Verizon Staff Busted For Allegedly Stealing Customer's Nude Pics

[Thaluikhain]

It's the same kind of feeling sorry that I'd have for them if there were 3 criminals involved and only 2 were going to get prosecuted. As noted above, I consider her to be less of a victim and more of an accessory.

Again, Dafuq?

Two people committed crimes against a third person who did not. That is, very, very clearly two criminals and one victim. Not accesory, victim. As in a crime was committed against them.

There is a difference between saying something is somebodies fault, and suggesting that if they had decided to be more careful they could have avoided the trouble in the first place. It isn't condoning crimes, it is encouraging people to look out for themselves.

I am not sure why some people find this so difficult to grasp.

Possibly because of stuff like the above.

 

[Lawyer105]

It's the same kind of feeling sorry that I'd have for them if there were 3 criminals involved and only 2 were going to get prosecuted. As noted above, I consider her to be less of a victim and more of an accessory.

Again, Dafuq?

Two people committed crimes against a third person who did not. That is, very, very clearly two criminals and one victim. Not accesory, victim. As in a crime was committed against them.

If somebody steals your credit card details, and you report it to the bank, the bank covers you for any losses and (if the criminals are caught) they get prosecuted. This is exactly the way it should be.

However, if you hand your card and PIN to some random stranger, even though the dude who stole from you is still a criminal, you should have no right to claim your losses back from the bank. It's not their responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity. You participated in your own loss.

It's pretty clear to me that this situation falls far closer to the second scenario than to the first.

So... to hijack your own words... DaFuq? Why are you so ardently defending abject stupidity?

 

[mew4ever23]

These two fools deserve everything coming to them, but the woman's not blameless either. She really should have been more careful with those lewd images of herself. She should have deleted the photos before taking the device in.

 

[Chinchama]

Why would you even leave nudes on a phone and take it to someone else to transfer data... I mean come onnnnnnnnn. Weather you like it or not, when you ask people to do that, chances are some kid is gonna sort through your stuff and see if they like anything and want to copy it. Honestly she should have had the common sense to not hand delicate material like that to someone.

That being said, it is immoral what they did, but not someone god-awful crime like someone people are saying it is.

[its not like the phone company she uses doesn't already have a copy of those photos on their server...cause chances are she sent them to someone so they have already been uploaded somewhere]

 

[Thaluikhain]

If somebody steals your credit card details, and you report it to the bank, the bank covers you for any losses and (if the criminals are caught) they get prosecuted. This is exactly the way it should be.

However, if you hand your card and PIN to some random stranger, even though the dude who stole from you is still a criminal, you should have no right to claim your losses back from the bank. It's not their responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity. You participated in your own loss.

It's pretty clear to me that this situation falls far closer to the second scenario than to the first.

So? Which of the people in those situations have committed the crime/s and which are the victim/s?

You can condemn someone for their foolishness, but to say they should be counted as an accessory in the crime committed against them, and that's it's unfair that only the people who committed crimes are being charged with committing crimes is abusrd victim blaming.

 

[luckshot]

If somebody steals your credit card details, and you report it to the bank, the bank covers you for any losses and (if the criminals are caught) they get prosecuted. This is exactly the way it should be.

However, if you hand your card and PIN to some random stranger, even though the dude who stole from you is still a criminal, you should have no right to claim your losses back from the bank. It's not their responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity. You participated in your own loss.

It's pretty clear to me that this situation falls far closer to the second scenario than to the first.

So? Which of the people in those situations have committed the crime/s and which are the victim/s?

You can condemn someone for their foolishness, but to say they should be counted as an accessory in the crime committed against them, and that's it's unfair that only the people who committed crimes are being charged with committing crimes is abusrd victim blaming.

yeah this situation is more along the lines of handing your credit card to the guy at the drive through window so you can pay for your food, and then they steal the information on it/use it to purchase stuff on their iphone.

she trusted people with a task that she couldn't do without them and THEY committed a crime

 

[tangoprime]

He's been charged with two felony counts of dealing in stolen property as well as misdemeanor theft and handling of lewd materials.

So if they're found guilty of the first charge, I guess pirated/unauthorized copies of purely digital media = stolen property, at least in that jurisdiction. Just wanted to point that out, as it's an interesting way to go with this.

 

[DTWolfwood]

O i had a really good chuckle reading this one. Good Job on all counts, the dudes and the waitress.

Always need a good laugh in the morning.

 

[BonGookKumBop]

I once heard of a study where people were asked what would be a just punishment for rape and their answers were grouped by the amount of pornography they had recently watched. Those that had "consumed" large amounts of porn were much more lenient in their responses.

As I look at the diverse answers about how much fault belongs to the employees and how much belongs to the waitress, I wonder if we could repeat the results by classifying our answers with consumption levels.

 

[RJ 17]

Your comparison to celebrities is way off base. This lady wasn't flaunting her private life, nor was she a celebrity in the public spotlight. She was a a woman that wanted to transfer her data to a new phone, and these guys decided that rather than just doing their job, they'd go snooping through said data.

