4 ms·

The question I have is, without watching the video, is this the ACTUAL thief? or someone who bought a "used" phone? I had a co-worker who had his iPhone stolen

The question I have is, without watching the video, is this the ACTUAL thief? or someone who bought a "used" phone? I had a co-worker who had his iPhone stolen... and it ended up in some other country. He locked the phone (standard iPhone capability) and then got contacted by the new "owner". That person obviously didn't steal it (east coast US -> somewhere far away). I'd worry about recording someone who simply bought a "used" phone on ebay - and the legal ramifications of such a move.

albemuth 10y ago
It's faster to cmd + l, start typing Kaza..., autocomplete, copy, paste, than the dismissive comment inside parens.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
krzrak 10y ago
> Khazackastan (or somewhere out there, however you spell those names) You know this "Google" thing? You can look up the spelling there, if you don't remember countries names from school.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Poster obviously remembers the name of the country - just not how to spell it. Did you not understand what the poster was trying to say?
Fnoord 10y ago
> The question I have is, without watching the video, is this the ACTUAL thief? If you watched the video, you'd know. Also, from the FAQ: "1. How do you know the guy in the pictures is the thief? Please watch the film again, we were witnesses of the theft and filled a police report which described the person we later saw in the pictures. Besides that, there is a lot of supporting evidence for the fact the thief didn't sell the phone the fist few days. I won't go into to much detail now. If you don't believe that there is an other argument: The person who used the phone must have known the phone was stolen because it had all my pictures and accounts still on it for a whole week. If he bought it, which he didn't he at least could have known the phone was stolen because of that."
- wernercd 10y ago
  I didn't have 20+ minutes to watch it initially (although I've watch most of it now) - and I didn't notice anything that said "FAQ". Personally? I can't agree that they "must have known"... I know PLENTY of people who have smart-phones and wouldn't know how to find pictures or be able to tell which accounts a phone was connected too... Looking at the story (now that I've seen it), the phone also went offline for the first 4? days... that's enough time for someone to sell it and a "clueless" person to start using it. While I assume it's illegal to buy stolen merchandise - knowingly or unknowingly... my basic question is still to the legality of recording someone using stolen merchandise to this length of time and level of detail.
Rafert 10y ago
> I'd worry about recording someone who simply bought a "used" phone on ebay - and the legal ramifications of such a move. Under Dutch law you'd have to return the phone to the legal owner, there are a couple of very specific exemptions that would make you the new owner. So don't buy stuff that is too cheap, ask for the original receipt/invoice, check the serial number in the police database, etc. to make sure you are not knowingly buying stolen goods. You could get punished for that too.
- roel_v 10y ago
  Uh, no, under Dutch law, as long as you a) paid for the good and b) were acting in good faith (ie didn't reasonably know the person you bought from wasn't the owner), you become the owner.
  - Maarten88 10y ago
    I think this is incorrect. The stolen good will be returned to the original owner, and - if the good was purchased in good faith - the buyer can try to get compensation for damages from the seller. If you could reasonably have known it was stolen (i.e. because of the low price) you can also be fined or criminally punished. (IANAL)
    - roel_v 10y ago
      I think the real question got snowed under the brevity of the last few answers, but I'll admit that my answer was worded clumsily and only makes sense in the context of the original question "I'd worry about recording someone who simply bought a "used" phone on ebay - and the legal ramifications of such a move." An unwitting buyer in good faith becomes owner of that phone, because the transfer of the good is, briefly put, valid (articles 3:84 and 3:86 sub 1 of the Dutch civil code). Now it's true that the original owner can revindicate (that is, 'claim back') the phone from the buyer (within 3 years and within some other small boundary conditions). This follows from the exception to 3:86 sub 1 in 3:86 sub 3. I'm saying however that this right to revindication is irrelevant here. My point was (but again I'll freely admit upon rereading it that my wording didn't actually make this point), that the phone at the time of the spying was the fully, legal property of the buyer; and as such, that they have the full legal protection any owner has or would have. So you can't make a legal claim 'oh but that guy who bought it wasn't the owner so we could do with the phone as we pleased'. (Which is what I read as the worries about recording someone who bought a phone off ebay - the worry that the guy who did this could be legally committing the same 'thing' anyone else would be doing when abusing someone else's phone to spy on them). (While I'm not technically a lawyer, I do have a Dutch law degree, although of course that doesn't make me all-knowing and I've often been wrong before)

