

The Embarrassing Naked Photos On Your Stolen Laptop May Not Belong To The Thief - pwg
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/08/30/reminder-the-embarrassing-naked-photos-on-your-stolen-laptop-may-not-belong-to-the-thief/

======
tlrobinson
Everything about this pisses me off: the woman who likely knew she was buying
a stolen laptop, the cops judging the woman calling the photos "disgusting",
and the "expert" witness who says "there is no reasonable expectation of
privacy in communications via the Internet."

 _Sigh_

~~~
latch
I'm missing why/how people are coming to the conclusion that she probably knew
she was buying a stolen laptop? The price? A quick ebay search shows working
laptops in that price range.

I think what's important is that I actually had to check because I have no
idea what a working used laptop goes for..and if you told me some go for $60,
I wouldn't be surprised.

~~~
tripzilch
Yes. I'd say at a price of $60, you should definitely double-check to make
very sure the laptop isn't stolen, because there is a pretty good chance that
it is.

Given that the laptop was "messed up" and needed to be "fixed", even more so.
Who "fixed" it btw? Not her, probably.

I've had stuff of mine stolen often enough (bikes, mostly) that I don't really
care whether the law would say I should have known or not, but morally, I just
think it's disgusting to profit off theft of other people's property and I
think it's just the right thing to do, to consider the possibility.

That said, even though I'm of the opinion the women was definitely in the
wrong and should have known better, the police also definitely crossed the
line the way they handled those photographs.

~~~
tlrobinson
Also, a kid at an "alternative high school" probably isn't the most reputable
of sellers.

------
Zak
I think it's always reasonable to access data that's on your computer unless
you have authorized a third party to use it with the understanding that you
will respect their privacy, and to authorize a third-party to access that data
on your behalf. It may not be reasonable to make that data public, depending
on the content of the data and the probability that its owner is the actual
thief.

~~~
AJ007
The data was hardly made public. It was shared with law enforcement in order
to track down a person who was believed to be a criminal. Until law
enforcement discovered that the holder purchased the stolen property rather
than stole it herself, she would be assumed to be a criminal.

Additionally, because a user puts their own personal data on their laptop it
should be assumed that they are entitled to do things to protect that that
personal data just as it is reasonable for you to use lethal force on anyone
in your home you believe believe is an intruder. If it turns out after the
fact that the masked guy with a crowbar isn't an intruder, they fucked up, not
you.

I'm sure this argument could be translated to legalese and win the case.

The plaintiff's lawyers are just trying to get easy settlement money because
the cops were rude.

~~~
ugh
You can always use lethal force in the US against intruders? That seems wrong.

~~~
abduhl
This is false. Lethal force is legal only under very specific conditions in
most of the US, although there are exception where states have enacted a
Castle doctrine type of law (Texas is the most obvious example here).

~~~
Zak
It's actually a majority of states (31) now. These laws don't simply mean you
can shoot anyone who trespasses in your house; the entry must be forceful and
you must believe that the person intended to seriously harm someone in the
house or remove someone against their will. The castle doctrine simply creates
a presumption that, barring evidence to the contrary, someone who "unlawfully
and forcibly" enters a home plans to harm the people inside.

------
nowarninglabel
_and she’s got a strong case…_

Uh, no she doesn't. Buying a working laptop for $60 is going to easily
constitute knowing the laptop was being sold for less than true value. Sorry,
I don't have the link, but this whole receiving stolen goods knowingly thing
was explained fairly well on HN in some comments a couple months back.

~~~
hackerblues
I didn't know how cheaply a laptop could be purchased for so I just checked on
Ebay for Used/Refurbished laptops. Currently there are 47 'Buy It Now',
nominally complete and working, laptops/netbooks available for $40-60.

They all looked pretty crappy, is it reasonable to assume they are all stolen
property on the basis of their price alone?

~~~
tripzilch
A good bunch of them, most certainly.

------
ugh
I’m always disgusted when people share those photos with the public or third
parties even though doing so is clearly not necessary for recovering the
stolen property. It just seems immoral to me, no matter whether you know that
the thief or someone else took the photos.

I can’t comment on the law but I really don’t understand people who are ok
with this kind of behavior. Thieves don’t suddenly become fair game for any
treatment just because they are thieves.

~~~
redthrowaway
>Thieves don’t suddenly become fair game for any treatment just because they
are thieves.

Any treatment, no. Humiliation? Sure. Mark Bao struck the right note with his
video of the "dancing" thief, but I'd be willing to go further than that. When
you violate someone's person or property, I'm okay with a disproportionate
response. I think it should hurt you more than it hurt them. I make no claim
to any moral foundation to this belief, but I don't feel sorry for muggers who
get the shit kicked out of them or thieves who get exposed and ridiculed
online.

