
Rent-to-Own Laptops Secretly Photographed Users Having Sex, FTC Says - yk
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/laptop-rental-spyware-scandal/
======
belorn
Society really need to stop treating illegal activities different just because
it's an company and not an individual who performed them.

If an individual, say the boyfriend of someone lent his computer to his
girlfriend with those programs, he would be prosecuted in almost every modern
country in the world. If he would use that information for monetary gain (like
selling the pictures), he would likely end up in jail.

If an individual would apply the exact same program on an open proxy or on
usb-keys dropped at a parking lot, he would be prosecuted under hacking laws
and likely end up in jail for several years, especially if he earned money
from it.

I guess the problem crackers and blackhats have with the law today is that
they aren't companies. They should really form a company front for their
activities, and hide any stealing of private information as "data mining for
advertising" which they just happen to sell at highest price in auctions to
"email-advertising" companies in China/Russia/Nigeria. Any images could be
sold too, like to magazines/porn studios as any user "uploaded" files are
company property as by the EULA. If they ever get caught, they can just say
"oops, sorry", close down, create a new a new company, and go on with business
as usual.

~~~
jerf
_mens rea_ is probably missing. It's pretty clear at this point that a number
of people get the bright idea of turning on the webcam to some degree on the
laptops they still own while sending them home with other people.

While it's always skeevy, it's worth pointing out that it probably isn't
_malicious_. It's actually a simple manifestation of a standard form of human
irrationality, the availability heuristic [1]. The people making these
decisions sit there and fear what may be done to their property, and while
they are sitting there imagining all the things that may be done, that ends up
swamping all the other possibilities in their head. They imagine they're just
going to catch two sorts of images: People normally using the laptop, and
people stealing or hurting it. (And I am sure that if you asked them to guess
how many images of abuse they'd catch that they would overestimate by at least
two orders of magnitude.) The availability heuristic has crowded out all the
other sorts of images they will capture in what is very nearly a random
sampling of the full range of home life.

So the people end up as surprised as can be that they end up with what is
legally child porn on their hands. I really don't think that these companies
are setting out to collect that on purpose. They're just taking doing
something skeevy, but seemingly safe, under the guidance of a normal human
irrationality we all have, and end up bitten by it. _Even if_ they do in fact
have somewhat malicious purposes and want to catch some sort of other image
they shouldn't want, they will still end up over-imagining how much of that
they will catch, and not realize how much other stuff they will catch.

Your examples are not comparable, in that they all include clear intent.

And if you are really inclined to argue "But they should have known!"...
well... are you so sure you're completely conversant in all possible legal
issues arising in fields completely outside of your experience? I'd certainly
like word to get out this is a very bad idea, but I'm not sure I'm willing to
destroy lives over this mistake. That's not a standard _I_ want to live under!
It's really damned easy to tell _other_ people they shouldn't suffer from
standard human irrationalities. It's much harder to see them in yourself when
they happen.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic>

~~~
belorn
Intent is always tricky, but the answer from the company is always the same,
ie, they wanted to make money. Malicious Actions and morally objectionable
actions is not synonymous. Many companies has acted illegal and morally wrong
(one might even say evil), but their intent is always the same. Even when they
do illegal acts like Enron did, the answer would be the same: They too only
wanted to earn money.

Thus there is no malicious companies, only companies who's acts are morally
wrong. Thus when judging companies, intent can not be assessed in the same way
as when judging people.

What would I do if I worked there? Apologize and compensate the customer for
the wrongful actions that has been performed. Actions, not intent is the
available defense for a company. If an company perform illegal acts and do not
take responsibility for it, then the leaders of said company should face legal
penalty like jail and fines.

------
benologist
Hopefully some of this turns out to be illegal:

    
    
        The software, known as Detective Mode, didn’t just
        secretly turn on webcams. It “can log the keystrokes
        of the computer user, take screen shots of the 
        computer user’s activities on the computer, and
        photograph anyone within view of the computer’s 
        webcam. Detective Mode secretly gathers this 
        information and transmits it to DesignerWare, who then
        transmits it to the rent-to-own store from which the 
        computer was rented, unbeknownst to the individual 
        using the computer,” according to the complaint.
    

and

    
    
        The software installed on the laptops also enables the
        companies to automatically disable computers of renters
        behind on monthly payments and to secretly track the
        computers’ whereabouts.
    

and

    
    
        the rental stores would force a fake popup for software
        registration on computers they rented. The window would
        not go away, the FTC said, until the computer user typed
        their contact information, including address, phone
        number and e-mail. The rent-to-own store would use that
        information “to try to collect money” from renters in 
        arrears, the FTC said.

~~~
s_henry_paulson
Yes, I too read the article.

------
dawernik
More like, rent to be owned... That's pathetic, shame there can't be a bigger
penalty. Sad thing is this scam is clearly going after a group that likely
doesn't get tech. Wonder how much it costs to rent a PC nowadays.

~~~
gergles
It's incredibly difficult to figure out how much it costs, because none of the
rent-to-own websites will give you a price. Instead, it's all bespoke, so that
they can rip you off for the largest possible amount.

Example: "Aaron’s shopping cart is a little different than other web sites.
You will of course get a guaranteed low price on everything you choose, but
you won’t see pricing or payment info here on Aarons.com. So, you will only
begin the process of purchasing or starting a new lease with our shopping
cart. If you take 5 minutes now with the easy, 4 step shopping cart process,
your local Aaron’s store will contact you ASAP and provide you local pricing
and availability and help you take delivery in as little as one day."

Based on the one advertised price I was easily able to find [1], they're
charging about a 400% markup, over _retail_. This would be equivalent to a
loan at about 157% APR.

