Rent-to-Own Laptops Secretly Photographed Users Having Sex, FTC Says | Hacker News Reader

Rent-to-Own Laptops Secretly Photographed Users Having Sex, FTC Says

wired.com

70 pointsyk50 comments

Society really need to stop treating illegal activities different just because it's an company and not an individual who performed them.

If an individual, say the boyfriend of someone lent his computer to his girlfriend with those programs, he would be prosecuted in almost every modern country in the world. If he would use that information for monetary gain (like selling the pictures), he would likely end up in jail.

If an individual would apply the exact same program on an open proxy or on usb-keys dropped at a parking lot, he would be prosecuted under hacking laws and likely end up in jail for several years, especially if he earned money from it.

I guess the problem crackers and blackhats have with the law today is that they aren't companies. They should really form a company front for their activities, and hide any stealing of private information as "data mining for advertising" which they just happen to sell at highest price in auctions to "email-advertising" companies in China/Russia/Nigeria. Any images could be sold too, like to magazines/porn studios as any user "uploaded" files are company property as by the EULA. If they ever get caught, they can just say "oops, sorry", close down, create a new a new company, and go on with business as usual.

mens rea is probably missing. It's pretty clear at this point that a number of people get the bright idea of turning on the webcam to some degree on the laptops they still own while sending them home with other people.

While it's always skeevy, it's worth pointing out that it probably isn't malicious. It's actually a simple manifestation of a standard form of human irrationality, the availability heuristic [1]. The people making these decisions sit there and fear what may be done to their property, and while they are sitting there imagining all the things that may be done, that ends up swamping all the other possibilities in their head. They imagine they're just going to catch two sorts of images: People normally using the laptop, and people stealing or hurting it. (And I am sure that if you asked them to guess how many images of abuse they'd catch that they would overestimate by at least two orders of magnitude.) The availability heuristic has crowded out all the other sorts of images they will capture in what is very nearly a random sampling of the full range of home life.

So the people end up as surprised as can be that they end up with what is legally child porn on their hands. I really don't think that these companies are setting out to collect that on purpose. They're just taking doing something skeevy, but seemingly safe, under the guidance of a normal human irrationality we all have, and end up bitten by it. Even if they do in fact have somewhat malicious purposes and want to catch some sort of other image they shouldn't want, they will still end up over-imagining how much of that they will catch, and not realize how much other stuff they will catch.

Your examples are not comparable, in that they all include clear intent.

And if you are really inclined to argue "But they should have known!"... well... are you so sure you're completely conversant in all possible legal issues arising in fields completely outside of your experience? I'd certainly like word to get out this is a very bad idea, but I'm not sure I'm willing to destroy lives over this mistake. That's not a standard I want to live under! It's really damned easy to tell other people they shouldn't suffer from standard human irrationalities. It's much harder to see them in yourself when they happen.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

Intent is always tricky, but the answer from the company is always the same, ie, they wanted to make money. Malicious Actions and morally objectionable actions is not synonymous. Many companies has acted illegal and morally wrong (one might even say evil), but their intent is always the same. Even when they do illegal acts like Enron did, the answer would be the same: They too only wanted to earn money.

Thus there is no malicious companies, only companies who's acts are morally wrong. Thus when judging companies, intent can not be assessed in the same way as when judging people.

What would I do if I worked there? Apologize and compensate the customer for the wrongful actions that has been performed. Actions, not intent is the available defense for a company. If an company perform illegal acts and do not take responsibility for it, then the leaders of said company should face legal penalty like jail and fines.

* "email-advertising" companies in China/Russia/Nigeria.*

FYI, the US is by far the largest producer of spam e-mails: http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries/

Hopefully some of this turns out to be illegal:

    The software, known as Detective Mode, didn’t just
    secretly turn on webcams. It “can log the keystrokes
    of the computer user, take screen shots of the 
    computer user’s activities on the computer, and
    photograph anyone within view of the computer’s 
    webcam. Detective Mode secretly gathers this 
    information and transmits it to DesignerWare, who then
    transmits it to the rent-to-own store from which the 
    computer was rented, unbeknownst to the individual 
    using the computer,” according to the complaint.

and

    The software installed on the laptops also enables the
    companies to automatically disable computers of renters
    behind on monthly payments and to secretly track the
    computers’ whereabouts.

and

    the rental stores would force a fake popup for software
    registration on computers they rented. The window would
    not go away, the FTC said, until the computer user typed
    their contact information, including address, phone
    number and e-mail. The rent-to-own store would use that
    information “to try to collect money” from renters in 
    arrears, the FTC said.

Yes, I too read the article.

