Court Allows Webcam Spying On Rental Laptops

tekgoblin writes "Back in May there was a class action lawsuit filed against the rental company Aaron's, which had secretly installed spying software that would turn on a laptop's webcam, take pictures and then send them back to the company. Overall it seemed like a large invasion of privacy, which should at least warrant an injunction to stop use of the software until the case is settled, right? Not to the judge, who refused to order an injunction on the grounds that the family was no longer in possession of the laptop. As for everyone else still using their Aaron's laptops, the judge had this to say to them (PDF): 'Moreover, it is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative class will be subjected to remote access of personal information.'"

wow, thats nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

invasion of privacy. cause you know if they can they will.

So...

[cowboy76Spain]

... it is okay if anyone bugs the judge's house?

Because until you actually record/hear anything, "it is purely conjecture that someone will use the micros to remote access of personal information".

This calls for action

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when are you Americans going to exercise your Second Amendment rights and just shoot this bastard?

Re:Get rich quick scheme

[Issarlk]

I see that your brain cognitive centers have been shutdown by the mention of children and were unable to recognise a joke.
I certainly didn't think it would be possible before posting!

Quick Solution

[smcdow]

A piece of black tape over the camera.

Re:RTFD Read The Fucking Decision

[ElectricTurtle]

The pretense under which this software is expected to be used is immaterial. If I'm a landlord I can't install hidden cameras in my apartments just because I spin it with some bullshit pretense that 'I'll only turn them on when they don't pay the rent, honest!'

In the first place, a camera doesn't generally help with retrieval or the exaction of payment (outside of blackmail). It's not like people are going to set up their laptops outside where the camera can see street signs and house numbers. When someone is responsible for a system that spies on private persons in their own domiciles, if that system isn't a prima facie violation of anti-voyeurism laws, they are at a minimum responsible to be transparent about controls in place to prevent abuse, and they must get express consent from those they are 'observing', even in most states where single party recording is legal, since they are not physically present.

I am not a lawyer and the above should not be construed as legal advice.