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?
Does he address it in the video?
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.
As with all these things, the issue probably comes mostly down to intent.
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.
It's all about expectation of privacy. You are not protected from invasion of privacy in a public place, because there is no expectation of privacy there. And I expect a jury would also find that there is no expectation of privacy when you break into someones home and use the bathroom or steal their phone/camera and take it to your own home.
And I'm not saying you can't take photographs in public places. What I'm saying is that the binary concept of "expectation of privacy" doesn't apply in the EU. Even in the street there are some protections, such as from CCTVs [2]:
This means that cameras attached to a private individual’s home may, in certain circumstances, no longer be exempt from the requirements of the DPA under section 36. Those circumstances are likely to include where the camera monitors any area beyond the interior and exterior limits of that individual’s home. This would include any camera to the extent that it covered, even partially, a public space such as the pavement or street. (...)
If you have set up a live streaming camera available to the public so that they can, for example, assess which route to take on their journey to work based on the level of congestion, you should ensure that it is appropriately zoomed out so that individuals cannot be identified. If individuals can be identified then this will need to be justified and shown to be necessary and proportionate.
[1] http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.pt/2014/12/bringing-data-prote...
It may depend a lot on what state you're in. There are states with stronger statutes about camera surveillance and invasion of privacy than others.
(I'm talking about the US; I don't know what the situation is in other countries --- or rather, I know even less about it).
In some culturally regressive countries, the law is used to prosecute the victims of rape. Such law is wrong and immoral... but in those countries it's the law and as a real victim on a moral level you are not "safe" from the law as you say.
My argument about what is right and wrong comes from the fact that I do not lose the right to use my property when it is stolen and the criminal loses certain rights when they voluntarily commit a theft. Of course the likely most sensible case is to use tracking, monitoring, etc as you suggest to bring the criminal to justice. But, if you steal a device that can be remotely controlled and monitor you: you lose the right to privacy because part of your theft was to invite me (by way of my property) into your life. The victim didn't ask to be invited, but the criminal made sure the victim was there. By the way, there's a lot worse the criminal gives up at the moment of theft: the right not to be assaulted by me is lost... take my phone a start to run away, I may well cause you to trip and injure yourself to protect my property: I exercise retaliatory force to defend my property, and because you initiated force to take the phone (not necessarily direct violence) you loose the right to be protected from such action. Again: this is moral argument, not necessarily legal... there are plenty of laws around the world more willing to make a victim the criminal and the criminal the victim on criteria going well beyond any willful act (social status, group identity, etc.).
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me yes. The thief's right to privacy is being invaded. It's not because he broke the law that he suddenly no longer has any rights. Just like you can't shoot somebody just because he broke into your house (in Europe; I'm aware of the castle doctrine).
Also, you don't get to mete out the punishment if you're wronged, that's the role of the judiciary.
This seems to imply the owner's right to "access" their device ends at the moment of theft (or loss of physical retention of the device). I don't think that's clear. I'm not aware of any case law that deals with this, however, and it could be something we see in the future as, say, self driving cars get stolen and someone can remotely access the dashcam.
(I am also not a lawyer, so if there are any actual lawyers reading please chime in as I think this is a super interesting topic.)
I don't think it implies that. But the two rights are in conflict and need to be balanced. One does not automatically override the other in all circumstances. It would probably ok to access the phone to locate it, but spying on the thief like in the video seems to clearly cross the line of legality. Of course, this also depends on the jurisdiction...
Interesting. I wonder where on the spectrum things like trail cameras fall - those have become ubiquitous with hunters as motion sensors, flash storage and digital and IR camera technology has gotten cheap.
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.
If that's what the law says, then the law is broken.
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.
If they try to talk you into it on the other hand...
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.
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.
It's like feeling sorry for a rapist because he caught a venereal disease from his victim.