Granted, the OP makes a good point: you have to be damned sure in these cases
that the person you're humiliating is, in fact, the thief.

~~~
ugh
I guess I’m weird but I have really no desire to punish people.

~~~
redthrowaway
That's a nice thought in theory, but it leads to antisocial behaviour in
practice. Punishment is necessary. The severity of punishment is up to debate,
but negative reinforcement works where positive doesn't (and vice versa).

Now, as far as _desire_ to see a shit head get punished, that's pure petty
schadenfreude and I make neither excuses nor apologies for it. I don't claim
to be a paragon of moral virtue. I get warm fuzzies from seeing people get
deserved comeuppance. It's such a deeply ingrained part of our cultural psyche
(look at every movie Disney ever made), and so universal across cultures, that
I suspect it's just an integral part of human nature. We can aspire to loftier
moral heights, but at the end of the day a whole lot of us get satisfaction
from seeing the bad guy lose.

~~~
ugh
When I say “punishment” I’m talking about everything that’s beyond mere
deterrence. I have no problem with deterrence, yet no desire to punish.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _I have no problem with deterrence, yet no desire to punish._ //

Could you explain this, perhaps with a solid example or a crime, it's
deterrence that is not punishment. For example if you fine someone for drink
driving that is both a deterrent and punishment. I can't readily see how you
deter without introducing punishment.

~~~
ugh
I’m using really a weird definition of punishment. That’s my fault. Maybe I
should stop doing that.

I’m ok with punishment if we know (or if it is at least plausible) that it’s a
deterrence. I’m not ok with punishment for the sake of punishment. I’m also
not ok with drastic increases in punishment for little or questionable gains
in deterrence.

To pick an absurd example: If we were to find out that not imprisoning or
otherwise punishing murderers would decrease the murder rate I would be all
for stopping punishing murderers. If something is an effective way of
preventing crimes – even if it’s not punishment – I’m all for it.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _If something is an effective way of preventing crimes – even if it’s not
> punishment – I’m all for it._ //

OK I think I got that from your previous comment. What I can't see is if there
is actually an instance that matches your preference at all.

For example in my country minor criminals might be persuaded to meet the
people they've offended against. Some may not define this as punishment but it
can be a type of humiliation and so I'd class it as a (very minor) punishment.

I'd guess you'd be thinking of something like giving free drugs to addicts
that rob people to stop them robbing and at the same time just leave the
victims to sort themselves out and pay for the crime (ie no levy, no fine,
etc.)?? FWIW this example seems injust to me.

~~~
ugh
Again, I’m opposed to punishment for punishment’s sake and civil law doesn’t
really have anything to do with that. Of course you should be entitled to
damages if someone steals something from you. Paying damages isn’t really what
I would call punishment. (It’s just that drug addicts usually won’t be able to
actually pay you anything. But that’s just how it is.)

I do not know whether there are crimes that can actually be prevented by doing
something besides punishment. I just wanted to make clear that I’m open to the
possibility.

------
ams6110
Anyone who buys a used laptop should immediately dban it and set it up clean
from bare metal. But it's not realistic to expect that everyone knows this,
and it requires the OS install media which is often not included with used
machines.

~~~
LogicX
This is irrelevant. LoJack (by Absolute) is in the BIOS. If you reformat, it
reinstalls itself.

Numerous sources can attest to this, but here's a generic reference:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/LoJack#LoJack...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/LoJack#LoJack_for_Laptops)

As you mentioned, not everyone would know, nor have the capability to
reformat. This is doubly so for steps I take with administrative passwords,
firmware passwords, hard drive passwords, etc. to make it further difficult
for the thief to reformat the machine.

Pro-Tip: Leave a guest account, and have everything else encrypted.

(Looking forward to OSX Lion's upcoming support for a browse-only guest
account on the unencrypted boot partition when using filevault2)

~~~
shard
From looking at the description on Wikipedia, installing Linux would also
bypass LoJack, as the software that's reinstalled is a Windows service.

------
wheaties
They lost that professional flair in the article when they called the cops
"po-po" and the expert declared it a "fail." Come on, there was enough
stubstanence to report on that stuff without the derogatory remarks.

------
sp332
I wonder if the thief could claim copyright on the photos, as well as
"modeling rights" or the UK equivalent, to prevent the images from being
distributed.

------
sliverstorm
_They had one expert witness, a criminal law professor, go a step beyond that,
attesting that “there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in
communications via the Internet.” Period. The idea that any electronic
communication lacks privacy protection whether on a stolen laptop or not is a
scary thought and a ridiculous conclusion._

A scary thought? That's why it's wrong, because it's scary? I've grown to
expect slightly more sophisticated arguments from the people I agree with.

