268)

What thief?

It looks to me like the guy left his phone on the train and somebody picked it up and is using it. He wasn't robbed at gunpoint, he's just a loser.

Re:It's in the article (2, Insightful)

stunt_penguin (906223) | about 8 years ago | (#16029451)

Ok I clicked on the dropdown to mod you troll, but decided that an eduction would be more useful to you than a loss of karma.

First, a quick definition, taken from dictionary.cambridge.org:

theft : (the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it:

Taking that phone was theft, pure and simple. Anyone who picks up a phone from a public space and fails to hand it to the nearest resonably responsible person is committing an act of theft. They are stealing the phone as surely as if they'd snatched it from the person's hand or broken into their home.

Re:It's in the article (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | about 8 years ago | (#16029475)

Meh, I forgot to mention that you could also just attempt to return the phone to the person yourself. You might even get a few bucks in return for the courtesy, which would be an added bonus.

I managed to return IR£100 (about $150) to someone a few years ago (this was during my first month in Uni) when I found a wad of money outside a parked car and figured the owner had dropped it. I waited about 40 meters away for 10 minutes with a friend, waiting for the person to come back; when it turned out it was a young mum with 3 youg kids, I couldn't have been happier to go over, confirm the cash was hers and to hand it back to a much-relieved parent.

I think the good karma came back to me when I left my Powershot G6 in a cafe in Galway a few months ago, and when I went back the waitress had scooped it up and kept it behind the counter for me ^^

Result :)

Re:did anyone else read the summary amd think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028726)

I say job well done. Regardless of the intent, whether intentional publicity or coincidence, it worked.

Re:did anyone else read the summary amd think... (0, Offtopic)

Quobobo (709437) | about 8 years ago | (#16028783)

Not really. It seems like Slashdot's summaries are getting worse and worse lately; it seems like half the editors can't put a basic sentence together, let alone proofread what the submitters write. (mod parent up insightful, by the way)

Re:did anyone else read the summary amd think... (1)

lintux (125434) | about 8 years ago | (#16028914)

Not quite, actually I'm reading the comments on this story just to make sure I'm not the only one who couldn't read the summary.

Re:did anyone else read the summary amd think... (1)

lintux (125434) | about 8 years ago | (#16028921)

Err, with "not quite" I obviously meant you're not quite the only one who thought that. Oops, seems like I'm as bad as the one who posted this. ;-(

</offtopic>

Massage? (1)

GenP (686381) | about 8 years ago | (#16028650)

"Flickr is having a massage." The hell?

Re:Massage? (3, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | about 8 years ago | (#16028659)

Full service?

Re:Massage? (5, Funny)

mfh (56) | about 8 years ago | (#16028663)

"Flickr is having a massage." The hell?

I hope they post pics! Especially if it's one of those really FUN massages!!

Re:Massage? (4, Funny)

GenP (686381) | about 8 years ago | (#16028672)

I hope they're using the Linux massage API and not trying to tickle the ioctls themselves...

Too bad flikr is down... (2, Insightful)

ErnstKompressor (193799) | about 8 years ago | (#16028652)

Too bad flikr is down... ...scheduled maintenance my arse -- they were /.-ed...

Re:Too bad flikr is down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028844)

Yeah baby!! Feeel the power!!

Flickr is Down? (1)

mfh (56) | about 8 years ago | (#16028654)

Hmmm I wonder if they went down because of Slashdot or just out of coincidence? Odd timing.

And yes, this is a strange story.

Not Slashdotted (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 8 years ago | (#16028668)

No I think Flickr does its regular maintainance very late on weekend nights (EST). I've run into this before and it's a bit frustrating.

Just some rather bad timing in posting the story here, I guess.

who cares? (2, Interesting)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#16028682)

A man from Berkeley, Calif. had his cell phone swiped. Soon after, the ShoZu starting uploading pictures to his Flickr account taken by the thieves

Well, for $5 a month, Sprint offers a full replacement plan. If someone steals your phone, they void the ESN of the stolen receiver, and they send you a new one. problem solved.

...which leads me to believe this is a hoax. (1)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#16028687)

I'm talking to you because I want it to be known that it's not a hoax. I'm just too ordinary. I'm just too unclever for that.

