6 ms·

Is this not a serious crime of illegal wiretapping in Holland? Doesn't usually matter that it's his phone. Does he address it in the video?

cmurf 10y ago
Really? You're concerned of the privacy rights of a thief? The card/account owner clearly has a right to know the activity on their card. The usage information are facts. They can't be copyrighted by either the issuer or the account holder. I don't see where any privacy rights for the thief come into play, they definitely did not agree to be bound the the account terms and conditions. What could be true is if the account holder violated the terms and conditions by knowingly allowing someone else to use the card. I'm actually not even sure what my license agreement allows, but it wouldn't surprise me if technically I can't give my card to a spouse or child to use, instead the issuer wants additional cards issued to make sure anyone using the card is bound to the account contract.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > You're concerned of the privacy rights of a thief? These rights must apply to everyone. If you catch an intruder in your home, you can't tie him up and beat him with a crowbar, either. If someone attempts to mug you in the street, and you overpower them, you're not allowed to take money out of their wallet.
  - briandear 10y ago
    The 'invasion' of privacy was caused by the thief's own actions. He could have avoided it by not taking people's things! It's like feeling sorry for a rapist because he caught a venereal disease from his victim.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      The question was whether it's legal.
- z3t4 10y ago
  how do you know he is the theif, and where do you draw the line on who can have privacy and not ?
  - TuringNYC 10y ago
    That was my thought as well -- it could well be that the actual thief who stole the phone sold it to some innocent third party for a great discount.
    - TenOhms 10y ago
      So find and hold the real thief accountable for the theft and the invasion of the innocent person's privacy. It was after all, the thief's fault.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        That doesn't make sense as the thief would be unaware of the spyware - no mens rea
dep_b 10y ago
Why is it wiretapping? He's not trying to get the guy convicted. He's merely recording what someone else is doing with his phone. If you take my phone from the table and snap a few nude selfies with it, should I respect your privacy?
- okasaki 10y ago
  Because he's recording someone in their home, where that person has an expectation of privacy.
  - dep_b 10y ago
    He was just adding data to the owner's data that was already on the phone. If I upload my private movies to your hard drive, you are the one that needs to respect my privacy? Or should I stop using your harddrive?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      False dilemma. In the EU, the answer is "both".
  - briandear 10y ago
    That person had a stolen phone. Their expectation of privacy is irrelevant. The person who owned the phone has an expectation that their property wouldn't get stolen. Why are people here actually feeling sorry for the thief? It's bizarre. The thief created his own problem.
    - Qantourisc 10y ago
      I doubt anyone here is feeling sorry for the thief (I could be wrong). It's more of an ethical / legal thing: Does one crime erode your rights (without the law / justice / trial) ?
    - nsxwolf 10y ago
      It's possible to feel sorry for someone while simultaneously prosecuting them with great zeal.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
Can you illegally wiretap your own device? It would seem to me the criminal implicitly invited the student into his life by using the internet connected property of the Student without permission. In all cases, the criminal, not the student, determined where the phone was and whether it was in use or not (without permission). The student simply used his property where it was located, which is clearly his right to do. The property still belongs to the student. He has reasonable discretion to use it as he wills. In the battle of "rights" it seems the student would be within his rights under the circumstances. This is not to say the student is within his legal rights: legally recognized rights have a long history of not correlating to any reasonable definition of individual rights. So the law may very well be in the wrong on this matter. I'm very much for rights of privacy and the like, and a person should not be subject to search or eavesdropping without due process and probable cause. But this case seems very straight forward in terms of a criminal losing a right of privacy due to inviting another into his life. Wages of theft you could call it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  It seems like the answer would be, of course you can, in the same way that you can illegally wiretap a bathroom by leaving your own cameras in it. As with all these things, the issue probably comes mostly down to intent.
  - sbuttgereit 10y ago
    Your bathroom example ignores the most important contextual point at play in the case at hand and therefore must be discarded as a criticism. Ignore the essentials and you can make a case for any action one way or the other: a silly, nonsensical case, but a case. My comments where in context dealing with criminal and a victim. I made clear that the voluntary actions of the criminal are what made the subsequent actions of the victim justifiable as the victim didn't relinquish rights to his property. In your example the phone owner is the voluntary actor and the unwitting person coming after is the involuntary victim. Naturally the cases aren't on par.
    - 10y ago
Fnoord 10y ago
The author doesn't address this. However, the author doesn't want viewers to try similar projects, and also did the project to inform people of the massive privacy issues concerning smartphones. From his FAQ: "5. Why won't you teach us how to install the app like you did? Besides theft, I wanted to make a point and start a discussion about privacy on smartphones without actually making a film that even mentions the word privacy. This is why the project should not be reproduced. I think the film makes the point, doing it again would be for entertainment purposes which I didn't. I hope people who see the film will realize the risk of getting hacked on smartphones, by hackers and governments. On computers, most people use virus scans, install updates and some people even put tape on their webcams while almost nobody even considers how vulnerable a smartphone is, and what the implications of getting hacked mean. I think the film already created a lot of awareness and started discussions about it." Also, quoting from his YouTube page: "Anthony is a director, researcher and concept developer. In June 2015 he graduated from the Willem de Kooning Academy with his film Find my Phone. Anthony uses technology to tell stories in his work and has special interest in software and hardware development, hacking and privacy. He is currently working on developing a new documentary series and several other projects." The above suggests this was just an art project. That doesn't mean it is exempt from law (personally, I believe he broke the law, and if you're interested wether this is true or not in NL I can highly recommend a lawyer, Arnoud Engelfriet, who might address the question on his blog), but it does show his intentions.
mpol 10y ago
Wiretapping your own phone should be legal. The concern is how it got stolen... It is illegal to leave your car running while walking into a shop and coming back a minute later. Not sure about a good English translation, but you are urging someone to steal your car. Depending on how his phone got stolen (it was a setup), he could be charged with something similar.
- senior_james 10y ago
  Fantastic. Let's arrest the victims of crimes and give the thieves a medal.
- dep_b 10y ago
  That only counts if you're the police or something similar. You can't leave a car running as bait.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    Correct, there's no restriction against a private citizen baiting you into committing a crime by simply leaving the means available. And it's still a crime, even if they intended you to take the bait. If they try to talk you into it on the other hand...
  - bonoboTP 10y ago
    Are you sure? In which country? Because in Hungary we had a team of guys who regularly left bicycles out in the street (with GPS) and then waited for them to get stolen and then called the police with the GPS data. And it worked, the bike owner guys didn't get into trouble for leaving a "bait" out there. If someone steals it, they committed a crime and get caught by the police.
    - dep_b 10y ago
      But that's civilians. The police can't do that. At least in the countries I know of, Hungary can be different.
- briandear 10y ago