Any time you have information that you don't want to share with other people (e.g. these photos) and you then make that information available to other people (e.g. by handing your phone or laptop in, or posting them on social media sites or whatever), you are tacitly accepting the risk that the information is going to go walkabout.

We're not talking about master criminals here. They didn't secretly hack her phone (or whatever) and do stuff that she could never have protected herself against. They simply took totally immoral advantage of an opportunity that SHE provided them.

I've got no issue with the dudes involved being prosecuted for misdemenours (sp?) and given community service orders or whatever. They totally deserve it. It simply goes against the grain to see her getting off completely as "the victim", when she's at least partially responsible for the problem.

What it comes down to for me is that, if you hand your bank card and PIN to some random stranger and get robbed, it doesn't make the thief less guilty, but it does make you an accessory to your own loss.

So a store that gets robbed it partially to blame for having products that people might want to steal? Or a bank that gets robbed is partly to blame for having money that people might want to steal? Or what about a home owner that has a lot of nice stuff, are they to be blamed when a burglar walking by looks in the window, sees all the nice stuff, and decides to break in and steal it?

Really, it's your last statement that proves your premise is faulty. Had the lady walked up to some random stranger and said "Can you transfer the data on my old phone to my new one?" then you'd be correct. But she didn't. She went to a cell phone store, spoke with employees of that store, and asked that they perform a service that the store performs every day without incident. Is she supposed to worry that there's criminals working at the store? Should people going at a restaurant be worried that if they pay with a credit card that an employee of the restaurant is going to write down the credit card number and start using it to buy crap online?

We're not talking about finding a stranger to perform a service for you, we're talking about walking into a store and trusting that the employees have good intentions and won't mess with you. Clearly the employees violated that trust...how is that partly the woman's fault? She expected them to do their job and transfer her data the same as they do for everyone else.

There was a case a while back (I think it was even an article on this site) where a guy working for a computer repair store made the built-in webcams of girls that brought their laptops in remotely accessable. Are the girls that he spied on through their webcams partly to blame because some pervert at a computer repair shop decided to do something he shouldn't have instead of just doing his job?

Neither does yours, seeing as they clearly stated several times that the people committed a crime, and deserve to be locked up.

There is a difference between saying something is somebodies fault, and suggesting that if they had decided to be more careful they could have avoided the trouble in the first place. It isn't condoning crimes, it is encouraging people to look out for themselves.

I am not sure why some people find this so difficult to grasp.

Same answer as above. When you go to a cell phone store and ask for a data transfer, you shouldn't have to be paranoid that they're going to go snooping through your phone and keep what they want to keep. Because at that point you're not being careful, you're being paranoid. Just who else is she supposed to go to in order to get her data transfered if she's not supposed to trust the people at the frickin' cell phone store? "Well the pictures shouldn't have been on there in the first place." Well then I guess the store owner that gets robbed shouldn't have had all those products on the shelves. I guess the bank that gets robbed shouldn't have had all that money in the vault. I guess the girl that gets raped shouldn't have been wearing that miniskirt.

 

[esperandote]

Pics or it didn't... wait, better not.

Everyone knows that if you watch/copy that kind of pictures from a customer you show them to your coworkers but not to your customers.

 

[gardian06]

Who the hell asks a CUSTOMER if they want to check out your stolen nude pics???

You know, some people are so stupid they deserve to be locked up. These geniuses are certainly among them.

This, so much this. As a computer repair tech, I would never do something this slimy, I've come across nudes before, and you should just ignore them and move on, like you would any other file. However, if you are gonna be a perv, then for gods sake, don't brag about your "work" to other clients...

yes you should just ignore it. though there are somethings that if you see (blatant pedophile material) that you are almost required to report in most any jurisdiction.

The police seemed to have forgotten the interception of communications charges and copyright infringement.

what copyright is being infringed? where? "interception of communications" you do realize that digital communication is actually considered less safe, and it wasn't intercepted in transit it was "recovered" from static memory.

I'm sorry, what exactly is "handling lewd materials"?
This is a thing?

regrettably yes this is a thing. basically it means having in the persons possession material of a sexual, or "questionable" nature, so it is basically up to the person looking them over if the charge applies, and depending on the jurisdiction determines the penalty: some will only place it on the record without actually giving penalty, then there are those that places that will give community service, and then there are some that treat it so severely as like a year in jail per image.

the funniest part is that this can be applied to like a nipple shot, and not like full nudes, or sex acts. and this is primarily a US thing (makes me a little less proud to be an American)

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

So I suppose you could say there are two pairs of boobs in this story..

Lame puns aside, the staff here are clearly in the wrong, and should be given suitable punishments. Community service, suspension etc. That said, the woman really should know better. If you've got naked photos of yourself on your phone, you don't just hand it over to other people, hm?

 

[Lionsfan]

It's the same kind of feeling sorry that I'd have for them if there were 3 criminals involved and only 2 were going to get prosecuted. As noted above, I consider her to be less of a victim and more of an accessory.

Again, Dafuq?

Two people committed crimes against a third person who did not. That is, very, very clearly two criminals and one victim. Not accesory, victim. As in a crime was committed against them.

