Publicly Shaming Laptop Thieves Catches Bystanders in the Crossfire 372
nonprofiteer writes "Embarrassing thieves by exposing them using laptop recovery software makes for fun tech stories, but what about a case of a person being literally exposed after cops and a software company got their hands on naked photos she exchanged with her long-distance boyfriend, not realizing the machine was stolen? (She bought it for $60 so she should have known, but still). The case is going to trial in Ohio in September. The plaintiffs argue that the software company had the right to get the computer's location in order to recover it, but that it should not have intercepted the nude photos and shared those with the cops. Seems like a legitimate complaint and the plaintiffs are especially sympathetic in not realizing the device was stolen."
Pics (Score:5, Funny)
Pics or it didn't happen.
The summary is totally misleading (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pics (Score:5, Funny)
You want pics of a 52 year old school teacher?
Re:Pics (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I bet this sets the record for the number of people that read the referenced articles.
For the record, if a 48-year-old mechanic can pretend to be an 18-year-old hot CO-ED; an 18-year-old hot CO-ED can pretend to be a 52-year-old school teacher.
Pics or it didn't happen! (Score:2)
Actually maybe the boyfriend is long distance for a reason and we shouldn't be looking for the pics!
Seriously? $60? (Score:2)
This was stolen equipment. Everything and anything on it is evidence. Sorry, tough luck, cookie.
Can I get a copies of the pics?
Re: (Score:2)
many of us troll ebay for "junk" computers in need of some parts to magically become worth ten times more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is excellent if you don't mind doing time for contempt of court and evidence tampering. Not to mention wiretap violations. When it comes to matters like this, you have to turn over all the evidence, not just the subset that makes your client look good.
Karma's a bitch (Score:3, Insightful)
You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned. About as dumb as people who download hacking binaries.
Re:Karma's a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you should always buy from theives at retail prices. That will drive down demand for theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Karma's a bitch (Score:5, Funny)
You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned.
I guess I should cancel my order for that $99 TouchPad, then?
Re:Karma's a bitch (Score:5, Informative)
You buy electronics at crackhead prices, don't be surprised if you get burned. About as dumb as people who download hacking binaries.
She bought a non-functional laptop from one of her students for $60, then spent money to have it repaired. You can only call that "dumb" if you know what was wrong with the laptop.
I find it amusing that so many people on Slashdot refer to others as "dumb" or "idiots" without bothering to get even a modicum of information regarding the specific story being discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, $60 for a broken laptop is most likely too little, but by the same token, it's not something I would personally know had I not sold a previous laptop off piece by piece.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably was stolen without the charger. It became non functional due to a low battery. Fixed may be AC adapter purchased.
Re: (Score:2)
Spending money on computer repair is always dumb.
Why do people still do this? (Score:2)
Prude police officer? (Score:3)
According to the Forbes article, one of the arresting police officers was "prudish" and found her naked pics "disgusting". The proper retort to this: keep your thoughts to yourself, dude. It's none of your business whether her photos are disgusting to you or not. She did nothing illegal by taking naked pics of herself. End of story. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably just immature. The pics were of a 52 year old woman, not a very sexually appealing one apparently.
Re: (Score:3)
He sounds to me like one of those people who delights in finding things offensive. The sort who will look over and over so he can be offended again.
Re: (Score:2)
Gave me good laugh for the end of the day. Thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech is not about protecting the ability of professionals acting on behalf of the state to pass comment (in their professional capacity) on the public.
Re: (Score:2)
AC, you hit the nail on the head. Thank you!
This is classic (Score:3)
Apparently the cops on the scene didn't buy her "I didn't realize it was stolen" line for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we know cops are the fonts of wisdom in our society.
Re: (Score:2)
> Apparently the cops on the scene didn't buy her "I didn't realize it was stolen" line for a second.
And that's why the burden of proof is on the state.
How is $60 unreasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was used and "messed up", so I agree completely, $60 was not so cheap that it should raise the alarm.
