Laptop recovery software can help you recover stolen goods, but one laptop recovery firm may have stepped (or perhaps stomped) over a privacy line when its agents intercepted images from an explicit webcam session between the holder of a stolen laptop and her boyfriend.
Wired reports on an Ohio woman who was unwittingly using a stolen laptop and was caught with it because it had laptop tracking software on it provided by Absolute Software. The stolen property charges were dismissed in court relatively quickly. So far, so ordinary, but in this case she’s alleging that Absolute stepped over a line when it moved from simply tracking IP addresses, which any laptop or smartphone tracking solution tends to do. Apple, for example, is apparently looking at beefing up its Find My iPhone service soon.
Where it gets messy is that Absolute’s agents also allegedly started intercepting email messages and took screenshots of the woman when she was engaged in rather explicit webcam communication with her boyfriend. She’s suing for invasion of privacy, something that Absolute sought to have summarily quashed. So far, it’s not winning, with the judge in question ruling in the woman’s favour, stating in his summary judgement that
‘It is one thing to cause a stolen computer to report its IP address or its geographical location in an effort to track it down. It is something entirely different to violate federal wiretapping laws by intercepting the electronic communications of the person using the stolen laptop.’
Plenty of laptop monitoring software includes remote screenshot capabilities. Do you think this crosses the line? [Wired]
Chris
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 12:43 PMI think she crossed the line. She stole the computer; she has no right to sue. But on the other hand, the holders don’t have the right to take screen-shots of someone half/full nude.
ozoneocean
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 12:58 PMThe article makes clear that she didn’t steel the laptop. ;)
Barry
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 2:45 PMShe bought a ‘stolen’ laptop from one of her students (I think it was a student), so actually she should be asserted for recieving stolen goods (disregarding the other thing at the moment, which I kind of think it’s a little funny….sorry)
Barry
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 2:49 PMSorry…I made a huge typo.
I meant arrested….sorry
Stephen
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 8:51 PMYou did read the thing about “not guilty”, right?
By your argument, because you hit someone in self-defence the cops have the right to dance on your head a little. Do you think that would be fair? Because you’re saying “one suspected crime deserves another”.
Benoit Faivre
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 12:54 PMSometimes one have to wonder in what world we live!
You steal something you have no right to privacy or anything else, that’s it.
Until every laptop have included GPS, one of the only way to get it back is to identify who’s stolen it. There is no easy way and if someone steals my laptop, I will post pictures of that person to get the identity the offender.
Sha
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 2:54 PMApparently it’s a world where people don’t read too well. She had no idea that it was stolen.
“was unwittingly using a stolen laptop”
Corteks
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM‘It is one thing to cause a stolen computer to report its IP address or its geographical location in an effort to track it down. It is something entirely different to violate federal wiretapping laws by intercepting the electronic communications of the person using the stolen laptop.’
This so much. I mean I don’t have much sympathy for thieves but it sounds like this woman just got given a raw deal no knowing it was stolen.
Regardless it’s not like it was a vid of her dancing around looking silly or something, if it’s explicit then it’s not really okay to snoop in on that even if they did actually steal it.
Sicarius123
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 1:02 PMFuck no, thieves have more fucking rights than victims these days. Absolute bullshit.
They should be able to use any tools available to them to identify the thief, if the idiot is stupid enough to be using the stolen goods to do something private, sucks to be them.
ritik
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 1:06 PMread the article properly, its pretty obvious she didn’t steal the laptop. She was using it without realising it had been stolen
Sicarius123
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 3:59 PMAnd how do you propose the victim gets their laptop back if they can’t identify the person who has it now? Or tough luck, someone else paid a thief money so it’s their property now?
There are laws around receiving stolen goods.
ritik
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 7:01 PMthere are other methods of tracking someone, including the IP. posting up photos online is vigilantism, and probably illegal as well if the methods used reflect what these companies did.
and yes, im not sayin that she gets to keep the laptop (which she rightly shouldnt, whomsoever it was stolen from should get it back), but that does not give the person the right to go about postin pics of someone. If there is a case of mistaken identity (as here), theres a massive risk of irreparable harm to reputation or worse
Hugh
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 7:21 PMthere is also laws about if you unknowingly bought a stolen good. There is nothing in this article saying she would never give it back.. or that it’s now HERS to own. It’s trying to say that she was using a laptop that had been stolen yet she didn’t know this, and the tracking company took it a step to far. You can identify a person with just their IP or geographical location… simply send the local law enforcement over don’t invade that persons privacy
Azza
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 1:19 PMSo far all of the comments have been along the lines of “No fuck that thief!” with a response of “Read the article, she’s not a thief. Retard.”