albemuth 10y ago

It's faster to cmd + l, start typing Kaza..., autocomplete, copy, paste, than the dismissive comment inside parens.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

krzrak 10y ago

> Khazackastan (or somewhere out there, however you spell those names) You know this "Google" thing? You can look up the spelling there, if you don't remember countries names from school.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 10y ago
Poster obviously remembers the name of the country - just not how to spell it. Did you not understand what the poster was trying to say?

Fnoord 10y ago

> The question I have is, without watching the video, is this the ACTUAL thief? If you watched the video, you'd know. Also, from the FAQ: "1. How do you know the guy in the pictures is the thief? Please watch the film again, we were witnesses of the theft and filled a police report which described the person we later saw in the pictures. Besides that, there is a lot of supporting evidence for the fact the thief didn't sell the phone the fist few days. I won't go into to much detail now. If you don't believe that there is an other argument: The person who used the phone must have known the phone was stolen because it had all my pictures and accounts still on it for a whole week. If he bought it, which he didn't he at least could have known the phone was stolen because of that."

wernercd 10y ago
I didn't have 20+ minutes to watch it initially (although I've watch most of it now) - and I didn't notice anything that said "FAQ". Personally? I can't agree that they "must have known"... I know PLENTY of people who have smart-phones and wouldn't know how to find pictures or be able to tell which accounts a phone was connected too... Looking at the story (now that I've seen it), the phone also went offline for the first 4? days... that's enough time for someone to sell it and a "clueless" person to start using it. While I assume it's illegal to buy stolen merchandise - knowingly or unknowingly... my basic question is still to the legality of recording someone using stolen merchandise to this length of time and level of detail.

Rafert 10y ago

> I'd worry about recording someone who simply bought a "used" phone on ebay - and the legal ramifications of such a move. Under Dutch law you'd have to return the phone to the legal owner, there are a couple of very specific exemptions that would make you the new owner. So don't buy stuff that is too cheap, ask for the original receipt/invoice, check the serial number in the police database, etc. to make sure you are not knowingly buying stolen goods. You could get punished for that too.

roel_v 10y ago
Uh, no, under Dutch law, as long as you a) paid for the good and b) were acting in good faith (ie didn't reasonably know the person you bought from wasn't the owner), you become the owner.
- Maarten88 10y ago
  I think this is incorrect. The stolen good will be returned to the original owner, and - if the good was purchased in good faith - the buyer can try to get compensation for damages from the seller. If you could reasonably have known it was stolen (i.e. because of the low price) you can also be fined or criminally punished. (IANAL)
  - roel_v 10y ago
    I think the real question got snowed under the brevity of the last few answers, but I'll admit that my answer was worded clumsily and only makes sense in the context of the original question "I'd worry about recording someone who simply bought a "used" phone on ebay - and the legal ramifications of such a move." An unwitting buyer in good faith becomes owner of that phone, because the transfer of the good is, briefly put, valid (articles 3:84 and 3:86 sub 1 of the Dutch civil code). Now it's true that the original owner can revindicate (that is, 'claim back') the phone from the buyer (within 3 years and within some other small boundary conditions). This follows from the exception to 3:86 sub 1 in 3:86 sub 3. I'm saying however that this right to revindication is irrelevant here. My point was (but again I'll freely admit upon rereading it that my wording didn't actually make this point), that the phone at the time of the spying was the fully, legal property of the buyer; and as such, that they have the full legal protection any owner has or would have. So you can't make a legal claim 'oh but that guy who bought it wasn't the owner so we could do with the phone as we pleased'. (Which is what I read as the worries about recording someone who bought a phone off ebay - the worry that the guy who did this could be legally committing the same 'thing' anyone else would be doing when abusing someone else's phone to spy on them). (While I'm not technically a lawyer, I do have a Dutch law degree, although of course that doesn't make me all-knowing and I've often been wrong before)