Where are the nude photos? (Score:2)
Any links? I need to get a good overview of this case in order to be able to judge it impartially and in a professional manner.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm innocent officer I swear (Score:2)
Trust me she knew it was stolen and she is blowing smoke up everyones proverbial.
Re:I'm innocent officer I swear (Score:5, Insightful)
Low end laptops often go on sale for $250-$300. It's completely possible that someone would sell a 2-3 year old low end laptop that requires repairs for $60.
Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those that aid (Score:2)
and abet thieves by being their knowing customers. And at $60, you know that as a recent laptop it's stolen.
So cry me a river.
But still, I don't think it should compromise your right to privacy. Those pics were presumably taken in her home without her permission and should have been destroyed if it didn't add to the case.
Re: (Score:2)
did you read article, said laptop had to be repaired first. care to change your point of view, or if not I have $60 thinkpad T23 laptop for you to buy that needs screen, hardrive, memory, networking module and battery pack.
Time to add MOTD EULAs to your equipment (Score:2)
In the old shell style http://www.free-x.ch/pub/FreeBSD-IPFILTER.html [free-x.ch] (look for warning banner)
ALL PERSONS ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE USE OF THIS SYSTEM CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO MONITORING AND AUDITING.
Also, curse you lameness filter.
She could get the pictures pulled... (Score:2)
Caveat Emptor (Score:2)
>(She bought it for $60 so she should have known, but still).
No "but still" allowed here. The word for this chick is not "victim," it is "fence." She knew or should have known that she was accepting stolen property.
$60 isn't that outlandish (Score:2)
Stupidity (Score:2)
The ethics of paying for a device suspected to be stolen aside, buying a system and not wiping it is practically criminal negligence. Even if everything about the purchase is completely legitimate, it may have been equipped with all sorts of surveillance software by its previous owners, whether deliberately or through malware infections.
A chain of liability. (Score:3)
Most comments have focused on the question of whether or not a reasonable person could consider $60 an appropriate price to pay for a used laptop, and whether the device was functional at the time of sale. Indeed, even the defendants raised this point. However, I think this is not really getting at the heart of the matter.
While I don't know how the legal system actually handles such cases, I think that the proper outcome is that the plaintiff (the woman) should win her case against law enforcement (but not the recovery company), and be entitled to damages. Then I think the recovery company and law enforcement should win the case against the thief who stole the laptop. But I also think they should win an additional claim against the thief for reselling a device with monitoring software on it, thereby exposing the woman to this situation. If there isn't a statute to cover this, there should be. It should go a bit like this:
1. If you steal an electronic device and resell it, you are 100% liable for any invasion of privacy that results from that sale due to attempts to track and recover the device, regardless of whether or not you are aware of any recovery software on the device.
2. If you own a device and resell it, you are 100% liable for any invasion of privacy that results from that sale if you installed tracking/monitoring/recovery software.
3. If you own a device and resell it, you are NOT liable if someone else has installed monitoring software without your knowledge.
The reasoning as to why we would want to (partly) indemnify parties using the remote tracking software in the course of recovering a device, is because they need to gather as much identifying information as possible, and that includes private, personal information. The tracking company in this case acted appropriately given the circumstances, because while the plaintiff didn't know the laptop was stolen, the company had every reasonable suspicion that she was the thief. Relaying whatever evidence they could find--including nude images--is the logical consequence of that investigation. What would be unreasonable is if the tracking company published the images on the internet as a way to shame the thief--to my understanding, this did not occur. The problem in this case is that law enforcement behaved inappropriately by commenting on those images.
deatail the story negletcts to say (Score:5, Informative)
They lied about having a warrant.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/03/03/Stolen_Laptop_Led_to_False_Arrest_Woman_Says.htm [courthousenews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Cops Lie. News at 11.
I mean come on. Who doesn't know that cops lie all the time and that you don't believe one fucking word they say without written confirmation. Not only that but the Supreme court has ruled numerous times that Cops can lie all they want as long as they don't engage in the very specific situation of entrapment.