[1]: <http://www6.rentacenter.com/Rent-A-Center-Home.html> \- the $24.99 _a
week_ "RAC Pack" - for 126 weeks, total payments $3148.74 for a Samsung
PN51E450 and a Samsung HW-E450, total retail price on amazon: $737.94 ($547.99
for TV + $189.95 for soundbar)

~~~
Karunamon
>It's incredibly difficult to figure out how much it costs, because none of
the rent-to-own websites will give you a price.

Pricing is different per-location too.

Depending on what you're using these outfits for, it can work out (he that's
well paid is will satisfied and all that..), but for the most part, you're
paying a _lot_ of extra money for the privilege of getting a pretty decent
replacement plan (both Aarons and RAC to my knowledge will replace broken
appliances/electronics/furniture while on lease) and spreading the total
payments due across a large period.

Whether that's worth it or not to you will depend on the person, really. I'd
hardly classify them as predatory, or skeevy, or even really a rip off, just
very, _very_ expensive.

Actually looking through the article, all of the companies involved in this
clusterf*ck are companies I've never heard of. None of the big names, at
least.

~~~
Evbn
Very expensive and only purchased by people who cannot afford it == skeevy.

------
dag11
Reminds me of the Lower Merion School District fiasco.

------
delinka
Watching people surreptitiously in the privacy of their homes, definitely in
the wrong.

Tracking the computers' whereabouts- I don't see why this couldn't have just
been made known, e.g. "We'll be tracking the location of the machine so that
when you fail to pay, we can recover our property."

Disabling the computer when renters get behind- where is the problem here? If
you don't make your mortgage or rent payments, you don't get to stay for free.
There are automobile finance companies for a similar demographic that will
disable the car when payment isn't made. It's not like the car stops working
when you're a day late. The computer warns the driver long before disabling
the car. Kinda makes sense to give your 'customer' a warning and maintain her
ability to drive to you to make payments.

And what's this "force a fake popup"? What's a fake popup versus a real one?
Perhaps the store's systems should know who has rented which machines. But I
suspect this is more about tracking the computer's location for recovery when
payments are behind.

So here's my take: invasion of _privacy_ is a big problem and should be
prosecuted. Disabling service and recovering property that hasn't been paid
for just makes sense. Certainly this particular company could have been more
scrupulous about locating their property when payments were not made.

~~~
pc86
Ignoring all the screen capture and webcam nonsense and focuses strictly on
the location tracking: should it be expected for a company that will by its
definition attract deadbeats and scammers be required to detail its security
measures?

------
Wingman4l7
There was a similar case with such "security/spy software" installed on high
school student laptops, back in 2010:
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/webcamscanda/>

~~~
HarryHirsch
Yes. And in other countries the public prosecution would have brought a case
and the school administrator who ordered the picture taking and the system
administrator who followed orders would have gone to prison, where they
belong.

~~~
tedunangst
That's the downside of all that pesky "reasonable doubt" and "innocent until
proven guilty" nonsense.

~~~
HarryHirsch
Huh? There is no doubt that someone took pictures. That's sufficient to bring
charges. The court decides if the defendant is guilty, but the matter is
serious enough to bring it in front of a judge.

~~~
tedunangst
The prosecution decided that the evidence they had was not sufficient to meet
the required standard.

~~~
HarryHirsch
The poor guy must have gone through some serious mental gymnastics to arrive
at that conclusion. I'd be interested how he arrived there.

Seriously. We are righly afraid of out-of-control police, and that's why these
are on a tight leash (at least in theory and before the Patriot Act) and need
a warrant before they can gather evidence that is admissible in court. But
private entities seem to be allowed to play by looser rules, and that's how we
end up in Lower Meirion.

~~~
tedunangst
Well, for starters, wiretapping without sound isn't wiretapping. Then there's
probably some verbiage about the difference between being unaware of the
camera's _presence_ and the camera's _operation_. I don't know, read the
follow ups. There were Senate hearings to fix the law with a new Protect the
Children Act or somesuch, which was no doubt roundly booed on reddit and HN.

------
Zenst
So users who rent computers have sex! I must look into this.

But this whole issue of spyware on rental/lease/borrowed computers keeps on
cropping up time and time again and yet it is still legal to have spayware
installed in the first place, its how its used.

As for tracking the users location, site usage etc, don't mobile phone
companies already do that by definition of how they work! Mobile phones are
computers after all and with that in mind this whole area of privacy and
expectations of privacy needs to be cleared up as it is a mindfeild for
everybody in many ways.

------
jason_slack
Can I ask a question about the potential size of the pool of victims? Do a lot
of people still rent to own laptops/computers? What about electronics like
tv's, stereos?

I know this used be be way popular in the mid 90's and nobody read the fine
print to realie you could have bought the device 4 times over by time your
rental period expired.

~~~
nico
FTA: _which has been employed on as many as 420,000 rentals_

------
mariuolo
Anyone else caught doing this would be facing felony charges. But I suppose
business is held to other standards.

------
elchief
I sent an email to Aspen Way (aspenwayenterprises.com), aka
<http://www.aarons.com/storelocator.aspx> . It was childish and not very nice.

"Please delete this email address from your address book and add the
following: jesseferagen@qwestoffice.net

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at
406-294-9432.

Thank you,

Jesse Feragen"

The owner of Aspen Way goes by the name Rohnn Lampi
<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rohnn-lampi/8/779/a6>

------
bradsmithinc
Wow, that's a very link-baity title

~~~
jrockway
Seems fair to me. I mean, it also photographed the users _not_ having sex, but
that's really not much comfort.

