7 ms·

I hate to be the Devil's advocate in a case involving a stolen laptop (I regard stealing my laptop as a crime even lower than stealing my bicycle), but I'm more

I hate to be the Devil's advocate in a case involving a stolen laptop (I regard stealing my laptop as a crime even lower than stealing my bicycle), but I'm more than a little troubled by the idea of plastering someone's face and private life (such as the inside of their home) on the Internet before they have been convicted of a crime. Sure, we could say "Yeah, but this software let the blog author see them absconding with the laptop," but debating the evidence is conducting a trial of sorts, without giving the accused the benefit of a chance to cross-examine their accusers and present their side of the story. I'm very comfortable with the idea of using software like this to gather evidence, and I'm very comfortable with criticizing the police for failing to act, but I'm not comfortable with publishing these pictures.

tghw 15y ago
If you are in public and someone snaps your photo, they can and use it for pretty much anything non-commercial. This is because, in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, the guy is using a photographic device that is not his (we don't know if he stole it or not), specifically, he is pointing the camera directly at his face. My gut feeling is that it would be a fine line to walk, but that there might be a decent argument that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's not his device, he knows there's a camera in it, and he's pointing that camera at his face... Just another way to look at it.
PostOnce 15y ago
Not in this particular case (photos of him driving away from the scene of the crime?), but in many like this, the pictures could be of someone who thought they had purchased a legitimate laptop on craigslist. People would still be eager to punish the guy in the pictures, pre-trial and regardless of his story.
xutopia 15y ago
The same is happening right now with the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual misconduct allegations. In the USA these kinds of allegations are made public whereas in France both parties (alleged victim and alleged per(p|v)) are treated the same private way until a court deliberates.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
3pt14159 15y ago
Wow, that's outlandish. For some perspective this guy's hands would have been cut off in Saudi Arabia. At the end of the day (assuming this isn't some fake ad campaign) dude lost his right to privacy when he stole the laptop. The victim has a right to remotely control his property, especially when it has been stolen. As for a crime lower than stealing my bicycle: That's crazy. Even if you have a bicycle worth more than your laptop, the loss of time and possible identity theft that could happen with a lost laptop more than outweighs the financial loss of either.
- loy22 15y ago
  When it comes to justice Saudi Arabia is not an inspiring example, I'm not interested in this perspective. Their system is stuck in the medieval era, why should we take any pride from such a comparaison ? I'm uneasy with this kind of plastering as well, it has this "mob lynching" vibe that is often for the worst rather than the best. It appeals to our worst instincts, and you can sense that the author is angry and we are helping him to punish this guy when we look at this. I felt dirty to be honest. If you don't believe it, ask yourself: why didn't he blur his face ? Would his message be less efficient ?
- raganwald 15y ago
  You see where you and I are coming from different places? My understanding is that in Saudi Arabia, the thief's hands would be cut off after a trial. Which is my point. I did not question someone remotely controlling their property. I questioned someone publishing certain pictures in a blog regardless of how they obtained them. Now onto a subjective matter. A bicycle is a highly personal item for many people. It may not involve identity theft, but for some people it involves a loss of freedom and mobility that can't be replaced easily. My current bicycle has been highly personalized for my use. Having it stolen would be like having a bit of my soul stolen. If you don't feel the same way about your bike, I quite understand. UPDATE: You said that "The dude lost his right to privacy when he stole a laptop." Did you notice what you just did? You convicted someone of an offence without trying them in a court of law. If we were in a jurisdiction where murder is a capital offence, you could use exactly the same logic for lynching and hanging a man without bothering to try him. He lost his right to life when he murdered, and we know he murdered, so fetch a rope and a horse. Now some (strawman alert) might say that the evidence is overwhelming. Well, where do we draw the line? What's the rule for "We don't need a trial?" Pictures on the Internet? Eyewitness accounts?? Confessions? All of these have been proved unreliable in the past, which is why we have trials.
kenj0418 15y ago
This isn't the police (or any other government agency) posting the pictures, its an individual. If the accused thief doesn't like that he has been accused of being a thief he can sue the blog author for defamation (libel/slander).
- raganwald 15y ago
  I know he can sue. My point isn't that it's illegal, my point is that I don't like it. I also don't like it when newspapers do exactly the same thing, accuse people of crimes before they have been convicted.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    It appears he just says that this guy has his MacBook, not that he stole it. He says his MacBook was stolen and this guy has it. But doesn't say that this guy stole it.
    - rcthompson 15y ago
      The caption on the photo at the bottom of the page (presumably the first picture chronologically) says "Guy driving away with my MacBook." Combined with the assertion that the laptop is stolen, it's hard to read this as anything other than an accusation of theft.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      Thanks, that's a really nifty insight.
  - kissickas 15y ago
    Is it possible to be convicted for a crime without being accused? Someone is accusing you of committing a crime- the plaintiff, in court. Isn't that all he's doing?
mcantor 15y ago
Are you saying that the person in the pictures may be someone other than the thief (e.g., they purchased the stolen laptop), or that the pictures shouldn't be published even if they depict the thief? Also, are you uncomfortable with the publishing to the extent that it is a punishment? I interpreted it as an attempt to get people's attention and thus make it more likely that his property is returned, rather than a punishment.
- raganwald 15y ago
  I'm not comfortable saying the person is the thief until they have been convicted of a crime. After that, certain pictures are probably fair game. Before that, I am not comfortable with it even if it later transpires that they were convicted. There's a whole "presumption of innocence" thing going on in my head. I feel like people are telling me that it only applies when they haven't been shown what looks at first glance like compelling evidence.
  - joel_ms 15y ago
    You are, however, apparently comfortable with (indirectly) accusing Joshua Kaufman of violating a man's privacy, in a public forum without a conviction in a courtroom. Why won't you afford him the same presumption of innocence? At least he contacted the police first, who wouldn't act on the evidence and only then did he try to garner public support for his case by showing the world the evidence he had. He even did this without accusing the man in the pictures of anything other than possessing his laptop, which is a fact arising from the evidence, even if it hasn't been considered by a court. This case wouldn't even reach a courtroom if it weren't for the fact that this website eventually got the attention of the police. Ideally the police should have just taken the evidence and investigated the case, but instead the justice system failed. What options did this guy have, other than drawing attention to the fact that the police didn't do their job? Grabbing his pitchfork and willfully instigating a real lynch mob? Letting his computer go?
  - VBprogrammer 15y ago
    The original poster clearly respected this right. The page clearly says "this guy has my MacBook," not "this guy stole my MacBook." Which, presuming the original poster isn't outright lying, is clearly true. I think making all reasonable attempts, including creating a webpage, to identify that person is well within his rights.
Vitaly 15y ago
establishing a truth and proving it 'without a reasonable doubt' are different things. if you personally saw a murder you don't need no trial to know who is the killer. trial is to convince everybody else. In this case, trial might be required to charge this guy with anything, but you can see him driving away with the laptop just as it was stolen. might not be enough to charge with theft, but pretty much enough for me.
- raganwald 15y ago
  if you personally saw a murder you don't need no trial to know who is the killer. trial is to convince everybody else. I don't think you know why we have trials. We don't have trials to convince everyone else. We have trials because your eyesight alone is not sufficient evidence, you need to consider all of the facts, not just what you think you saw.
  - tzs 15y ago
    If I commit act X, which is illegal, but I cannot be convicted because an error in police precedure makes some of the evidence inadmissible, it sounds like you believe that means I did not actually do X. That is not how causality works in this universe.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
aercolino 15y ago
Exactly what I was going to say. This is only acceptable if the website is a setup, otherwise it's just criminal to put that pictures with those accusations on them.
- pnathan 15y ago
  And what's the crime? Taking a picture of someone with the camera they stole?