And then if they do have the warrant and you don't comply because you ask to see it first you get charged with resisting arrest and obstructing justice.
Some lies being told to a suspect, I'm fine with, but lying about having a warrant crosses the line.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, anything that the stolen item is used for is potential forfeit or criminal itself. The woman was stupid enough to put nude photos of herself on a computer. Did she not expect other people to see them? She should be a lot more worried about distribution by the boyfriend or someday-ex-boyfriend than she should be by the police or the laptop recovery company.
If anything, she should consider herself lucky that the rightful owners of the computer aren't going to push for a transfer of copyri
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
She did not expect the authorities and 3rd party people she didn't authorize to see them.
Of course you people have no grasp of reality, practicality, or that other people besides yourself matters, so I don't actually expect you to see a grey area.
And your feeble conclusion regarding copyright of the pictures is, quite frankly, mind numbing stupid.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
She did not expect the authorities and 3rd party people she didn't authorize to see them. Of course you people have no grasp of reality,
Several years ago, many people started using these new-fangled things called "cell phones". For reasons I will never understand, people who were talking into a small box with an antenna on the top of it didn't grasp the concept of "radio", and that if their little box with an antenna on the top of it could receive and reproduce sounds from a distance there might be other little boxes that could receive and reproduce the same sounds. They did not expect anyone but the person whose phone number they had dialled into the little box to actually hear what they were saying.
This was back in the days when people still had other little boxes with antennas on the top that would reproduce sounds (and marvel of marvels, even pictures!) from a distance. It's not like "radio" should be a foreign concept to anyone. And yet, to these people, it was.
What was the solution to the problem of people thinking that nobody else could hear them talking on a radio? Was it to ENCRYPT the radio signal so nobody could understand what was being said? Oh, no. The only solution was to make listening to their signals illegal, and to make it illegal for other radios to be able to receive those signals.
So today, when it is almost trivial to build wideband receivers to add functionality to radios, we have laws that force manufacturers to cut large sections out of the available coverage, even after the functions of those frequencies are changing.
What is the moral of that story? Stupid people have stupid expectations, and the stupid laws that result from bending reality to their stupid expectations are, well, stupid. Now, I will admit that giving these stupid people the legal expectation that their secret conversations were secret did improve the quality of listening that the rest of us pragmatists who already owned radios heard. When people think they cannot be overheard, they will say the darndest things.
But please, rant about "reality" a bit more.
Re: (Score:3)
On the subject of cell phones and radios... a few years back [3ish?] I was trying to call somebody and ended up picking up somebody else's signal. Well. I was bored, so I pretty much sat there for half an hour during lunch, listening to some guy yell at his credit card company about unauthorized charges that happened a month ago.
Scary thing was that there was a particular spot in the building where I would consistently get other phone calls.
Re: (Score:3)
She's going to lose the case. Sure the judge allowed her to proceed, but "I didn't know" is not an excuse to break the law. Besides her story doesn't really add up, buying a $60 laptop from a
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, since the actual owners authorized the monitoring company to have that form of access to the computer, anybody who steals it and uses it afterwards (knowingly or not) really has no legal dispute with the rightful owner and any company the owner authorized to snap screencaps and whatnot.
I think your argument sounds a bit too much like the legal owner can do anything. That alone would be like that school that had spycam software installed on pupil's laptops, even if they're the legal owner of the laptop they or their authorized company don't have legal permission to covertly bring it into people's homes and take pictures of whatever they want. If it had been her boyfriend's pictures or co-inhabitants in the background, they might have a case. But in this case she's operating a stolen computer, it's like complaining of being photographed driving a stolen car. Secondly, securing evidence for the police is a legitimate cause, if they found this in some camera tech's private stash I might think very differently about the case. You could easily argue that nude photos could include tattoos, birthmarks or other identifying markers that may help identification. I think she's got a really bad case.
Re: (Score:3)
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how state wiretapping laws are written, but if they follow the federal example, electronic communication counts.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever bought second hand stuff?