More like, rent to be owned... That's pathetic, shame there can't be a bigger penalty. Sad thing is this scam is clearly going after a group that likely doesn't get tech. Wonder how much it costs to rent a PC nowadays.

And likely does not have the resources to litigate nor the education profile to know their rights to recourse. Sadly there is a segment of society that preys on such people and even worse a segment that feels that they get what they deserve for "being ignorant".

I think the spying should definitely be illegal as it would be in Europe because of privacy concerns. The financing is a little more problematic because you could argue a lot of things should be illegal like Louis Vuitton handbags for example. Have you seen the prices? It is unreal you could get 5 bespoke handbags from a master leathercrafter made from virgin snake leather or something. People who want to pay 3000 USD for a laptop are probably gullible enough to pay lots of money for other overpriced things as well. A reasonable requirement would be to always have to post total amount owed though to help people unable to do math. If they still agree there is not really much you can do.

Sorry I was not as clear as I could have been, most of my post was specific to the spying, with some latter cometary on the mindset of people that would do such a thing to that group of people. I agree that price is subjective and in the end it is the purchases responsibility to judge fair value. So long as nothing has been misrepresented, I think a person should be allowed to charge $50,000 for a 2 dollar item if they can get it and their is no duress to the situation (e.g gouging for gas in a shortage). That being said, I would be in favor of a consumer law that required manufacturers to disclose their total cost to produce an item. This would still allow retailers to charge what they feel is fair, but level the playing field for the consumer to see how much they are paying over the cost of production.

Surprised no one has nailed you for the gas gouging example. During a shortage, raising prices gets the gas to where it is needed most. Raising gas during an emergency ("value prcing") when there is no shortage, is a different matter.

Sorry I was not clear, the shortage I was talking about was something like a hurricane. Where people are preying on the desperation of the situation. Sure we could allow an unbridled market in such situation, but I think most would agree that gouging in an emergency goes beyond even the rent seeking of the rent to own establishments.

It's incredibly difficult to figure out how much it costs, because none of the rent-to-own websites will give you a price. Instead, it's all bespoke, so that they can rip you off for the largest possible amount.

Example: "Aaron’s shopping cart is a little different than other web sites. You will of course get a guaranteed low price on everything you choose, but you won’t see pricing or payment info here on Aarons.com. So, you will only begin the process of purchasing or starting a new lease with our shopping cart. If you take 5 minutes now with the easy, 4 step shopping cart process, your local Aaron’s store will contact you ASAP and provide you local pricing and availability and help you take delivery in as little as one day."

Based on the one advertised price I was easily able to find [1], they're charging about a 400% markup, over retail. This would be equivalent to a loan at about 157% APR.

[1]: http://www6.rentacenter.com/Rent-A-Center-Home.html - the $24.99 a week "RAC Pack" - for 126 weeks, total payments $3148.74 for a Samsung PN51E450 and a Samsung HW-E450, total retail price on amazon: $737.94 ($547.99 for TV + $189.95 for soundbar)

I'm guessing its much more than 400%. After all, the stores that don't post their prices online (most of them) are probably the more expensive ones

I wonder if they don't publish pricing to avoid scrutiny similar to cash advance or payday lending. Whole thing should be hammered by the FTC.

So i get spied on and get hit with a 157% APR. That's brutal.

So the same as paying back a $450 phone subsidy in 24 monthly payments of around $60.

Nope, because if you pay the $450 extra up front, you have the handset and no phone service. People underestimate the cost of providing good phone coverage - in the past year Vodafone (AU) spent $1 billion upgrading their network, which only really covers the 15 biggest cities in Australia, and their coverage and data speeds are still trash.

Well the US has 15 times as many people as AU for similar landmass, so I give AU a bit more of a free pass for high prices. US however is terribly uncompetitive with the rest of the world.

In the UK for instance I definitely save money by buying my own handset. I use mostly data on my phone and pay £10 ($16) / month for my service. Contrast with the US where I was forced to have an $80/package to get any combination of voice/texts/data for my unlocked phone.

Even if I was taking the subsidy like a good American I would still be getting shafted to the tune of $1000 over a 2-year contract.

In the UK it is pretty borderline if you need a couple of hundred minutes plus the data. You are probably looking at more like £16 per month.

On that basis the iPhone 5 comes out a little cheaper on contract with Three over 2 years (£37/month + £90 upfront for 32GB) plus the free interest on the best deals although you can pay a couple of hundred more over the time with other providers.

For the iPhone 5 the 2 year cost is about £1000 including service for a full offer but only a few limited SIM only deals are much cheaper. Your deal would still be £840 for data only and a 32GB phone even if the prices don't go up.

