The Embarrassing Naked Photos On Your Stolen Laptop May Not Belong To The Thief

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/08/30/reminder-the-embarrassing-naked-photos-on-your-stolen-laptop-may-not-belong-to-the-thief/

by pwg • 15 years ago

63 64 15 years ago

nirvana2• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

learc833• 15 years ago

Additional deterrent force is required, else people would always steal, and they'd be no worse off if they were caught than if they'd bought it in the first place.

However, that retaliation is usually left to the courts in a society governed by laws. For example if someone steals from you, you can't just show up to their house and punch them.

Zak3• 15 years ago

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.

drhodes• 15 years ago

Reputation and eventually ostracism. The thief would suffer public records indicating offenses against society. I bet the market would entertain many such reputation schemes. here's one that tracks bad drivers (I've no affiliation): http://www.zapatag.com/

Would a bank give a loan to a thief? It's up to the bank. It's hard to say how effective a social credit system would be.

TruthElixirX• 15 years ago

The "rental" would include the damage you were dealt while not having that item.

alttag• 15 years ago

Deterrence is a concept that has been studied regularly by criminologists, and to my understanding has been shown to have only minimal (inverse) correlation to wrongdoing. In some studies, deterrence has been separated into formal sanctions (e.g., court system, being fired from work), informal sanctions (e.g., disapproval of peers) and personal shame. (And each of these may be broken down further into certainty and severity.) Of these three, only formal sanctions demonstrates statistical effect, but in the presence of other factors (e.g., willingness to rationalize) its effect is very weak and almost disappears.

So yes, deterrence has a place, but it's a very minor one, and researchers have understood this for decades. Politicians and the public haven't yet caught on, perhaps because we seek concrete preventative measures or conflate deterrence and justice.

nirvana2• 15 years ago

I'm sorry, I was making a different point. I didn't mean to imply that deterrent force is immoral... just that the amount is something that needs to be arbitrated, rather than decided solely by the victim of the crime. That is to say, if you stole a car and used it for a week, you'd owe equivalent to the rental of the car, and whatever else is necessary to make he owner whole -- thus that includes compensation for any consequential results (like, maybe he lost money because he'd been hired to do a job and couldn't' do that job during the week because you had his car.) There's also, from the perspective I was describing, a compensation that covers hassle, inconvenience, and the fact that your actions were morally wrong. So, yes, there should be a deterrence and yes, it is owed to the victim, but it should be adjudicated. Its possible that violating the privacy of the thief is crime that is greater than the actual theft of the laptop in the first place (if you were to reduce both to monetary damages.)

cabalamat• 15 years ago

> 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

Unless you do it in an amusing way, humiliating them in front of millions of internet users. This performs a public good by making people laugh, but more importantly by reducing the incentive to steal laptops.

> Shaming the theif by showing their face is reasonable, but only if you know they aren't an accidental victim

If it becomes well-publicised that people buying dodgy laptops can have their privacy violated, it will be harder for thieves to fence them. This will reduce future laptop thefts.

> 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

Yes, one that can bring considerable publicity, which as I've explained earlier can have the effect of reducing future thefts.

sliverstorm• 15 years ago

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.

learc833• 15 years ago

He never said it's wrong b/c it's a scary thought. He just said that it was a scary thought. Explaining why is beyond the scope of this article.

sp3322• 15 years ago

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.

learc833• 15 years ago

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.

ams6110• 15 years ago

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.

hartror• 15 years ago

Also advisable if you steal a laptop.

LogicX• 15 years ago

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...

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• 15 years ago

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

Zak3• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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.

ugh7• 15 years ago

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

nowarninglabel2• 15 years ago

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.

ajays• 15 years ago

It depends on the type of laptop. Today, a brand new laptop can be had for $350. If this was, say, a 4-year old model with a lot of wear and tear on the surface (possibly, since it was a laptop that was loaned to people), then it's possible that it appeared worth under $100.

hackerblues• 15 years ago

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?

tripzilch2• 15 years ago

A good bunch of them, most certainly.

zik• 15 years ago

I think the point was that the laptop wasn't working when she bought it. She had to have it fixed.

nowarninglabel2• 15 years ago

Take a look at page 3. She not only didn't but it until it was fixed but she also demanded the original agreement be kept on the price.

http://www.internetcases.com/library/cases/2011-08-22-clemen...

ugh7• 15 years ago

The article is not really clear about that, but it sounds like the laptop was broken and had to be fixed.

Given that it’s possible to buy new laptops for $300 it is certainly entirely possible that $60 are a reasonable price.

breck• 15 years ago

> “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."

onan_barbarian• 15 years ago

A jury is not a 'bunch of randomly selected individuals'. It is a 'bunch of randomly selected individuals who have had to sit around and assess arguments from both sides, to the exclusion of most other activities'. You might legitimately be eager to see what such a group of people might think; especially as opposed to, or in addition to, a judge.

Possibly, dare I say it, it might even be more interesting than the weighted average of 12 random members of the Brains Trust here on HN reading a blog for 5 minutes and forming an opinion...

dctoedt• 15 years ago

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• 15 years ago

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...

ugh7• 15 years ago

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.

redthrowaway2• 15 years ago

>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.

ugh7• 15 years ago

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

tlrobinson4• 15 years ago

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

troels• 15 years ago

You forgot the vigilante who thinks ridiculing a criminal publically (regardless of his guilt) is acceptable. But yes, I concur.

tlrobinson4• 15 years ago

It doesn't sound like that's how it went down:

The Absolute recovery officer sent the explicit photos along with location information for the stolen laptop to the Springfield Police Department.

latch2• 15 years ago

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.

darklajid• 15 years ago

Working laptops of what age? And - on eBay you might be able to get a good deal if no one else bids / is interested. Did you find 'Buy immediately' offers of a reasonable laptop (I assume from the article that we're not talking netbook here) for that price range?

And - wouldn't you think that _those_ offers would be shady? I mean.. There's a reason why people check eBay after their gadgets were stolen...

tripzilch2• 15 years ago

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.

wyclif• 15 years ago

How do you know the photos weren't disgusting without seeing them?

colanderman2• 15 years ago

"Disgustingness" is a subjective measure. I'm sure they were disgusting to the detective but not to the intended recipient.

tlrobinson4• 15 years ago

Well, the article says the detective was prudish. Of course the author of the article probably hasn't seen the photos either, so who knows.

One of the prudish detectives wasn’t a fan of the photos, calling them “disgusting.”

Anyway, their job isn't to be the moral police. Also, telling her she was stupid isn't very professional.

altrego992• 15 years ago

And that the woman started using the laptop with preinstalled and preused OS instead of reformatting it.

wheaties• 15 years ago

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.

sp3322• 15 years ago

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.