.. and taking my above post one step further, this has to be a hoax, because when you report your cell phone stolen, the phone company will void the ESN so it can't be activated for service.

Re:...which leads me to believe this is a hoax. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028717)

I'm not seeing where it states it's a sprint phone. You can have the ESN of the phone disabled if and only if the phone is CDMA, that doesn't do a bit of good if the phone is GSM. In that case you just pop in a new SIM and away you go. Software loaded onto the internal flash still runs and the original owners account isn't used.

GSM phones also have an ESN. (1)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#16028816)

GSM phones also have an ESN. And yes, that ESN can be disabled.

Re:GSM phones also have an ESN. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 8 years ago | (#16029402)

GSM phones also have an ESN. And yes, that ESN can be disabled.

But the ESN is embedded in the SIM card, not in the phone itself. That's why GSM phones can be carried across to different carriers.

Re:GSM phones also have an ESN. (2, Informative)

kybred (795293) | about 8 years ago | (#16029473)

But the ESN is embedded in the SIM card, not in the phone itself. That's why GSM phones can be carried across to different carriers.
No, the IMEI (E for equipment) is in the phone, the IMSI [wikipedia.org] (S for Subscriber) is in the SIM.

Re:...which leads me to believe this is a hoax. (2, Informative)

empaler (130732) | about 8 years ago | (#16029406)

GSM phones are identified by their IMEI [wikipedia.org] number to the provider. The providers usually have a black list of stolen phone IMEIs. Of course, not all providers block a zeroed IMEI (000000000000000), which is stupid because once you have equipment to change the cell phone, you can change the IMEI. (Then again, you could just change it to another random IMEI number)

Re:who cares? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028696)

Well, for $5 a month, Sprint offers a full replacement plan.


While $5 per month doesn't sound bad in the split second you're making a purchase decision, it's a horrible loss for the customer, in nearly all cases. Realistically, have you ever had a phone stolen? Probably what, 1 in 100,000 people lose their phone or have it stolen? If everyone were paying the additional $5 per month, Sprint just sold the equivalent of millions of additional phones, with no actual product cost or liability.

Just like any insurance plan, the only reason it's offered is because it's purely profitable for the company, not the consumers at large.

Re:who cares? (1)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#16028720)

Realistically, have you ever had a phone stolen? Probably what, 1 in 100,000 people lose their phone or have it stolen?

the plan also covers breakage-- no questions asked. How many of those 100,000 people have ever dropped their phone, do you think?

Re:who cares? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | about 8 years ago | (#16028761)

Right, so it's just like an extended warranty that you can get from Best Buy...

Again, something that the vast majority of people don't need, but the company offers because it's free money to them.

Re:who cares? (2, Informative)

novastar123 (540269) | about 8 years ago | (#16028823)

true not everyone looses or has their phone stolen, I did, a rather nice phone too, filed a police report, the officer that did the report told me not to hold my breath, they get 50-100 reported stolen phones a week, and thats just the ones that get reported. In 1 town.

Re:who cares? (2, Informative)

Tim Browse (9263) | about 8 years ago | (#16028922)

Probably what, 1 in 100,000 people lose their phone or have it stolen?

Er, well, if that were true, then this [theregister.co.uk] means that there are at least 6.2 billion phones in use in London, UK. If you assume most people keep their phone for, say, 18 months, that actually works out at 18.6 billion phones. And that's just phones that are lost, not even stolen. And only the ones lost in black cabs.

FYI, there are approximately 10 million people in London. I think your estimate may be off.

Re:who cares? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 8 years ago | (#16028705)

Well, for $5 a month, Sprint offers a full replacement plan. If someone steals your phone, they void the ESN of the stolen receiver, and they send you a new one. problem solved
That is $60/year. SO if you expect to have a phone stolen once every 3 years, it is equivalent to $180/per phone stolen. You could probably buy a replacement for less on eBay. Heck you could probably buy your own phone back [oregonlive.com] for less.

for certain phones, it's worth it. (2, Interesting)

macadamia_harold (947445) | about 8 years ago | (#16028711)

That is $60/year. SO if you expect to have a phone stolen once every 3 years, it is equivalent to $180/per phone stolen.