How do you know that second hand stuff wasn't stolen?
In fact, you can't even know for sure in shops.
Large part of the issue here is whether the school teacher could be reasonably expected to know the laptop was stolen given the low $60 price she paid for it.
I feel no pity for criminals, but punishing somebody innocent is worse than not punishing somebody guilty.
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever bought second hand stuff? How do you know that second hand stuff wasn't stolen? In fact, you can't even know for sure in shops.
Large part of the issue here is whether the school teacher could be reasonably expected to know the laptop was stolen given the low $60 price she paid for it.
I feel no pity for criminals, but punishing somebody innocent is worse than not punishing somebody guilty.
I feel no pity for criminals, but punishing somebody innocent is worse than not punishing somebody guilty.
She's not being punished; TFA clearly states the charges against her were dropped. She's now suing Absolute and the police for violation of privacy, which is crazy because those photos were taken with the authorization of the laptop's owner and they were legitimate evidence in a criminal case.
Re: (Score:3)
She is being punished, her private pictures are being distributed around without her permission.
And they where not evidence in a criminal case. All they need was location.
Re: (Score:3)
No, she's not being punished. There'd be a case there if her pictures were posted on the internet, but they weren't. They were acquired by a company acting with the authorization of the laptop owner, and given to the police. Good luck making the case that giving evidence of a crime to the police is itself a crime. Had the police recovered the laptop, they might well have analyzed the laptop to find out who had it and found the pictures themselves. Sorry, it's unfortunate for this woman that her picture
Not punishment - victim (Score:3)
She is being punished, her private pictures are being distributed around without her permission.
She is not being punished, she is just another victim of the original criminal who stole the laptop (assuming that she genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with a $60 laptop!). Rather than sue the police and software company - who had the authorization of the legal owner to access the laptop - she ought to be suing the person who stole it in the first place because his criminal act caused her to wrongly believe the laptop was her property and therefore to give her a false expectation of privacy.
Eff
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds great if you're going on a fishing expedition. Heck, we don't know what kind of evidence you might have or if you'll dispose of it, so let's come kick your door in and search through your possessions. If you've done nothing wrong, you won't have anything to worry about, right?
There are specific rules for gathering evidence. The constitution may be tattered, but it still is the law of the land and it speaks to this particular issue.
I'm still trying to find a way to justify that "she only paid $60
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. It's a fishing expedition if you search through my possessions looking for evidence of a crime without having any specific crime you're investigating. In other words, just pawing through my personal effects trying to find something to pin on me. That didn't happen at all in this case. This was a stolen item. The evidence specifically relates to where it is, and who has it.
Yes, there are, an
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The 4th amendment only stops the *state* (and police acting on their behalf) from snooping.
If someone else does the snooping you don't need a warrant.
Mind you that the police cannot *ask* someone to snoop for them, otherwise you create an agency relation that causes 4th amendment immunity to apply against whoever does the snooping.
At most the security company that peeked was guilty of invasion of privacy. Sharing it with the police, however, was not a crime, and if it turns out said photos implicate someone in a crime, the 4th amendment does not apply since the security company was not acting as an agent of the police.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true, while the 4th amendment only prevents the government from doing it, every state in the union has its own wiretap law on the books which bars this sort of covert surveillance.
It's questionable to me as to why precisely the company isn't being prosecuted for that violation.
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, this specific case is like someone believing they bought your house for $600 and then complaining your security camera caught them having sex in the pool.
And while we're here...
That's not true, while the 4th amendment only prevents the government from doing it, every state in the union has its own wiretap law on the books which bars this sort of covert surveillance.
The 4th Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, preserves the rights of citizens by limiting the power of the federal government. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that says I cannot take steps to monitor my property to ensure it's return if/when stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
"every state in the union has its own wiretap law on the books which bars this sort of covert surveillance."
