Slashdot Log In
IT Repair Installs Webcam Spying Software
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:59 AM
from the i-look-hot-undressing dept.
from the i-look-hot-undressing dept.
Vapon writes "A lady noticed her computer was running slower after she had brought her computer in to be repaired. She took the computer to a second repair shop where they found that one of the problems was that her webcam would turn on whenever it detected her around and was taking photos and uploading it to a website. The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 women and has photos of at least one undressing."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
If you've got nothing to hide... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you've got nothing to hide... (Score:5, Funny)
Are you fucking serious? This is a joke, It has to be, no one could be so stupid and still type. I have lots to hide, everyone does, especially when using a PC. How about whacking it to pron? How about P2P piracy, how about copying from wikipedia for an essay? How about uploading stupid comments as an AC?
Except now you've posted it on the internet that you do these things so you don't have to hide it anymore. (and yes I'm joking for you morons that can't tell)
Parent
Re:If you've got nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If you've got nothing to hide... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
First question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Does this count as being a private dick [slashdot.org]?
Second question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Will anyone dare to click on a link labeled "dick"?
Parent
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Why on earth would he go to all this trouble when there's any number of friendly Filipino women out there willing to do the same at a low-low cost?
It's a valid question (Score:5, Interesting)
I see it got modded off-topic, but it seems to me like a valid question. What the heck was this guy thinking? Or the recent story on The Register [theregister.co.uk], where a 47 year old techie got jailed for a similar stunt, except he also tried to blackmail a 17 year old girl into underessing in front of the camera. (Which is how he got caught.)
I mean, seriously. What. The. Fuck.
Didn't these guys find enough photos of naked women on the internet? I mean, seriously, how did that train of thought go? "Man, if only I could see some photos of women at least partially undressed... Nah, surely nobody publishes something like that. I guess I'll just have to bug someone's web-cam." Or what?
Or was it just a psychopath's power game?
Since the story is about him, it doesn't seem to me offtopic at all. No, seriously, I want to know. What goes in the head of that kind of idiot? How do you recognize one?
Parent
Re:It's a valid question (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the time in cases like this it makes them feel much better knowing that they have some kind of power over the victim. He could have of course found regular porn, but maybe in his mind regular porn is too boring?
Parent
Re:It's a valid question (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that a majority of men have watched or are watching porn, and the numbers are steadily rising for women too, I'm not so sure. Chances are half the guys at the office, the taxi driver if you use one at any point, at least one of the clerks at the supermaket you visit, maybe even one of the doctors who've treated you, etc, are into porn. If porn taught that, you'd notice it.
Plus, I don't know... I thought porn was about _sex_. I don't get the mentality that it's all some kind of (preferrably male) plot and power game. There _are_ people of both sexes who enjoy sex, as just that. Not as some form of power game or currency, but as just, you know, two people having an intimate moment and some fun too.
So, really, I don't get it when I hear it that porn is somehow teaching males to exert power over women. (Read your quote too, if you don't know what I'm talking about.) Or that anything that happens in there is only for the male's pleasure. Apparently regardless of whether it's one on one, two guys on one gal, two gals on one guy, or just two lesbians and no guy involved, it surely is only a depiction of something where just the guy gets any pleasure there. Apparently even if what's portrayed is one guy going down on his SO, it's still only for the guy's pleasure. And apparently demeaning, abusive or otherwise unwanted and unwelcome for the woman, if it involves sex in any way.
Women are occasionally known to have orgasms too, you know?
Plus, it's a depiction of an act which isn't just natural, but millions of married people are doing it right as you read this. And that's not even counting the unmarried ones. Is it really that much worse and harmful than a depiction of someone being beaten up, shot, stabbed, burned alive, or the other stapples of TV and movies? I mean, if people take what they saw in movies into the real world, wouldn't it make more sense to worry about those who watch war movies?
But, anyway, anyone who thinks that any kind of sex is inherently demeaning or submissive for the woman, well, at least do us guys a favour and don't marry :P
Parent
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, really, I don't get it when I hear it that porn is somehow teaching males to exert power over women.
Well then, my friend, you're just not thinking it all the way through.