tghw 15y ago

If you are in public and someone snaps your photo, they can and use it for pretty much anything non-commercial. This is because, in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, the guy is using a photographic device that is not his (we don't know if he stole it or not), specifically, he is pointing the camera directly at his face. My gut feeling is that it would be a fine line to walk, but that there might be a decent argument that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's not his device, he knows there's a camera in it, and he's pointing that camera at his face... Just another way to look at it.

PostOnce 15y ago

Not in this particular case (photos of him driving away from the scene of the crime?), but in many like this, the pictures could be of someone who thought they had purchased a legitimate laptop on craigslist. People would still be eager to punish the guy in the pictures, pre-trial and regardless of his story.

xutopia 15y ago

The same is happening right now with the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual misconduct allegations. In the USA these kinds of allegations are made public whereas in France both parties (alleged victim and alleged per(p|v)) are treated the same private way until a court deliberates.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

3pt14159 15y ago

Wow, that's outlandish. For some perspective this guy's hands would have been cut off in Saudi Arabia. At the end of the day (assuming this isn't some fake ad campaign) dude lost his right to privacy when he stole the laptop. The victim has a right to remotely control his property, especially when it has been stolen. As for a crime lower than stealing my bicycle: That's crazy. Even if you have a bicycle worth more than your laptop, the loss of time and possible identity theft that could happen with a lost laptop more than outweighs the financial loss of either.

