41–50 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is in no way close to theft because theft involves depriving the victim of some good or asset.
Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner: Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)
Has anyone involved been within 10 feet of a computer in the last 15 years? The CFAA applies! It’s like postal or wire fraud. You’re going to do it somehow in just about any possible crime. They’ll get you. It wasn’t/shouldn’t have been a crime? They’ll get you anyway, if they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the footage isn't "real property" as I understand it. The only thing the theft does is deprive the company from the opportunity to sell the footage themselves, and it's not exactly like selling security camera footage is the business model of many/any(?) company. If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.
It’s a common misconception that “property” relates to physical objects (chattel) or land (real property). But that’s an incorrect and limited understanding. More generally, it’s about the right to control something and exclude others from using it. Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.
However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges. Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to pr…
"stuff" being technically, legally, IP
Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to a trespass charge. He was represented by an attorney with some prosecutorial experience so I think we can assume he received qualified legal advice based upon the facts of the matter. Under terms of his no contest plea, if he stays out of trouble for a year he can have his record expunged.
It sure looks like a plea bargain, in which case we’ll likely never know the actual charges the prosecution was prepared to proceed with. But there’s a clue in the article - when the report was provided to the Intercept, the locations of the security cameras were redacted. When CNN aired the clip, they apparently aired information that identified where that camera was located.
We’ll most likely never know the original charge the prosecution was prepared to proceed with, but the US takes airport security very seriously (as every country should). If taking a no contest on a trespass was considered an out, I wonder if the other charge started with a vowel like ‘e’.
Note that CNN isn’t in trouble for reporting this, the person who exfiltrated the footage is. Stealing security camera footage and giving (or possibly selling) it is a problem. This article tries to make a case that the law applied wasn’t correct on somewhat pedantic terms, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if they have a point or not. I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the law" is the fulcrum this turns on. if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though. here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.
And it seems like that law requires malicious intent. I wonder how that would be proven here?
“A. It is unlawful for any person, with malicious intent, or through intentionally deceptive means and without authority, to:”
And Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to this charge, so he did not admit guilt but agreed to be punished as if he was guilty. He had an attorney with prosecutorial experience retained for his criminal proceeding so we can assume he entered that plea upon receiving qualified legal advice. Under terms of his plea, if he keeps his nose clean for a year, he can apply to have the charge expunged from his record.
So, this looks like a plea bargain. But since he plead no contest, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imaginary property is imaginary Property, a social construct, is always imaginary. The ship on IP, from insider trading laws to copyright, has sailed. If the only argument against a potential crime is IP isn’t real, the person is probably wrong.
Stealing physical property deprives its original owner of it. The same can't be said of IP.
And owning property — even physical property — entails having the right to prevent other people from using it, even in ways that don’t deprive you of it. You can’t drive my car without permission, even if you bring it back in perfect condition and I wasn’t planning on using it that day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the law" is the fulcrum this turns on. if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though. here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.
> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges. Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to pr…
Then I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy” If I were to copy the files on my work device and distribute them, I would be in violation of NDAs which could be pursued as civil offenses. If I didn’t have those NDAs, my employe…
I mean in the first case you're literally stealing from your employer. If that doesn't make you a criminal for theft I don't know what does
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imaginary property is imaginary Property, a social construct, is always imaginary. The ship on IP, from insider trading laws to copyright, has sailed. If the only argument against a potential crime is IP isn’t real, the person is probably wrong.
This is all very well but exactly what type of IP is CCTV footage? It's not copyrighted. It's not patented. It's not trademarked. ...trade secret?