Woman has spent EONS perfecting her control of the male's life via sexual gratification. Huge layers of our social structure are based around the notion that sexually-powerful women get to select the most worldly-powerful men. The very notion of monogamy is centered around a single woman being a husband's source of sexual gratification - and, as they say, if momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy.
Porn short-circuits this. When a man wants sex and the woman would rather use it for leverage, he can say 'fine bitch - be that way' and break out the porno.
INTERNET porn makes it an order of magnitude worse by allowing you to consume a HUGE amount of porn anonymously, and often at little to no cost. So for a lot of men there's little to no risk involved in 'betraying' their controlling woman and getting gratification from another place.
In short it isn't about the act of looking at porn giving power to men. That part isn't true. But few are willing to state the opposite argument, that is in fact true - that sex gives power to women - so this reverse-argument gets made by proxy...
Parent
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahem... know many married people do you?
Parent
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you understand the futility of trying to explain sexual relations to those on slashdot.
Parent
Re:WTF (Score:5, Funny)
Catching them would be impossible if they didn't try.
Not true. He already has the bullet with the person's name, so he could just read that and then try to track down that person..
Parent
Link to video? (Score:5, Funny)
Not that I would watch it, of course.
Re:Link to video? (Score:5, Funny)
I am concerned about the validity of this story, and I agree that seeing the video would help lend credibility.
Parent
Speaking of technicians doing things.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lesson. Whenever taking your machine into those places, write down the serial numbers. Unfortunately, if you buy a new machine, repairing it yourself is not an option if you want it done under warranty.
Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exceptions.
Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did the swapout comp at least work? I knew a guy that took his PC into "BigBoxStoreA" for repair becuase the thing 'squealed' and then stopped. They returned it a few days later stating they couldn't find the issue and ultimately determined the mobo had fried. He took it to a different repairshop for a second opinion. Turns out a mouse wiggled his way ontop of the HDD and chewed through the IDE cable; squeek; crash. BigBoxStoreA didn't even open the case, LAME.
Heck for ranting on terrible repair shops, someone else I knew bought a computer from BigBoxStoreA (Yes, same company) which bust in a week. He took it back, they neglected to repair it for two weeks and ultimately voided the warranty on the HP machine because they were not licensed to repair those PCs.
I got more, and I'm sure everyone else does. Computer repairmen are becoming the new age Mechanics. Yes, they can do it, some are sketchy, and a lot will rip you off. The simple answer is to learn on your own and know exactly what to look for.
Parent
Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars, like computers, require a certain level of knowledge, and the required tools.
PC's have come to the point where they don't even require tools. I always bring my phillips screwdriver with me to fix a computer, and have realized that I rarely use it any more. The tools required are more likely anti-virus and anti-spyware cleanups, followed in popularity by hard drive replacements (and data recovery tools), and CPU fan cleaning.
For a car, there are more tools required, but the parts on different cars do the same thing. They may not be interchangable, but they look similar, and act identically.
Despite the "complexity" of the computer system, that's usually the rarer of parts to fail. If you can just follow a simple flow chart, you can repair a car. Does it start? No. Does it get air? Fuel? Spark? No. Repair the source for this component.
People have mystified the working of an automobile so much that it seems like black magic, but as we work on computers, others see our work as black magic too. Oh my gosh, you type on the keyboard, and stuff happens? Wow. It's not that dissimilar to turning a wrench and making a car work again. You just have to understand the underlying technology, and the rest falls into place.
Parent
Re:Speaking of technicians doing things.... (Score:5, Insightful)
so are "optimizations"
Never take your machine to one of those places, no exceptions.
That all depends on where you bought it in the first place. If you built it yourself, you have nothing to worry about.
Parent
Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's warranties are absolutely worth it. The three year extended warranty is dirt frickin cheap compared to any repair you might need down the line. Hard drive failed? Replaced. Keys fell of your keyboard? Replaced. Little rubber feet come off the bottom of the laptop? Here's a sheet of extras, just in case they come off again in three years.
Seriously, if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty.
Parent
Re:Extended warranties are rip-offs - no exception (Score:5, Insightful)
Keys fell from your keyboard but you are still seriously recommending that people buy from Apple ? Are you joking ?
Let's see... as a former IT guy, I've worked on thousands of computers over the last 20 years. A few dozen have had a key or two break/snap off (typically a well-worn one like a space bar, command key, letter "s", etc.). Probably five or six of those were Apple systems; the rest were mostly a mix of Dell, Sony, and Toshiba. Seems perfectly reasonable that it would happen now and then, even to the best of hardware.