Spending $60 on a "no questions asked" replacement policy for a $600 phone is kind of a no brainer. And I do mean "no questions asked". Theft, destruction, malfunction, airline shenanigans with your luggage, basically *whatever*. Believe me, it's worth it.

Re:for certain phones, it's worth it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16029070)

Spending $60 on a "no questions asked" replacement policy for a $600 phone is kind of a no brainer.

That's a bit harsh. Spending $600 on a phone certainly seems excessive but some people have money to burn; you shouldn't just dismiss them as brainless.

Re:who cares? (1)

dynamo52 (890601) | about 8 years ago | (#16028892)

I have what was once a $600 i500. Since i do pay the $6 a month replacement insurance, I have returned it no less than 6 times due to minor mechanical problems. (The button that holds the battery breaks easily when it is dropped). It is a valuable option if you own an expensive phone. Also, since the i500 is about the only PDA flipphone I have found, i prefer a replacement to an upgrade.

Re:who cares? (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | about 8 years ago | (#16028793)

They also scam you with that stuff. I had a phone for *YEARS* which I deactivated. When my new phone broke I wanted to actiave my old one instead of buy a new one and they claimed it was a stolen phone and wouldn't activate it :)

Idiot Tax (4, Interesting)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 8 years ago | (#16028991)


Well, for $5 a month, Sprint offers a full replacement plan.


That's the idiot tax.

In a 10 years period, you would have paid 600$. You
would have to lose phones pretty frequently to break
even.

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about 8 years ago | (#16029122)

It's not about breaking even. Most people can afford $5 a month, but to pay $600 for the cost of a new phone in one go, especially when you don't expect it, can be slightly more difficult.

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 8 years ago | (#16029189)

Then put 5$ in a "lock box" every month instead of giving it
to Sprint.
Even better put it in the back. At the end of 10 years it will be
worth 700$ even at a moderate rate of interest.

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 8 years ago | (#16029613)

What happens if your phone is stolen in the first three months, when it's at its most desirable?

Can you buy a new phone with the $15 in your box?

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 8 years ago | (#16029638)


What happens if your phone is stolen in the first three months, when it's at its most desirable?

Can you buy a new phone with the $15 in your box?


After you get you get your replacement phone, you will still continue
to pay 5$ per month for the next 9 years 9 months, right?

That's why I am considering a 10 year period.
You may have 1 new phone stolen in the first 3 months. But over a 10 year
if you have too many phones stolen, you probably shouldn't be carrying
a phone around.

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 8 years ago | (#16029221)

The problem is that most phones cost a couple hundred bucks, not $600. Sure, if you have the latest super-Palm device that cost $600 bucks in the first place and you're paying $120 bucks every month for service, then 5 bucks a month is nothing. Then again, if you're paying that (and not your employer), then I personally think you probably fall into the idiot category anyways...

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 8 years ago | (#16029445)

The problem is that most phones cost a couple hundred bucks, not $600

If that, and they depreciate really fast. After a year, a 'phone is pretty hard to sell for enough to even cover the effort of listing it on eBay and posting it.

Stealing a mobile 'phone doesn't make a lot of sense. They are usually disabled within 24 hours of being stolen these days (in the UK), so you need to fence them really fast. At that speed, you would be lucky to get 25% of market value. If you have a top-of-the-line 'phone and upgrade regularly, then it might make sense. If not, you will probably find you could get a second-hand replacement for your 'phone on eBay more cheaply than paying the insurance.

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | about 8 years ago | (#16029307)

Lemme guess, you think home, medical, and auto insurance fall into the same category? Or are you tossing your nickels into a jar for those too?

Re:Idiot Tax (2, Insightful)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 8 years ago | (#16029656)


Lemme guess, you think home, medical, and auto insurance fall into the same category?


Insurance is basically a scam - it's meant to benefit the insurance company &
not the insured.

You should insure only when the loss will be unaffordable.
Home, Medical & auto insurance fall into this category.
(Auto because of lawsuits).

Even out that there, you should be choosing your deductibles
smartly to reduce your premium.

For an auto insurance, keep your deductibles as the maximum
you can afford to pay without becoming broke. Yes, you will
be hit a by a big deductible if you do have an accident.
However, over a long period, the reduction in premium would
automatically more than break even unless you are having
accidents very frequently. If you are having accidents
frequently, you probably shouldn't be driving.