cmurf 10y ago

Really? You're concerned of the privacy rights of a thief? The card/account owner clearly has a right to know the activity on their card. The usage information are facts. They can't be copyrighted by either the issuer or the account holder. I don't see where any privacy rights for the thief come into play, they definitely did not agree to be bound the the account terms and conditions. What could be true is if the account holder violated the terms and conditions by knowingly allowing someone else to use the card. I'm actually not even sure what my license agreement allows, but it wouldn't surprise me if technically I can't give my card to a spouse or child to use, instead the issuer wants additional cards issued to make sure anyone using the card is bound to the account contract.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> You're concerned of the privacy rights of a thief? These rights must apply to everyone. If you catch an intruder in your home, you can't tie him up and beat him with a crowbar, either. If someone attempts to mug you in the street, and you overpower them, you're not allowed to take money out of their wallet.
- briandear 10y ago
  The 'invasion' of privacy was caused by the thief's own actions. He could have avoided it by not taking people's things! It's like feeling sorry for a rapist because he caught a venereal disease from his victim.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    The question was whether it's legal.
z3t4 10y ago
how do you know he is the theif, and where do you draw the line on who can have privacy and not ?
- TuringNYC 10y ago
  That was my thought as well -- it could well be that the actual thief who stole the phone sold it to some innocent third party for a great discount.
  - TenOhms 10y ago
    So find and hold the real thief accountable for the theft and the invasion of the innocent person's privacy. It was after all, the thief's fault.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      That doesn't make sense as the thief would be unaware of the spyware - no mens rea

dep_b 10y ago

Why is it wiretapping? He's not trying to get the guy convicted. He's merely recording what someone else is doing with his phone. If you take my phone from the table and snap a few nude selfies with it, should I respect your privacy?