Yeah I don't need hundreds of minutes, I use maybe 50 mins a month on average, but I use data and texts every day. I also don't have an iPhone, I have a Galaxy Nexus for another chunk of savings.

Admittedly the deals aren't as bad in the states if you are maximizing your usage of the plan, but for my use case it's a total rip off, as are the UK contracts to a lesser extent (because of competition).

Use cases and phone deals vary and it is worth doing the calculations in a quick spreadsheet looking at expected cost over the contract period. It isn't always the case that upfront purchase is best although I always consider it.

If you do go for the contract don't forget to call the day after it expires and switch to SIM only level prices otherwise any savings will disappear the the next month or so.

My current iPhone 4S contract is only 12 months which was available only to existing customers and worked out substantially cheaper than other purchasing options comes with an insane number of minutes 900 per month but was actually cheaper over the period than the 200 minute ones which would have been plenty.

I always pay for my phone up front because the time I've spent dealing with trying to get my phone unlocked when I travel between US/UK/Europe/Brazil is worth far far more than any potential savings.

Several down-votes? Odd not seen problems before with people singing the praises of suppliers the like - I don't work for these guys, just think they have a pretty amazing good deal, and was following up to the numbers that had been given above... anyway -

In the UK you should check out http://giffgaff.com/ - £10 a month for unlimited internet, unlimited SMS and 250 minutes of calls (mobile or landland, and free to other GiffGaff numbers) - not a bad deal at all. Runs on the o2 network, so pretty reliable.

£120 for 2 years is an amazing deal, and if you can buy your iphone 5 (or other mobile) on an interest free credit card, then you can make a very nice saving - £649 for 2 years service and the 16g iphone 5 (£529 from Apple).

My girlfriend just did this, but is paying off the phone at £50 a month (on a 0% card) so will be clear in 10 months, with just £10 a month to pay.

Also, it's just a rolling 30 day notice period - no 2 year contract.

Giff Gaff prices are going up and they have had some pretty prolonged service outages but it probably is the cheapest option still.

http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Contribute-Innovation-Promo...

Edit

By the way £10 per month for 2 years is £240

Outage information (in addition to the O2 problem): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/16/giffgaff_down_again/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/19/giffgaff_outage/

Cheers, I hadn't noted that, the new deals look OK:

£10 goodybag (change) 250 UK Minutes Unlimited UK texts 1GB Mobile Internet (Tethering will be allowed)

£12 goodybag (new) 250 UK Minutes Unlimited UK texts Unlimited Mobile Internet (Tethering will not be allowed)

Not as brilliant as they were, but still not bad. The only outage I saw was the o2 outage - was there others?

EDIT: just spotted their earlier one caused by the burst water pipe. Interesting how they spin the outage, as 'too expensive to prevent': http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/giffgaff-outage-too-expensiv...

Normally a subsidized plan won't cost more than $10-$20 extra.

>It's incredibly difficult to figure out how much it costs, because none of the rent-to-own websites will give you a price.

Pricing is different per-location too.

Depending on what you're using these outfits for, it can work out (he that's well paid is will satisfied and all that..), but for the most part, you're paying a lot of extra money for the privilege of getting a pretty decent replacement plan (both Aarons and RAC to my knowledge will replace broken appliances/electronics/furniture while on lease) and spreading the total payments due across a large period.

Whether that's worth it or not to you will depend on the person, really. I'd hardly classify them as predatory, or skeevy, or even really a rip off, just very, very expensive.

Actually looking through the article, all of the companies involved in this clusterf*ck are companies I've never heard of. None of the big names, at least.

Very expensive and only purchased by people who cannot afford it == skeevy.

Reminds me of the Lower Merion School District fiasco.

Watching people surreptitiously in the privacy of their homes, definitely in the wrong.

Tracking the computers' whereabouts- I don't see why this couldn't have just been made known, e.g. "We'll be tracking the location of the machine so that when you fail to pay, we can recover our property."

Disabling the computer when renters get behind- where is the problem here? If you don't make your mortgage or rent payments, you don't get to stay for free. There are automobile finance companies for a similar demographic that will disable the car when payment isn't made. It's not like the car stops working when you're a day late. The computer warns the driver long before disabling the car. Kinda makes sense to give your 'customer' a warning and maintain her ability to drive to you to make payments.

And what's this "force a fake popup"? What's a fake popup versus a real one? Perhaps the store's systems should know who has rented which machines. But I suspect this is more about tracking the computer's location for recovery when payments are behind.

So here's my take: invasion of privacy is a big problem and should be prosecuted. Disabling service and recovering property that hasn't been paid for just makes sense. Certainly this particular company could have been more scrupulous about locating their property when payments were not made.