Re:Idiot Tax (1)

ArikTheRed (865776) | about 8 years ago | (#16029375)

Really? Because my Treo was $600 brand new, and I broke it after a month. Good thing I got the replacement plan! ;)

Possible? (1)

misleb (129952) | about 8 years ago | (#16028685)

I guess I'm just out of the whole cell phone thing so I have to ask... is it even possible to install software on a cell phone that will automatically take pictures and upload to Flickr? First of all, do phones have a "cron" type functionality that can fire off programs on a schedule? Do users have access to any of this? I Can a user upload an arbitrary program to their phone and have it run? I thought your provider pretty much controlled what your phone can do and what programs are on it.

-matthew

Re:Possible? (3, Informative)

dangitman (862676) | about 8 years ago | (#16028746)

I guess I'm just out of the whole cell phone thing so I have to ask... is it even possible to install software on a cell phone that will automatically take pictures and upload to Flick

I'm not sure why you ask about automatically taking pictures with a "cron" function - because that is not part of the story. Apparently the photos were manually snapped by the alleged thief, or someone in possession of the phone. The phone just automatically uploads new images taken by the user. As for the automatic photographing - why not? You can get software to do just about anything with your phone - time-based things like alarms are available. So I don't see why you couldn't do the autmatic picture-taking.

I Can a user upload an arbitrary program to their phone and have it run? I thought your provider pretty much controlled what your phone can do and what programs are on it.

Depends on what phone you have, and who your provider is. My Nokia runs the Symbian OS, and I can write software, or buy/download thousands of different applications for it. Not sure why this seems so far-fetched to you.

Re:Possible? (1)

misleb (129952) | about 8 years ago | (#16028801)

Like I said, I am out of the cell phone thing. I don't own one anymore and when I did, it was always a very basic phone that didn't do much more than keep a few (and I do mean a few!) phone numbers and maybe play some stupid Java game that took 5 minutes to load. For some reason I was under the impression that a service provider had near absolute control over your phone except for the ability to install bad pop songs as ring tones.

Re:Possible? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 8 years ago | (#16029457)

My 'phone (a year old, not top-of-the-line then) has an ARM9 CPU and runs Symbian. It has 35MB of internal storage space and an RS-MMC slot.

It is, effectively, a general purpose computer, running a general purpose OS. It has more CPU power and RAM than the computer I was using as my main machine 10 years ago and it comes with a full SDK.

Re:Possible? (2, Interesting)

snillfisk (111062) | about 8 years ago | (#16028910)

It's just not possible, it also opens up quite a few new possibilities. As part of my master thesis we fitted a mobile phone with a camera in the front of a car, linked the phone to a bluetooth gps and recorded both the view and the path of the road in the landscape. It also uploaded the images and position directly to a web site, so viewers could track both the vehicle and the view online.

The norwegian road authorities apparently does something similiar when doing road maintenance, and have stored 18m+ pictures of the road network in Norway from the view of the driver. They do probably use a bit more hi-resolution images than a camera phone, but the concept is the same.

Re:Possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16029367)

There's a big difference between "It's just not possible" and "It's not just possible" ...

Re:Possible? (2, Interesting)

in2mind (988476) | about 8 years ago | (#16028769)

Yes it is.

Instructions for posting to Flickr from Cameraphone: http://www.flickr.com/get_the_most.gne#cameraphone [flickr.com]

From Nokia to Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/nokia/upload/n93/ [flickr.com]

Choose "Options" -> "Upload"
From that page,it seems users have to manually upload the pictures to Flickr.I dont find a option to AUTOMATICALLY post every new picture.

Re:Possible? (3, Interesting)

Ewan (5533) | about 8 years ago | (#16028872)

There's a piece of software called shozu which does the automatic uploading. it runs on your phone as a j2me application in the background and everytime you take a photo, it resizes it to your specifications and uploads it to your flickr account.

Ewan

Disabled Software? (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 8 years ago | (#16029354)

And, apparently, can be disabled remotely somehow? Just curious, as the infoworld article mentions that he has disabled 'the software' - it doesn't exactly say whether that's on the phone or at the Flickr end, but if it's on the phone.. then wtf?