okasaki 10y ago
Because he's recording someone in their home, where that person has an expectation of privacy.
- dep_b 10y ago
  He was just adding data to the owner's data that was already on the phone. If I upload my private movies to your hard drive, you are the one that needs to respect my privacy? Or should I stop using your harddrive?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    False dilemma. In the EU, the answer is "both".
- briandear 10y ago
  That person had a stolen phone. Their expectation of privacy is irrelevant. The person who owned the phone has an expectation that their property wouldn't get stolen. Why are people here actually feeling sorry for the thief? It's bizarre. The thief created his own problem.
  - Qantourisc 10y ago
    I doubt anyone here is feeling sorry for the thief (I could be wrong). It's more of an ethical / legal thing: Does one crime erode your rights (without the law / justice / trial) ?
  - nsxwolf 10y ago
    It's possible to feel sorry for someone while simultaneously prosecuting them with great zeal.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

Can you illegally wiretap your own device? It would seem to me the criminal implicitly invited the student into his life by using the internet connected property of the Student without permission. In all cases, the criminal, not the student, determined where the phone was and whether it was in use or not (without permission). The student simply used his property where it was located, which is clearly his right to do. The property still belongs to the student. He has reasonable discretion to use it as he wills. In the battle of "rights" it seems the student would be within his rights under the circumstances. This is not to say the student is within his legal rights: legally recognized rights have a long history of not correlating to any reasonable definition of individual rights. So the law may very well be in the wrong on this matter. I'm very much for rights of privacy and the like, and a person should not be subject to search or eavesdropping without due process and probable cause. But this case seems very straight forward in terms of a criminal losing a right of privacy due to inviting another into his life. Wages of theft you could call it.

tptacek 10y ago
It seems like the answer would be, of course you can, in the same way that you can illegally wiretap a bathroom by leaving your own cameras in it. As with all these things, the issue probably comes mostly down to intent.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  Your bathroom example ignores the most important contextual point at play in the case at hand and therefore must be discarded as a criticism. Ignore the essentials and you can make a case for any action one way or the other: a silly, nonsensical case, but a case. My comments where in context dealing with criminal and a victim. I made clear that the voluntary actions of the criminal are what made the subsequent actions of the victim justifiable as the victim didn't relinquish rights to his property. In your example the phone owner is the voluntary actor and the unwitting person coming after is the involuntary victim. Naturally the cases aren't on par.
  - 10y ago

Fnoord 10y ago

The author doesn't address this. However, the author doesn't want viewers to try similar projects, and also did the project to inform people of the massive privacy issues concerning smartphones. From his FAQ: "5. Why won't you teach us how to install the app like you did? Besides theft, I wanted to make a point and start a discussion about privacy on smartphones without actually making a film that even mentions the word privacy. This is why the project should not be reproduced. I think the film makes the point, doing it again would be for entertainment purposes which I didn't. I hope people who see the film will realize the risk of getting hacked on smartphones, by hackers and governments. On computers, most people use virus scans, install updates and some people even put tape on their webcams while almost nobody even considers how vulnerable a smartphone is, and what the implications of getting hacked mean. I think the film already created a lot of awareness and started discussions about it." Also, quoting from his YouTube page: "Anthony is a director, researcher and concept developer. In June 2015 he graduated from the Willem de Kooning Academy with his film Find my Phone. Anthony uses technology to tell stories in his work and has special interest in software and hardware development, hacking and privacy. He is currently working on developing a new documentary series and several other projects." The above suggests this was just an art project. That doesn't mean it is exempt from law (personally, I believe he broke the law, and if you're interested wether this is true or not in NL I can highly recommend a lawyer, Arnoud Engelfriet, who might address the question on his blog), but it does show his intentions.

mpol 10y ago

Wiretapping your own phone should be legal. The concern is how it got stolen... It is illegal to leave your car running while walking into a shop and coming back a minute later. Not sure about a good English translation, but you are urging someone to steal your car. Depending on how his phone got stolen (it was a setup), he could be charged with something similar.

senior_james 10y ago
Fantastic. Let's arrest the victims of crimes and give the thieves a medal.
dep_b 10y ago
That only counts if you're the police or something similar. You can't leave a car running as bait.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Correct, there's no restriction against a private citizen baiting you into committing a crime by simply leaving the means available. And it's still a crime, even if they intended you to take the bait. If they try to talk you into it on the other hand...
- bonoboTP 10y ago
  Are you sure? In which country? Because in Hungary we had a team of guys who regularly left bicycles out in the street (with GPS) and then waited for them to get stolen and then called the police with the GPS data. And it worked, the bike owner guys didn't get into trouble for leaving a "bait" out there. If someone steals it, they committed a crime and get caught by the police.
  - dep_b 10y ago
    But that's civilians. The police can't do that. At least in the countries I know of, Hungary can be different.
briandear 10y ago