It is not covert if the owner gives another company permission to do it. What you are trying to argue is that if someone broke in to a house with a house alarm it is a wiretapping violation for the house alarm to sound.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I might counter with the principle that law enforcement is only entitled to search for those things that are actually relevant to the commission of a crime. Search warrants have to be very specific. If the police think I've stolen an elephant, and they get a warrant to search my property for the elephant, they can't search my dresser drawers; there's no way an elephant would fit in there. In this case, police were looking for a stolen laptop and they somehow came into possession of naked pictures of con
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Evidence (Score:4, Informative)
From a quick look now, I actually did find one thing interesting. The court based its opinion primarily on the idea that the communications were being intercepted. Whether the same court would have felt as strongly if the LoJack-for-Laptops crew had simply taken pictures with the webcam is an open question.
Re: (Score:2)
If the rightful owner of the computer can demonstrate that fact, the police probably wouldn't even need a warrant. They'd be acting on behalf of the legitimate owner of the computer.
Mind you, that's probably not a good idea for the legitimate owner, as if they've done anything shady then they'd essentially be waiving their right to fourth amendment privacy by granting access to the police, but since in this case a third-party company is involved that acts as a buffer.
Re: (Score:2)
Mind you, that's probably not a good idea for the legitimate owner, as if they've done anything shady then they'd essentially be waiving their right to fourth amendment privacy by granting access to the police
This is why you must always maintain a minimum standard of shadiness that can be readily explained away, thus hiding the real shadiness.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but there are laws (rather than amendments) preventing private parties from snooping as well. For example: wire tapping, breaking and entering, and perhaps even some anti-voyeurism statutes as well. In computer related situations there are even additional laws like that federal anti-hacking law.
Further, as you somewhat noted, the 4th amendment kicks in if they are acting as an agent of the police... However, that does not simply mean if the police _ask_, but if the party is determined to be w
Re: (Score:3)
The security company can *NOT* be an agent of the police. They are absolutely *NOT* acting on behalf of the police. They could care less about the police and what the police will or won't do. The security company is acting on behalf of the rightful owner of the laptop. If the owner of the laptop said send me the information and I'll take care of the issue from here, then that is exactly what the security company would have done. I would bet that in fact is exactly what the security company did. The owner sa
Re:Evidence (Score:5, Informative)
They did use it. This was a separate lawsuit that was filed by the woman who bought the laptop from the thief. The thief was arrested and charged as you would expect. The woman however, did not know it was stolen and she in turn had explicit video conferences with her boyfriend using the stolen laptop (again unbeknownst to her that it was stolen). Because of this, she was deemed to have a reasonable and objective expectation of privacy. They found that although the company tracking the laptop had the right to obtain such information as IP address and geographical location, they went too far in collecting the contents of the private communications between the girlfriend and her boyfriend.
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how there is going to be a Constitutional violation here at all. Exactly which amendment of the Constitution was violated and by whom? Unlawful search and seizure? Well the police didn't do the search and seizure of the laptop, the security company did. The laptop wasn't her's so it wasn't unlawful. So exactly where is the unlawful part? Was her privacy violated? Maybe, but I don't think so since everything was done in an attempt to find out who was using the laptop, to make sure they got the ri
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, if she genuinely didn't know that the laptop was stolen, then there's no crime so long as she returns the goods when notified. Granted it's stupid to buy a laptop for $60 from a boyfriend.
The photos themselves are evidence of illegal wiretapping, so they ultimately should have been provided to the police, so that the police could prosecute the company for the illegal wiretap.
Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the story, the person who bought the laptop, bought it from a student at her school. The problem was, the school was "alternative education" school, which in many cases is for young criminals and delinquents. If it is as I suspect, the teacher should have EXPECTED it to be stolen, and reported it. Secondly, the teacher should NEVER have bought the laptop from a student, as that is a breach of propriety and proper boundaries between student and teachers.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. Fuck that girl. She screwed up a) for buying a $60 laptop, b) for not wiping the laptop clean before using it, c) for putting nude pics on said unwiped laptop, and d) for suing someone over this whole thing which is only going to make more people interested in the pics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Possessing stolen goods == crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter, it's still a violation of her rights. Just because the original owner authorized it, does not mean that they have the right to violate the wiretap laws involved. And in a case like this, the employees that opted to obtain the extra images ought to be prosecuted for doing the illegal wiretapping. Had they just stopped with the location of the device, they would be fine legally.
