Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3pt14159 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

1. Person A has a laptop

2. Person A no longer has a laptop. Person A did not sell or give away this laptop. The laptop was stolen.

3. Person B now has the missing laptop.

Conclusion: Person B is in possession of a stolen laptop.

This is fine line or argument, but don't you think it belongs in a courtroom, being made to a jury that has been shown all of the evidence and who will also hear the accused make his own arguments for his innocence?

The website appears to have been created in response to the inability of the police to bring the person, allegedly responsible, into a courtroom to explain why he is in possession of a stolen laptop.

That's definitely required before bringing the resources of the state to bear in punishing the person.

If you're not doing that, then no, it needn't be.

Isn't possession of stolen property prima facie proof of guilt of ... possession of stolen property?

Yeah.. that was pretty much what I was going for, there.

Is buying stolen property, which you seller does not tell you is stolen, over Craig's List equivalent to stealing the item? Should the buyer be jailed?

No. The police possess a great deal of stolen property. The entire police force would collapse into a blue hole if they had to arrest everybody in possession of stolen property. The crime is knowing it is stolen and having no intent to return it.

This is a modern day wanted poster. I think it's completely fine. He hasn't been convicted to any material degree: He's still free, unhurt, and in possession of the item.

2.5 Thief logs onto ebay and sells laptop to Person B

Conclusion?

Person B is still in possession of stolen goods (which has certain legal consequences at least in Australia)

I don't see any evidence that Person B stole Person A's laptop or that Person B is even aware than the laptop was stolen. Or maybe that was the point you were making?

How about the bit where he shows the person deleting his profile?

In this case it seems unlikely but bear in mind that it's possible to be in possession of stolen goods without knowing they're stolen.

What makes it seem unlikely?

The fact that he's shown driving away with the laptop shortly after stealing it.

Of course it's possible to be in possession of stolen goods without knowing they're stolen... but that does not remove the rights of the "owner" of the laptop to remotely control his equipment. If you buy a Blackberry for cheap off of Craigslist, it sucks when the owner bricks it after a week and you loose all your photos/contacts/sms messages. But legally its still his phone, he can do what he wants with it.

This guy also has every right to collect and publicize any information collected by the laptop which will help him locate it. He's titled it "This guy has my MacBook", not stole, and he hasn't posted anything irresponsibly that I've seen.

He has every right to collect the guy's personal information, too, but that doesn't mean he can use his credit card or publish his social security number.

Posting pictures on the internet is far different from lynching someone.

The court system and government should treat people as innocent until proven guilty. Private citizens have a lower responsibility.

At no point did the original poster claim that man stole his laptop - he merely stated that his laptop was stolen and posted pictures of the man currently possessing the stolen laptop. Other people assumed this man stole the laptop, which may or may not be accurate.

The man is in possession of stolen property. At some point we need to balance the owner's rights to retrieve stolen property against the right's of a man possessing stolen property to retain complete anonymity.

Posting pictures on the internet is a great way to get a lynch mob going. Those people assuming this man stole the laptop can cause real harm as a result, and I'm not convinced that a smug "I never actually said that this man stole my laptop" should be an acceptable defense for the provocateur.

A lynch mob is appropriate if the police refuse to act.

If elected officials do not enforce the law, the burden falls onto private citizens to do so. This is the common law with thousands of years of precedent.

I'm not sure what perspective Saudi Arabia's laws give us. In Saudi Arabia homosexuality is punishable by death, does that give us any perspective of how they should be treated here?

Yes, that's better than a lynch mob with no rule of law.

Is it, really?

I for once would pick living amongst a disorganized mob who would lynch me upon suspicion of doing something that I also consider unjust, over an organized society that would punish me, through the best procedures, for something that I find my fundamental right.

Neither case is ideal, obviously, but it's better for a society to miss procedures than a sense of individual rights.

Also, I think it is far easier for a society to build procedures/laws than change radically its perceptions on what is right and what is wrong.

I think his point is that although the guy whose photo was taken probably stole the laptop, we shouldn't jump to that conclusion without a proper trial. For instance, maybe he bought it from the thief off craigslist. I don't know how that gets sorted out by law, but I wouldn't blame the person who bought it and wouldn't want his face posted on the internet.

>For instance, maybe he bought it from the thief off craigslist.

Could be but one could also speculate the other direction. What if the robbery occurred in a very short time span, and the photo of him driving away was taken (assuming it was time and location stamped) during that time and in the immediate vicinity of the crime?

This would make it unlikely that a third party transaction had occurred.

Which is precisely why modern civilized societies have a judicial system. To reach a verdict based on actual facts and evidence. Not some "what ifs". [edited for typos]

So the current facts are that:

  a) the guy owns a laptop
  b) he took pictures using it

Sounds like he's in the clear to post them anywhere he likes then?

I own a netbook - its quite small and could be easily hidden behind a sofa or something, lets say I leave it somewhere private - maybe a hidden corner of someone's house (a friends house, I didn't break in). I take some photos with it it.

Does it sound like I'm in the clear to post them anywhere I like?

The law hinges entirely on the term "expectation of privacy" so what you do you mean by "somewhere private"? You mention a sofa so if your friend invited you in somewhere like the living room (ie. no bathrooms, weren't filming his naked kids, etc.), my understanding is you would be fine. Your friend might not like it, but legally similar situations happen daily, it's called Facebook.

Imagine taking a picture at a party with intoxicated people in it, do you get everyone's consent before snapping the pic? What about being filmed on security cam driving past an ATM? So those are two examples of where although you might not actively expect to be filmed, they are still protected filming locations.

edit: typos

In general the rule is Caveat Emptor - or buyer beware. It is up to the buyer of the goods to ensure that the seller is the legitimate owner of the property being sold. A thief cannot convey good title.

Your hypothetical Craig's lister would be in possession of stolen goods.

In fact, having photos of the person improperly in possession of your property and not making any effort to identify that person could be perceived as being complicit in the arrangement.

(However IANAL...)

Not trying to shoot you down, as despite your IANAL disclaimer the general reasoning is sound, but:

You are conflating two distinct legal principles:

Caveat Emptor, the principle that the BUYER of property takes the risk of defects in that property (except in the case of fraud/misrepresentation on the part of the SELLER); and

A thief cannot convey good title, which is actually a fallacy. If you honestly purchase goods from a thief, for market value, without knowing that the goods are stolen, your interest in those goods actually trumps those of the original owner. Counter-intuitive huh?

The original owner has recourse only against the thief, as you are effectively an innocent party to the transaction.

Caveat emptor protects the seller against a careless purchase followed by buyer's remorse.

Merely possessing goods which are stolen is not a crime in any jurisdiction i'm aware of (and for good reason), this offence almost always implies a mental element of knowledge or at least suspicion as to the source of the goods.

It is certainly the case in the UK that a stolen car remains the property of the original owner even when purchased by someone who has no knowledge of the theft.

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/2753701/Motorists-u...

My understanding was that the due diligence one is expected to conduct under caveat emptor would include ensuring the buyer had the legal title of the goods to be purchased, but this might be a regional variation or I could just be wrong.

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 ?

I think by 'lower' he means 'worse', or 'more despicable', so you guys don't actually disagree on that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com