4 ms·

Which part? I don't think he actually logged in under the guy's Facebook account?

by grav1tas 16y ago

tyhjmhytgfv 16y ago
Video recording somebody in the privacy of their home and broadcasting it without their permission or knowledge.
- masklinn 16y ago
  As far as I can tell the guy recorded himself and the data was automatically uploaded from Mark's stolen laptop to his online backup, though Mark is indeed guilty of broadcasting it.
  - scotty79 16y ago
    So generally you can plant a hidden camera operated remotely in some attractive item, like a laptop (hey! there's already one!), wait for the victim to take the bait ("steal" your laptop) and after that you can record whatever you wish without anyone pressing against you any wiretapping charges? Even camera don't have to be started remotely. Hey, my camera is always rolling and sending stream to remote server. That's my laptop and that's how I'm using it.
    - chris_j 16y ago
      That's not what happened in this case, of course. The laptop thief used the stolen laptop to film himself but was unaware that the video could be viewed by the laptop's owner. I'm having trouble coming up with an analogy for that one.
      - scotty79 16y ago
        I wasn't drawing any analogy. I just wondered if this kind of invigilation is legal. I know thief started the camera and I'm not acusing Mark of planting laptop or wiretapping. I'm just curious if it's legal to spy on people using the scenario I described.
    - masklinn 16y ago
      Erm... You might have missed the part where the perp recorded himself. There was no remote activation, there was no spying, there was no nothing. The perp recorded himself, and two month later as Mark was checking his backups he realized the stolen machine was still backuping itself.
- gacek 16y ago
  The recording was done by the thief himself. I guess distributing someones video could be a copyright violation, but wouldn't be criminal. However activating camera/microphone remotely might be considered a wiretap. Another thought: suppose the thief sold the laptop immediately, and the person recorded is guilty of buying a used laptop.
  - tyhjmhytgfv 16y ago
    Sorry I thought the owner remotely started the video camera - but accessing the recording remotely could still be considered wiretapping
    - zecho 16y ago
      Even if Mark had remotely turned on the camera of his own computer and started recording, I doubt wiretapping laws could come into play, because it's a) his property (see also: case law involving video recording of employees) and b) he's not law enforcement. What it would come down to is reasonable expectation of privacy, but considering the admission that the laptop was stolen, most judges would throw this whole thing out if privacy was the legal argument. Any thief would know that a person whose property was stolen would probably go looking for it. Mark's first amendment rights to publish data that is recorded on his property trumps the alleged thief's expectation of privacy. The other issue that could come into play is copyright, but again, Mark is the owner of the property. Photographers who shoot photos on company equipment don't have the copyright of those photos; the publisher does, unless there is a specific contract between the author and the publisher granting the publisher (or the author) reproduction licenses. Lastly, others have mentioned libel/slander. There's one flaw in this argument: Nowhere in the video description does it a) explicitly accuse the person of being the thief (so if he was found not guilty, the accused has no case there) and do so with malice or b) even make fun of the guy's dancing (which is a statement of opinion and wouldn't hold up in court).
      - oihujyfgthyjuik 16y ago
        Wasn't there a case in the US where schools loaned children laptops and the administrator secretly videotaped the children in their bedrooms and reported them fro some activity? I assume that this was illegal even though the laptop was the school's property

Which part? I don't think he actually logged in under the guy's Facebook account?

tyhjmhytgfv 16y ago

Video recording somebody in the privacy of their home and broadcasting it without their permission or knowledge.

masklinn 16y ago
As far as I can tell the guy recorded himself and the data was automatically uploaded from Mark's stolen laptop to his online backup, though Mark is indeed guilty of broadcasting it.
- scotty79 16y ago
  So generally you can plant a hidden camera operated remotely in some attractive item, like a laptop (hey! there's already one!), wait for the victim to take the bait ("steal" your laptop) and after that you can record whatever you wish without anyone pressing against you any wiretapping charges? Even camera don't have to be started remotely. Hey, my camera is always rolling and sending stream to remote server. That's my laptop and that's how I'm using it.
  - chris_j 16y ago
    That's not what happened in this case, of course. The laptop thief used the stolen laptop to film himself but was unaware that the video could be viewed by the laptop's owner. I'm having trouble coming up with an analogy for that one.
    - scotty79 16y ago
      I wasn't drawing any analogy. I just wondered if this kind of invigilation is legal. I know thief started the camera and I'm not acusing Mark of planting laptop or wiretapping. I'm just curious if it's legal to spy on people using the scenario I described.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    Erm... You might have missed the part where the perp recorded himself. There was no remote activation, there was no spying, there was no nothing. The perp recorded himself, and two month later as Mark was checking his backups he realized the stolen machine was still backuping itself.
gacek 16y ago
The recording was done by the thief himself. I guess distributing someones video could be a copyright violation, but wouldn't be criminal. However activating camera/microphone remotely might be considered a wiretap. Another thought: suppose the thief sold the laptop immediately, and the person recorded is guilty of buying a used laptop.
- tyhjmhytgfv 16y ago
  Sorry I thought the owner remotely started the video camera - but accessing the recording remotely could still be considered wiretapping
  - zecho 16y ago
    Even if Mark had remotely turned on the camera of his own computer and started recording, I doubt wiretapping laws could come into play, because it's a) his property (see also: case law involving video recording of employees) and b) he's not law enforcement. What it would come down to is reasonable expectation of privacy, but considering the admission that the laptop was stolen, most judges would throw this whole thing out if privacy was the legal argument. Any thief would know that a person whose property was stolen would probably go looking for it. Mark's first amendment rights to publish data that is recorded on his property trumps the alleged thief's expectation of privacy. The other issue that could come into play is copyright, but again, Mark is the owner of the property. Photographers who shoot photos on company equipment don't have the copyright of those photos; the publisher does, unless there is a specific contract between the author and the publisher granting the publisher (or the author) reproduction licenses. Lastly, others have mentioned libel/slander. There's one flaw in this argument: Nowhere in the video description does it a) explicitly accuse the person of being the thief (so if he was found not guilty, the accused has no case there) and do so with malice or b) even make fun of the guy's dancing (which is a statement of opinion and wouldn't hold up in court).
    - oihujyfgthyjuik 16y ago
      Wasn't there a case in the US where schools loaned children laptops and the administrator secretly videotaped the children in their bedrooms and reported them fro some activity? I assume that this was illegal even though the laptop was the school's property