Ignoring all the screen capture and webcam nonsense and focuses strictly on the location tracking: should it be expected for a company that will by its definition attract deadbeats and scammers be required to detail its security measures?

There was a similar case with such "security/spy software" installed on high school student laptops, back in 2010: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/webcamscanda/

Yes. And in other countries the public prosecution would have brought a case and the school administrator who ordered the picture taking and the system administrator who followed orders would have gone to prison, where they belong.

That's the downside of all that pesky "reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense.

Huh? There is no doubt that someone took pictures. That's sufficient to bring charges. The court decides if the defendant is guilty, but the matter is serious enough to bring it in front of a judge.

You're assuming that charges would inevitably lead to a conviction.

Sorry, you are misreading the comment. I believe that invasion of privacy is a serious crime, and someone who engages in it on a sustained basis deserves jail time. One would hope that there are laws on the books against it.

One would also hope that the prosecution enforces the existing law, because the law isn't what is on the books, law is whatever is the established practice.

I am not misreading it, and suggest you reconsider the comment above about 'reasonable doubt.' What you believe and what can be proved in court are two different things. Typically, (though not always) you have to prove criminal intent as well as illegal action, and that is often easier said than done. The pictures in the case you mention are circumstantial evidence, but not conclusive of guilt. Further, a competent defense attorney could would begin by seeking to exclude them as evidence. Cases like this are usually a good deal more complex than you might appreciate from media reports.

Criminal intent is probably the easiest to prove here. If one defines "intent" as the desire to bring about an action, there has certainly been the intent to take pictures. After all, they do not collect themselves automatically, someone decided that they should be taken.

It's something of a tossup if Lower Meirion is covered by the wiretapping statutes - those tend to cover communication and it's a bit dubious if photographing someone in one's private space is covered by that. Perhaps one could invoke the Fourth Amendment, but then someone would have to argue that private entities are also covered.

It's likely that the student and the parents were informed of the spyware and has to sign an agreement to accept it, but then the laptops were required for classwork, one could not attend school without once, so one would have to consider if consent wasn't given under duress.

We notice that the family collected handsomely under personality rights. That is firmly covered under civil law, so the law has some teeth. However, when there is some entity, private or public, that makes a business of violating personality rights, at that point such actions impact society as a whole, and it's criminal law that must be invoked to to restrain them.

Pictures can be collected automatically, and accidentally. The standards of proof for criminal and civil law are significantly different; in civil law the standard is 'preponderance of the evidence', in criminal it's 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Duress refers to an unlawful threat, and does not apply here. Further, a criminal case can fall apart on a wide number of procedural or evidentiary technicalities, many of which go unremarked in press coverage.

The prosecution decided that the evidence they had was not sufficient to meet the required standard.

The poor guy must have gone through some serious mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. I'd be interested how he arrived there.

Seriously. We are righly afraid of out-of-control police, and that's why these are on a tight leash (at least in theory and before the Patriot Act) and need a warrant before they can gather evidence that is admissible in court. But private entities seem to be allowed to play by looser rules, and that's how we end up in Lower Meirion.

Well, for starters, wiretapping without sound isn't wiretapping. Then there's probably some verbiage about the difference between being unaware of the camera's presence and the camera's operation. I don't know, read the follow ups. There were Senate hearings to fix the law with a new Protect the Children Act or somesuch, which was no doubt roundly booed on reddit and HN.

So users who rent computers have sex! I must look into this.

But this whole issue of spyware on rental/lease/borrowed computers keeps on cropping up time and time again and yet it is still legal to have spayware installed in the first place, its how its used.

As for tracking the users location, site usage etc, don't mobile phone companies already do that by definition of how they work! Mobile phones are computers after all and with that in mind this whole area of privacy and expectations of privacy needs to be cleared up as it is a mindfeild for everybody in many ways.

Can I ask a question about the potential size of the pool of victims? Do a lot of people still rent to own laptops/computers? What about electronics like tv's, stereos?

I know this used be be way popular in the mid 90's and nobody read the fine print to realie you could have bought the device 4 times over by time your rental period expired.

FTA: which has been employed on as many as 420,000 rentals

Anyone else caught doing this would be facing felony charges. But I suppose business is held to other standards.

I sent an email to Aspen Way (aspenwayenterprises.com), aka http://www.aarons.com/storelocator.aspx . It was childish and not very nice.

"Please delete this email address from your address book and add the following: jesseferagen@qwestoffice.net

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at 406-294-9432.

Thank you,

Jesse Feragen"

The owner of Aspen Way goes by the name Rohnn Lampi http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rohnn-lampi/8/779/a6

Wow, that's a very link-baity title

Seems fair to me. I mean, it also photographed the users not having sex, but that's really not much comfort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com