Re:Disabled Software? (1)

muzthe42nd (598331) | about 8 years ago | (#16029440)

Every piece of software that connects to your Flickr account needs authorised on Flickr. At any time, you can disable that program's access to your account in Flickr.

Re:Disabled Software? (1)

Ewan (5533) | about 8 years ago | (#16029449)

You can disable it at the flickr end, by de-authenticating the client.

Ewan

Blind acceptance of trusted computing? (1)

grimJester (890090) | about 8 years ago | (#16029418)

Modern phones run software. Most users have control over devices they own .

I thought your provider pretty much controlled what your phone can do and what programs are on it.

Only if your phone is tied to your service provider and your agreement with said provider / firmware controlled by them prevents you from running your own software. Would you be surprised to hear that some people can run arbitrary code on their own computers without being prevented from doing so by their ISP?

If your way of thinking about this is common, it seems consumers have already accepted "trusted computing" in the mobile world.

Worst Excuses Ever (0)

TLouden (677335) | about 8 years ago | (#16028690)

"just too unclever for that"

and

"having a massage"

I can't imaging what's next

Sounds like the T-Mobile/Sidekick scenario (4, Informative)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | about 8 years ago | (#16028692)

http://www.evanwashere.com/StolenSidekick/ [evanwashere.com]

A similar thing happened a few months ago when a T-Mobile Sidekick was stolen. Apparently, T-Mobile stores a copy of all of your data and photos on their servers so that if you switch phones you have access to all of your data and photos. The "thief" apparently wasn't aware of this and was soon identified because of the photos that she took of herself and her neighborhood. It's a long story, but an interesting read.

mod parent up (1)

artifex2004 (766107) | about 8 years ago | (#16028768)

A similar thing happened a few months ago when a T-Mobile Sidekick was stolen.


I can't believe nobody else remembers this other event happening just months ago. It ended with arrests and stuff.

Re:mod parent up (1)

mikael (484) | about 8 years ago | (#16029450)

I've notice this with some slashdot stories - an interest story can be pushed off the front page if there is a flurry of new stories (10 or more). I read slashdot maybe two or three times a day, and managed to miss this story:

Stolen Laptop Calls In! - Will Police Act? [slashdot.org]

Short Version of TFA (1)

finiteSet (834891) | about 8 years ago | (#16028806)

The length to content ratio of the Reuters/InfoWorld article is way too high. Here's a more succinct version:

The phone, the thief, his wife and a Chihuahua?
September 01, 2006
(Reuters) - "Me too! [evanwashere.com] " said Web designer Ben Clemens.

Re:Sounds like the T-Mobile/Sidekick scenario (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | about 8 years ago | (#16029529)

from tfa:

He told me to come to an address in Corona Queens because he got ball and hed give me the Sidekick so he could hit me wit it. I informed them that I had all their pics, their email/screen name and would post this online. They informed me that they had the white little biyotch info who owned the phone and would post that online too.

What I like about this day and age, is that it's apparently more worrying to have photo's of you put on the internet, than to be beaten up. This shows how the internet really started a new era of human civilization.

Sprint PCS last year (0, Redundant)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 8 years ago | (#16028722)

Wired [wired.com] ran a story similar to this one last year about a Sanyo 5500 phone that had the ability to upload photos and movies to the Sprint site.

Re:Sprint PCS last year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028778)

I remember that sotry the guy's name was Danny Aquino. For a while after he was a 'net phenom'.

The original owner of the phone later found out later on that Danny was a minor. He tried to get people to stop posting the pictures, but by then Danny's myspace had been trashed and his pictures photoshopped.

More info here:
NSFW!!!!!!!
sternchat.com [sternchat.com]

NSFW!!!!!!!!

Note to self... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028742)

Steal cell phones... take pictures of my balls... throw cell phone away...

Hillarity ensues.

not just lying but overlydramatic too? (3, Insightful)

Desolator144 (999643) | about 8 years ago | (#16028757)

"...he is not seeking justice, revenge, or even his mobile phone. He would quite like his life back" Oh yes, a stolen phone ruined his whole life. Now he has to go live in a box in an alley wishing he could have his life back. Is it just me or does everyone think it's odd that he should have logically not told anyone about what was going on until the thief took a picture that would give enough evidence to get himself captured? If my phone got stolen (well okay, I don't own one and never have) I'd be kinda pissed and want revenge, especially if it was likely it would be handed to me as easily as having the offender take a picture of his car or house or something.