loy22 15y ago
When it comes to justice Saudi Arabia is not an inspiring example, I'm not interested in this perspective. Their system is stuck in the medieval era, why should we take any pride from such a comparaison ? I'm uneasy with this kind of plastering as well, it has this "mob lynching" vibe that is often for the worst rather than the best. It appeals to our worst instincts, and you can sense that the author is angry and we are helping him to punish this guy when we look at this. I felt dirty to be honest. If you don't believe it, ask yourself: why didn't he blur his face ? Would his message be less efficient ?
raganwald 15y ago
You see where you and I are coming from different places? My understanding is that in Saudi Arabia, the thief's hands would be cut off after a trial. Which is my point. I did not question someone remotely controlling their property. I questioned someone publishing certain pictures in a blog regardless of how they obtained them. Now onto a subjective matter. A bicycle is a highly personal item for many people. It may not involve identity theft, but for some people it involves a loss of freedom and mobility that can't be replaced easily. My current bicycle has been highly personalized for my use. Having it stolen would be like having a bit of my soul stolen. If you don't feel the same way about your bike, I quite understand. UPDATE: You said that "The dude lost his right to privacy when he stole a laptop." Did you notice what you just did? You convicted someone of an offence without trying them in a court of law. If we were in a jurisdiction where murder is a capital offence, you could use exactly the same logic for lynching and hanging a man without bothering to try him. He lost his right to life when he murdered, and we know he murdered, so fetch a rope and a horse. Now some (strawman alert) might say that the evidence is overwhelming. Well, where do we draw the line? What's the rule for "We don't need a trial?" Pictures on the Internet? Eyewitness accounts?? Confessions? All of these have been proved unreliable in the past, which is why we have trials.

kenj0418 15y ago

This isn't the police (or any other government agency) posting the pictures, its an individual. If the accused thief doesn't like that he has been accused of being a thief he can sue the blog author for defamation (libel/slander).

raganwald 15y ago
I know he can sue. My point isn't that it's illegal, my point is that I don't like it. I also don't like it when newspapers do exactly the same thing, accuse people of crimes before they have been convicted.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  It appears he just says that this guy has his MacBook, not that he stole it. He says his MacBook was stolen and this guy has it. But doesn't say that this guy stole it.
  - rcthompson 15y ago
    The caption on the photo at the bottom of the page (presumably the first picture chronologically) says "Guy driving away with my MacBook." Combined with the assertion that the laptop is stolen, it's hard to read this as anything other than an accusation of theft.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    Thanks, that's a really nifty insight.
- kissickas 15y ago
  Is it possible to be convicted for a crime without being accused? Someone is accusing you of committing a crime- the plaintiff, in court. Isn't that all he's doing?

mcantor 15y ago

Are you saying that the person in the pictures may be someone other than the thief (e.g., they purchased the stolen laptop), or that the pictures shouldn't be published even if they depict the thief? Also, are you uncomfortable with the publishing to the extent that it is a punishment? I interpreted it as an attempt to get people's attention and thus make it more likely that his property is returned, rather than a punishment.

raganwald 15y ago
I'm not comfortable saying the person is the thief until they have been convicted of a crime. After that, certain pictures are probably fair game. Before that, I am not comfortable with it even if it later transpires that they were convicted. There's a whole "presumption of innocence" thing going on in my head. I feel like people are telling me that it only applies when they haven't been shown what looks at first glance like compelling evidence.
- joel_ms 15y ago
  You are, however, apparently comfortable with (indirectly) accusing Joshua Kaufman of violating a man's privacy, in a public forum without a conviction in a courtroom. Why won't you afford him the same presumption of innocence? At least he contacted the police first, who wouldn't act on the evidence and only then did he try to garner public support for his case by showing the world the evidence he had. He even did this without accusing the man in the pictures of anything other than possessing his laptop, which is a fact arising from the evidence, even if it hasn't been considered by a court. This case wouldn't even reach a courtroom if it weren't for the fact that this website eventually got the attention of the police. Ideally the police should have just taken the evidence and investigated the case, but instead the justice system failed. What options did this guy have, other than drawing attention to the fact that the police didn't do their job? Grabbing his pitchfork and willfully instigating a real lynch mob? Letting his computer go?
- VBprogrammer 15y ago
  The original poster clearly respected this right. The page clearly says "this guy has my MacBook," not "this guy stole my MacBook." Which, presuming the original poster isn't outright lying, is clearly true. I think making all reasonable attempts, including creating a webpage, to identify that person is well within his rights.

Vitaly 15y ago

establishing a truth and proving it 'without a reasonable doubt' are different things. if you personally saw a murder you don't need no trial to know who is the killer. trial is to convince everybody else. In this case, trial might be required to charge this guy with anything, but you can see him driving away with the laptop just as it was stolen. might not be enough to charge with theft, but pretty much enough for me.

raganwald 15y ago
if you personally saw a murder you don't need no trial to know who is the killer. trial is to convince everybody else. I don't think you know why we have trials. We don't have trials to convince everyone else. We have trials because your eyesight alone is not sufficient evidence, you need to consider all of the facts, not just what you think you saw.
- tzs 15y ago
  If I commit act X, which is illegal, but I cannot be convicted because an error in police precedure makes some of the evidence inadmissible, it sounds like you believe that means I did not actually do X. That is not how causality works in this universe.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

aercolino 15y ago

Exactly what I was going to say. This is only acceptable if the website is a setup, otherwise it's just criminal to put that pictures with those accusations on them.

pnathan 15y ago
And what's the crime? Taking a picture of someone with the camera they stole?