Parent
Woman? (Score:5, Funny)
"The repair technician that installed the software has done this to at least 10 woman and has photos of at least one undressing."
I believe the correct word is womans, duh it's plural.
Re:The plural of woman is women (Score:5, Funny)
Give the guy a break. Slashdotters have a hard enough time with the concept of "woman". Now you expect him to get the plural right?
Parent
Credit where credit is due... (Score:5, Informative)
pedant alert (Score:5, Funny)
She took the computer to a second repair shop where they found that one of the problems was that her webcam would turn on whenever it detected her around and was taking photo's and uploading it to a website.
Vapon and Taco, meet Bob [angryflower.com].
I got nothing to fear (Score:5, Funny)
A webcamera is one of the things that I will never again attach to my computer. I rigged up a webcam to my computer once so while I chatted with some chicks they could see me. My sister used my computer while I was away for a week. Looks like she would just invite some random lusers to use the webcam.
Well a message popped up one afternoon and it was from some luser telling me I was cute. I ask him how he know he said my webcam was on. Then he ask me if I would get naked for him. And it was a guy.
Camera in box.. box back to store. Now when some chick wants a picture I just direct her to a website where I have a picture of J. Random. Hunk.
Works for me.
Why can't people understand WHY he did it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gotta love sensationalism (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA: "Marisel Garcia is one of eight or nine women in the Gainesville, Florida who is a victim of a Webcam Spy Hacker voyeurism scandal, orchestrated by Craig Feigin."
Not a victim of having her privacy invaded, not merely being spied upon.. but a full-fledged Webcam Spy Hacker Voyeurism Scandal. A WSHVS. Dear god, WHAT HAVE WE COME TO? I think I'll found a WSHVS victim anonymous.
More information (Score:5, Informative)
Re:undressing? (Score:5, Funny)
I need to see a naked girl to shit in a cup/i>
You can't shit in a cup without seeing a naked girl? Not to mention the other two items.
You have issues.
Parent
Oblig. South Park (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oblig. South Park (Score:5, Funny)
Once I read this I don't think I can go back to my lunch.
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on the state and its laws.
A few years ago...in L.A. we had a guy that was sneaking video cameras into peoples' homes, and video taping them doing pretty much everything.
Turns out, they could not prosecute him since there was no law on the books against it. He got off scott free, but, they did pass a law down here making it a crime.
I dunno what the exact wording of the law was, but, if it specifically mentioned video taping equipment...the computer trick might be legal?
Anyway...it depends on the states laws as to if this will be illegal or not. Unless the Feds try to get in on it...if they try to argue that the signal over the internet might cross state lines or something....hmm.
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking as someone who actually RTFA...
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Funny)
Speaking as someone who actually RTFA...
Pfft.. party pooper! Way to end the discussion of slashdot lawyers with your "facts"!!
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, a while back, when video recording equipment first got small and cheap enough for people to purchase, scum started using it to spy on women. This was back in the 80s and 90s, and it turned out while there were laws against recording conversations, which could be legally used to nail some of them, if they recorded just video (Which all of them immediately started doing.), there was actually no law against it.
But that was back in the 80s and 90s, and there were enough well-publicized cases of this happening that they changed the law.
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's illegal to secretly record people, especially in their own homes (reasonable expectation of privacy). If you install a little camera in your neighbor's ceiling, you can bet you'll end up in jail. This is the same.
On top of that, there is the computer hacking, not performing the correct service (after all, by "fixing" the computer he made it slower)
And while there is no "right to privacy" explicitly state in American law, the Supreme court essentially created it in rulings during the later half of the 20th century (I want to say this was Roe v. Wade, but it may have been before).
Even if there is no criminal case (which, as I stated above, I'd be quite sure there is) she could always go civil. After all bugging someone else's computer and posting pictures of them undressing on the internet without their knowledge is definitely something you could get a civil judgment for. If that isn't intentional infliction of emotional distress, I'd be pretty surprised.
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Funny)
Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut"
I'm having trouble remembering ... which Vacation movie was that one again?