Re:not just lying but overlydramatic too? (1)

snowgirl (978879) | about 8 years ago | (#16028773)

The person addresses this, in that he was only ever expecting this issue to be a private one. But in a true lesson of the internet, it was revealed that something can catch the internet bubble and become a craze that everyone wants a part in. This person is upset about the time lost of his life because everyone is bothering him about this stupid cellphone.

To him, having the cellphone or getting "revenge" just isn't worth the effort that he's even put in so far (having the pictures automatically uploaded through no action of his own).

A good example of a similar situation would be the Star Wars Kid. He didn't want that on the internet, and in another true lesson learned on the internet, once it's out there, you can't get it back.

Can't you kind of get a clue that maybe someone doesn't WANT to be the target of an internet craze?

Re:not just lying but overlydramatic too? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 8 years ago | (#16029246)

...and in another true lesson learned on the internet, once it's out there, you can't get it back.

A lesson not yet learned by the RIAA, and similar agencies. Pandora's box is open, guys.

Re:not just lying but overlydramatic too? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028786)

"...he is not seeking justice, revenge, or even his mobile phone. He would quite like his life back" Oh yes, a stolen phone ruined his whole life.

I wouldn't be so quick to pin the quote on him (in fact, it's not a quote at all.)

Saying someone "just wants their life back" is hack reporting 101, especially when the deadline is near and the writer needs a quick line to tie everything together.

Crime (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 8 years ago | (#16028775)

It was not a phone that was stolen, but rather story credibility here. Perhaps this is a Lojack PR stunt, not a Flickr one.

O RLY? (5, Informative)

Tarmas (954439) | about 8 years ago | (#16028780)

People assume I'm doing it for self-promotion, marketing, a hoax or something like that. I'm talking to you because I want it to be known that it's not a hoax. I'm just too ordinary. I'm just too unclever for that.

O RLY? Take a look at this pic [flickr.com] , supposedly taken with the stolen camera phone, then at this one [avtoindex.com] , the first result for "Chavelle" on Google Images. Looks familiar? And I'm not taking his lame excuses.

Re:O RLY? (4, Informative)

in2mind (988476) | about 8 years ago | (#16028812)

Thats interesting.

Probably thats why he put this disclamier on Flickr for the car pic:

- Taken at 12:24 AM on August 17, 2006; cameraphone upload by ShoZu this is apparently a picture from another web site, streetfire. I didn't upload it to my photostream, I am not sure how it got here.

Now you see her ... (1)

eastbayted (982797) | about 8 years ago | (#16028822)

I was checking out the pics again. The rat-huahua shots are still there, but the picture of the woman eating the brownie, which had been marked as taken by the thief, is now "private" and thus unviewable. Not that it's that great a shot... Still curious.

Re:Now you see her ... (1)

The Evil Couch (621105) | about 8 years ago | (#16028876)

I'm not sure why it's assumed the woman eating the brownie isn't the thief. Chicks can be criminals, too. All the evidence that he has right now points to two suspects. A chihuahua and a chocoholic girl. Personally, I think the chihuahua did it, but I wouldn't rule out the girl.

I call hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16028880)

tagging beta == hoax

Suspicious (1, Insightful)

Mr2cents (323101) | about 8 years ago | (#16028917)

> 'I'm just too unclever for that.'

I wouldn't trust a guy who speaks newspeak and has a camera-phone, uploading pictures automatically. IMO he's thought-police..

Deja Vu (1)

8ball629 (963244) | about 8 years ago | (#16028939)

Didn't this happen before or is this the same old boring story? I didn't even bother reading it because either way the perpetrators are morons.

HINT: If you steal a phone, do not take pictures of yourself and make them public. This is almost the same as leaving your wallet at a bank after you rob it.

Re:Deja Vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16029051)

HINT: If you steal a phone, do not take pictures of yourself and make them public. This is almost the same as leaving your wallet at a bank after you rob it.

Similarly, after an accident, make sure you have all the parts of your vehicle, if you're plannong on a successful hit and run.

Some bozo crashed into my daughter's house late at night, then backed away and took off. A neighbor who saw the crash followed the guy until he could get the cops involved.