~~~
sp332
It's true. When you send a photo to another person, you are knowingly and
intentionally sending it unencrypted through multiple third parties, most of
whom you don't even know. Does that sound like privacy to you? In the US,
courts have ruled that certain kinds of communications (including phone calls
and emails) have a "right" to privacy, which means that it's illegal to
intercept them. But that doesn't mean it can't happen.

~~~
learc83
Reasonable expectation of privacy is a legal term. It has nothing to do with
the ability of the communication to be intercepted by a criminal.

You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home, but that doesn't
stop a criminal from breaking in and setting up hidden cameras.

------
nirvana
There's a libertarian principle called minimal force. That is to say,
libertarians believe that the initiation of force is immoral, and thus use of
force against the initiators is just, but only sufficient to mitigate the
crime.

When someone steals your laptop, they are initiating force. In doing so, they
give you the right to use methods, such as this software, to recover the
laptop. But that right only extends to recovering the laptop, not to
unnecessarily violate the privacy of the thief. While the thief does owe the
laptop owner compensation for the crime, this is something that is determined
via court, not by the victim of the crime.

So, yes, you have the right to hack into your laptop, turn on the webcam,
collect evidence necessary to locate and recover the laptop, but you don't
have the moral right to exploit the thief beyond that.

I remember the Defcon presentation had some privacy obscuring bits for the
thief when he took nude shots of himself in the shower. That's appropriate.
Shaming the theif by showing their face is reasonable, but only if you know
they aren't an accidental victim. Sharing the thief's nude photos with the
police or with any unnecessary third parties, where the they are not necessary
for recovery, is a violation of privacy.

At least morally. Who knows whether a government in the US will hold the
police accountable for any immoral actions.

~~~
novas0x2a
I apologize if this seems like I'm attacking a strawman, that's not my intent.
(If I did hit the strawman, please tell me how I've misunderstood...)

The problem with this sort of ideology is it ignores deterrence as a force for
stability. If the only acceptable response to an application of force is an
equal, opposite force, then why shouldn't I steal someone's car for a week
rather than rent a car? If the only punishment is that I am forced to pay for
the "rental", then I'm afraid the logical thing to do is to steal a car from
the nearest parking lot rather than go through the rigmarole of taking the
shuttle to the rental car parking lot.

You could counter-argue that the equal-opposite force would take that into
account, but then, how do you calculate that? Does it cost exactly the same as
a rental of an equivalent car would have? (In which case, no deterrence). Is
there an additional charge for the theft? The calculation of opposite force
starts to take on characteristics of our current civil legal system:
calculation of the cost of a wrongdoing.

~~~
Zak
I think the principle includes a certain degree of deterrence as well as
inconvenience to the victim. Calculating exactly the right punishment is, of
course difficult. That's what courts are for.

~~~
Retric
That seems counter to the basic 'libertarian' idea of minimal government.

~~~
jamesbkel
Well, most libertarian government structures call for precisely that. A police
to enforce the law, a court system to provide fair rule and a small military
intended for defense.

[edit: Should add that although there are certainly disputes to how to fund
said services, to the best of my knowledge it's largely agreed that some court
system is required.]

------
breck
> “We’re eager to bring this case to the jury,” says [an attorney for the
> plaintiff]. “It’s a fascinating case and I’m eager to see what a jury will
> think.”

This is pure B.S. right? "I'm eager to see what a jury will think."

A jury is composed of randomly selected individuals. So he's saying "I'm eager
to see what a group of random people will think." Clearly doesn't make sense.

Basically what he's saying is, "A group of random people are clearly going to
side with us."

~~~
dctoedt
Yes, a jury _is drawn from_ a pool of randomly selected individuals, yes. But
the pool is first filtered, by striking (1) people who appear to the judge to
have too much potential for bias; (2) people who convince the judge they have
a good excuse for not serving on the jury; and (3) up to X people peremptorily
struck by the lawyers, where X typically equals 3 per side.

(In technology-related cases, item 3 often results in the exclusion from the
jury of anyone who knows anything about the technology---one or another team
of lawyers will want the jurors to know only that which was presented to them
for the first time at the trial.)

~~~
shabble
My understanding is that (1) is typically argued by the opposing trial
lawyers, who can appeal for "Strike for cause"[1], which doesn't count against
their arbitrary $X strikes. I assume this is actually decided upon by the
judge, based on those arguments.

[1]
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Strike_for_ca...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Strike_for_cause)