Sicarius123
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 4:00 PMShe did however receive stolen goods, which isn’t legal either.
cayal
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 4:26 PMUnknowingly receiving stolen goods isn’t illegal.
Terry
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 3:07 PMunfortunately, yes it is.
You are in receipt of stolen goods.
The onus is then on you to prove you bought said item “in good faith”.
That said, I think the judge made exactly the right decision.
This is about the tracking agent’s behavior, not the user’s. That’s a story for a different judge to determine.
Mike
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 1:44 PMDo wiretapping laws still come into play against devices you yourself own? I don’t think they should…
StevoTheDevo
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 1:59 PMGiven that the laptop was installed with software designed to do what it did, I can’t see how wiretapping laws apply.
The fact that she was naked in screenshots makes no difference provided the security company did not mistreat that evidence.
Brave
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 2:47 PMWell, she’s got nice hair clips… and a very long tongue.
ozoneocean
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 2:59 PMI doubt the real woman in question looks as good as the model here :(
james
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 3:10 PMi’m surpised the pics aren’t online yet
Morkai
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 3:24 PMhow do you know they’re not? *mischeivous grin*
*begins googling*
aiden
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 3:07 PMShe still broke the law accepting stolen property. Post the pics!
cayal
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 4:24 PMA few things before claiming she broke the law:
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4387/have-property-that-fell-off-the-back-of-a-truck-re.aspx
In order to be found guilty of an offence of receiving stolen property, there are two general things that a prosecutor must prove:
• a person who receives the stolen property must have knowledge at the time of receiving the property, that the property was stolen
• a person has possession of the stolen property.
cayal
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 4:24 PMIt’s important to highlight the fact, that a person who did not have actual knowledge at the time of receiving the property that the property was stolen, but later became aware of the fact, is generally not considered guilty of an offence of receiving.
Drew
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 3:41 PMI don’t really care if she knew it was stolen or not.
At the end of the day the laptop isn’t hers, whether she paid for it or not, it still belongs to someone else.
Free game.
Antonia
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 4:43 PMAnd if I got you to hold a box for me while I did some shopping (and the box contained a stolen laptop) then you’d be happy for someone to make a video of you wanking!
Marco
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 5:24 PMIf she stole or bought a stolen laptop why is she not in prison? That’s bs.
ritik
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 7:02 PMread the article properly dammit
technole
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 6:19 PMa
technole
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 6:26 PMReading all these made me dizzy! hence a typo. Aren’t Australian too opionated!?
One should be carefully with anything that has a camera IMO
Stephen
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 8:57 PMAn incredible bunch of comments. For the idiots who didn’t manage to read the article, she did not steal the laptop and was acquitted of all charges.
What you’re suggesting is that “If I think you may have broken the law, then you’re free game and I can break whatever laws I feel like breaking”. Now I’d like to set a tiger pit in my back yard so anyone in there illegitimately would have to discuss their actions with my tiger. Nope, it’s against the law to set mantraps, so I don’t. Regardless of the fact that someone may be trespassing on my property, I do not in turn have the right to break the law.
Bunch of rednecked morons.
Michael
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 9:31 PMTwo things. Why wasn’t there a password to log onto the computer (that’s assuing the software runs as a service)? And why didn’t she format the hard drive? Those are two mistakes in my opinion. Maybe it just is me, but I wouldn’t use a computer I bought off someone untill I knew it was free of viruses and other bloatware hogging up system memory.
Adam
Thursday, September 1, 2011 at 11:08 PMWow – that series of comments is the most YouTube-esque I’ve ever seen on Giz. Did we have a bad day today people?
grant
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 5:15 AMthey did cross the line. tracking the ip and telling the police the location of the computer is fine. taking photos and reading emails is a total invasion of privacy. I hope the company gets a massive fine, and some enforceable undertaking about how to do this in the future. Police do the police work, no one else.
Corey
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 4:17 PMTo put it simply, how were Absolute Software to know the recipient of the stolen laptop was going to be engaging in such things?
Perhaps there needs to be a way to allow companies to “activate” this protocol to identify the thief. However, bureaucracy never solves anything quickly – thus why people take justice into their own hands sometimes.
Selfish, profiteering bitch should get over it and learn not to purchase goods from a potentially dodgy source.. And don’t give me that “how was she supposed to know”, because if you have half a clue you KNOW when you’re buying stolen goods.