The fun part was that the guy who took off was trying to sell his truck. The crash popped the window off his shell. It was found on the ground outside the house -- with his phone number on it.

Hoax (1, Troll)

jazman (9111) | about 8 years ago | (#16029026)

Presumably the photos on the site are in some sort of order - order of taking, or order of upload perhaps? This might be wrong of course.

But what strikes me is that there are photos that are obviously his both before and after the "thief's" photos. So either it's a hoax, or Flickr for some reason inserts your latest photos halfway down the list. Or he got his phone back. Any other options?

Re:Hoax (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16029076)

Maybe he manually posted some photos since the event? It's not like uploading photos from your phone is the only way you can post on Flickr.

Re:Hoax (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 8 years ago | (#16029446)

Any photos in your flickr stream are inserted in upload-time order. You can re-order "sets" by "taken" time, for example, but the stream of photos is in the order they were uploaded. This includes camera phones, real cameras, e-mailed uploads and those done with juploadr to name a few.

ShoZu? (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | about 8 years ago | (#16029077)

Can anybody tell me what a ShoZu is? I could barely make sense of this and the site is down right now. I'll actually come back and check to see if I have replies this time, promise.

Re:ShoZu? (4, Informative)

Coopa (773302) | about 8 years ago | (#16029287)

Shozu is a 3rd party java application that uploads photos from your mobile phone to your flickr account. I started using it last week and it's pretty handy really. They do have a website http://www.shozu.com/ [shozu.com] .

3mod down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16029271)

lube. This can lead if you don'7 truth, for all were nullified by playing so it's

Note to self (0)

Nichole_knc (790047) | about 8 years ago | (#16029279)

Stop takin' pictures with "borrowed" cell phones.... Wonders.... Are tech crooks really stupid too???

Too Bad He Didn't Upgrade (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | about 8 years ago | (#16029337)

Sure, he uploads to Flickr, but had he installed some sort of update mechanism (manual from his own website or 3rd party tool), it might have activated the GPS features (if available on his phone) and location tagging now available on Flickr. Then maybe he'd actually get that phone back. As it currently is, it's most likely the thieves will just laugh when they read this, and start uploading more graphic pictures (and break into his Flickr account now that they know the password is on there somewhere).

Hmm, note to self: Next cellphone, make sure it has working GPS & API so I could code my own anti-theft system. Remember to buy "Louisville Slugger" for the "final step" of anti-theft system add-on pack.

why is this on /. (1)

gsn (989808) | about 8 years ago | (#16029385)

Hes running ShoZhu on his Nokia 6682 - its a nice phone and is maybe 250-300 bucks with a contract so I'd get pissed if it was stolen. I don't see why this would be a hoax - its a previously released cell phone so hes not trying to do some new product hype. There would be simpler ways of getting an upgrade for it. This is classic name-n-shame like the sidekick guy from a few months ago. Maybe he'll get it back and it doesn't hurt to wish him luck. A cell phone got stolen though - big deal. Eds why is this on /. again... I've not had my coffee yet.
mutter mutter ed hitting accept button instead of reject mutter mutter

Lame marketing ploy by Yahoo (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 8 years ago | (#16029405)

And they got caught.

Yahoo's financials have not been that great lately. They recently overhauled their message boards, and the result is so bad that their message board traffic plummeted.

Yahoo has a problem - not enough traffic to their content sites. This lame ploy is some marketing person's failed attempt to drive up traffic.

It's all a publicity stunt for Shozu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16029541)

Um... this was all proved as just a bullshit publicity stunt on digg the other day. People found the pictures of the dog and car in stock photos on the net, and a lot of the times didnt' match up. Maybe this has already been pointed out or slashdot made a deal with shozu, but whatever.

Know the guy (1)

earache (110979) | about 8 years ago | (#16029559)

Know him pretty well, used to work with him during the dotcom boom in NYC and almost worked with him in London during the fallout.

I doubt, very much, this is some kind of marketing ploy or otherwise, it would be well below Ben's character to participate in such a thing. Besides, I believe he's just a creative director and why would Yahoo tap their CD to do such a thing, doesn't make any sense.

So put the tin foil hats back on, I can 99.9% for certain say this is legit.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?