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Funny)
Supreme Court decision "Griswold v. Connecticut"
I'm having trouble remembering ... which Vacation movie was that one again?
I think it was "The National Lampoons Right to Marital Privacy Regarding Illegal Restriction on the Use of Contraceptives in Connecticut Vacation"
You didn't see that one? ;)
-Taylor
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Insightful)
A little offtopic but I don't understand why people say there is no explicit "right to privacy" in American law. I wonder if this was a talking point invented for some political reason at one point that filtered out into the mass consciousness somehow.
Anyway, Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The word "privacy" is not used but this is a right to privacy in a large sense, isn't it? That the government can't search you, can't search your house, can't go through your papers, without a warrant?
This particular case is more of a civil action since the government didn't do it, but I find it a little unreasonable to say there is "no" right to privacy or that the Supreme Court "created" all our privacy rights, when there is clearly at least some privacy explicitly written in the Constitution.
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Informative)
The Fourth Amendment provides for security in persons, papers, effects and so forth from the government. Even if you construe it to be a privacy provision, it's not binding on Joe Sleazeball's Krazy Komputer Krepair Kshop.
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like Joe's is a KDE shop... where would I go for Gnome support?
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Interesting)
As you correctly noted, the word "privacy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. What you are talking about is what is sometimes called a "reasonable expectation of privacy," and is largely non-controversial (at least it's not controversial that it exists; the extent to which it exists sometimes is). It means that the government can't do certain things without sufficient cause.
The controversial "right to privacy" (which I'll tell you up front I'm not a fan of) is something the Court found in the "penumbras" of the fourth, ninth and fourteenth amendments in Griswold v. Connecticut. And it has nothing to do with the government searching your home. It has to do with whether, and to what extent, the Supreme Court can import into the Constitution, via the 14th Amendment due process clause, certain rights that existed in English and American common law (including a vague, ill-defined "right to privacy") in order to overturn state and federal statutes. The current jurisprudence has basically devolved into "if you can convince 5 judges that the law is not fair, it violates the common law right to privacy, and is therefore unconstitutional." This has led to very inconsistent, unprincipled jurisprudence that depends more on the judges' personal whims than what the Constitution actually says.
The way it should be is the Court should leave states alone to make laws---even stupid ones---regardless of whether they personally agree with them. For example, the law in Griswold was a law passed by the Roman Catholic majority nearly 100 years earlier that forbade use of contraceptives. In his dissent, Justice Potter Steward (correctly) called it an "uncommonly silly" law, but (correctly) concluded that it was nevertheless constitutional. Justice Hugo Black, my favorite judge of all time, in his dissent commented, "I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional."
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Informative)
This is true. The founders believed that we have inalienable rights, which means that they are granted by God, not the government. The government is not allowed to try to take them away.
Parent
Re:Lawsuit! (Score:5, Interesting)
For those that don't believe in God, the same rights can be dervived through logic.
I'm going to need a derivation before I believe that. If we set up a set of goals (happy populace, efficient society, etc.) then we can derive a set of rights that we should have in order to achieve those goals. But a set of unalienable rights that all humans do have derived through logic? That seems a little tough.
We can infer a lot of rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans based on documentation that they left behind. We can define rights that we believe that we deserve and should defend (or possibly fight to acquire or take back). But I defy you to illustrate how simple logic can spell out a set of rights that all humans do have without invoking some kind of divine standard. And, assuming that these rights are not divinely inspired, did these rights also belong to all societies in the past? What about foreign societies? Or can you logically derive what set of unalienable rights that modern Americans have that would not apply to Europeans/Chinese/cavemen?
I'm all for logic over superstition any day. But the idea that the rights that the founders believed that their God bestowed on Americans could be exactly replicated through simple logic while supporting the notion of why they are unalienable as opposed to why they should be unalienable just seems nonsensical.
Parent
Re:Shoot him (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm it seems I landed in a pub. Have you ever driven beyond the speed limit? I suggest you be shot as well.
Parent
Re:Shoot him (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't keep wasting tax dollars on court cases for stupidity, which is exactly where this case will go.
You should move to North Korea or China if that's the sort of country you want to live in. I prefer to live where you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and where the punishment fits the crime.
I'm sick of you assholes trying to turn my country into MORE of a police state. Shoot yourself for treason and save the government the trouble.
Parent