I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that the original owner authorized it, it's that the owner authorized it.
Every bit of data (in the literal sense) on the computer is potentially evidence of the crime and the criminals.
As to your line, "this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment.", your argument is a straw man. It's a more accurate analogy to say that a landlord or property owner put a camera in their own space that no one else was entitled to live in, and then that camera caught proof of unau
Re: (Score:3)
As to your line, "this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment.", your argument is a straw man. It's a more accurate analogy ...
The term "straw man" refers to a logical fallacy, not an inaccurate analogy. In this particular case, whether the analogy proves accurate or not seems to be a matter of law, to be decided by the court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, it's still a violation of her rights. Just because the original owner authorized it, does not mean that they have the right to violate the wiretap laws involved. And in a case like this, the employees that opted to obtain the extra images ought to be prosecuted for doing the illegal wiretapping. Had they just stopped with the location of the device, they would be fine legally.
The owner of the device authorized lojack to gather evidence by accessing the owner's device. Just because somebody else possessed the device doesn't change who the owner is. And these photos were legitimate evidence because they were pictures of the people who possessed the stolen laptop.
I realize that people don't understand that, but this isn't any different than if a landlord puts a secret camera in an apartment. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that you get to wiretap it all you like.
Totally different. When I rent an apartment, I sign an agreement with my landlord which basically gives me the right to treat the apartment as my own so long as I do not damage it, bother the neighbors, etc. A more app
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much came here to say the same thing. There is no way a reasonable person would think that there wasn't something fishy about buying a working laptop from one of their students for $60. Especially when you work at an "alternative high school". That's feel-good code for a school that has a student body made up of juvenile delinquents. I know a few teachers in that career path and none of them would be dumb enough to buy anything at all from their students. If one of them tried, they'd say, "Dude,
Re: (Score:3)
There's really no part of your post that is accurate.
1. She was a substitute teacher. Nothing at all says that this is the type of school or the type of student she typically deals with.
2. The laptop was not working. The article does not go into detail about what was wrong with it, but it does explicitly state she was told it was "messed up" and then "got it fixed." The second article states it was "non-functioning."
3. You state that you "guess it was one of those $250 specials or a couple years ol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She bought a "messed up" laptop for $60. It really was "messed up" since she then had to have it repaired before she could use it.
What do you suppose would be the minimum price of an old BROKEN laptop before a buyer who has no clue about PC repair should believe it's stolen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings and Salutations....
According to the story, the student told her it was broken, and he had been given a new one. It also states that she had to get it fixed. There are no details on HOW it was broken or fixed, alas. Add to that the concept of a "good faith purchase" that can be at least a partial shield against prosecution. Putting all this together, it is possible that she "should have known" it was stolen, and, perhaps in a perfect world, she would hav
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps next time she will be wise enough to encrypt private data with PGP!
If your computer has been owned, whether by hackers or lojack, PGP is no help. Keyloggers defeat PGP.
Re: (Score:2)
While intellicence do.
I'm just going to let that sentence sit there by itself for a while, in all its lonely glory.
Re: (Score:2)
you did read the part of the article where the laptop needed fixing before it would work? plenty of broken laptops "for parts" on ebay, for $30, some of those could be fixed.....
Re: (Score:2)
She was told that it wasn't working, and it wasn't. I wouldn't hazard even that much on a non-functioning computer which may only turn out to have scrap value.
I've also seen people give away machines which they think are broken beyond repair (and so only have scrap, or cannibalisation value) which actually only have one broken component, and replace them with new ones.
I conclusion I can quite see someone thinking their machine is broken, buying a new one (or having a new one bought for them), and trying to
Re: (Score:2)