If somebody steals your credit card details, and you report it to the bank, the bank covers you for any losses and (if the criminals are caught) they get prosecuted. This is exactly the way it should be.

However, if you hand your card and PIN to some random stranger, even though the dude who stole from you is still a criminal, you should have no right to claim your losses back from the bank. It's not their responsibility to protect you from your own stupidity. You participated in your own loss.

It's pretty clear to me that this situation falls far closer to the second scenario than to the first.

So... to hijack your own words... DaFuq? Why are you so ardently defending abject stupidity?

She didn't had her phone over to a random person and ask them to do it though. She went to the store where she presumably bought her phone, and used their service in full faith and trust. Then they violated that trust, violated privacy laws, and are now paying the price for their stupidity.

To use your credit card example, it's more like eating at a restaurant, and giving the waiter your credit card to pay, and then they steal all your info.

 

[Lawyer105]

So a store that gets robbed it partially to blame for having products that people might want to steal? Or a bank that gets robbed is partly to blame for having money that people might want to steal? Or what about a home owner that has a lot of nice stuff, are they to be blamed when a burglar walking by looks in the window, sees all the nice stuff, and decides to break in and steal it?

Clearly, you've missed the point.

A store that gets robbed isn't partly at fault, unless it has no security and takes no precautions to prevent shoplifting. Then it deserves what it gets. Go look at any insurance contract... if you don't take adequate measures to protect yourself the insurance company isn't going to pick up the tab.

A bank that gets robbed isn't partly at fault... unless it has no security, and leaves the vault lying open and the cash lying in neatly stacked bundles on the counter.

A homeowner that gets broken into isn't at fault... unless they leave the door / windows open while they go to work.

I return to my original point... if you're too stupid to take any precautions at all to protect yourself, you've got no excuse to cry when bad stuff happens.

Really, it's your last statement that proves your premise is faulty. Had the lady walked up to some random stranger and said "Can you transfer the data on my old phone to my new one?" then you'd be correct. But she didn't. She went to a cell phone store, spoke with employees of that store, and asked that they perform a service that the store performs every day without incident. Is she supposed to worry that there's criminals working at the store? Should people going at a restaurant be worried that if they pay with a credit card that an employee of the restaurant is going to write down the credit card number and start using it to buy crap online?

We're not talking about finding a stranger to perform a service for you, we're talking about walking into a store and trusting that the employees have good intentions and won't mess with you. Clearly the employees violated that trust...how is that partly the woman's fault? She expected them to do their job and transfer her data the same as they do for everyone else.

None of those situations are even remotely comparably. You don't go into a restaurant and hand over your card AND PIN to anybody. At least, not if you're not an idiot.

While she can expect professionalism from store bodies, if she wasn't a complete moron, she also wouldn't place any significant reliance on it either. You're not exactly talking about members of significant, registered professional bodies here. Let's face it, most of them are minimum wage (or thereabouts) flunkies.... random strangers by almost any definition. Anybody with an ounce of caution wouldn't put any personal, sensitive information in other peoples hands without taking some steps to protect it.

There was a case a while back (I think it was even an article on this site) where a guy working for a computer repair store made the built-in webcams of girls that brought their laptops in remotely accessable. Are the girls that he spied on through their webcams partly to blame because some pervert at a computer repair shop decided to do something he shouldn't have instead of just doing his job?

Completely different situation... and you know it. I'm not even going to dignify this with a reasoned response.

 

[Lawyer105]

She didn't had her phone over to a random person and ask them to do it though. She went to the store where she presumably bought her phone, and used their service in full faith and trust. Then they violated that trust, violated privacy laws, and are now paying the price for their stupidity.

To use your credit card example, it's more like eating at a restaurant, and giving the waiter your credit card to pay, and then they steal all your info.

No, no it isn't.

If you pay by card and get defrauded, unless you handed your PIN over or let them take your card out of your sight, you've taken all reasonable precautions. It's impossible to do anything in the real world without running some level of risk. The trick is to minimise the risk (by not handing out your PIN etc.) and have contingency plans to protect you if bad stuff happens anyway (e.g. ID theft insurance, bank protections and other similar stuff).

If you're going to be handing your phone or your laptop in to a service shop, and you have sensitive data on it, either you encrypt the data, or you copy it off and remove it, or you decide you don't really need it anyway and outright delete it or something.

The world, the governments, corporations etc. do not have a responsibility to protect you from your own abject stupidity, and anybody who lives in the UK knows exactly how annoying and futile it is when they try!

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

And so what precautions is the lady supposed to take with her phone since she's clearly not supposed to trust the people at the cellphone store? I actually see the case about the webcams to be the most comparable one of the bunch, so let's focus on the real rather than the hypotheticals I offered.

What precautions were the girls that got peeped on supposed to take with their computers since the repair technician ultimately ended up being untrustworthy? How were they supposed to protect themselves from someone who knows a lot more about computers that they put their trust in to simply fix their computers and do nothing else?

How is this lady supposed to protect herself from the cell phone store employees that she put her trust in to transfer her data and nothing else?

Were the girls who gave the repairman their laptops supposed to suspect that he might monkey around with their things rather than just doing the job they asked him to do?

Is this lady supposed to suspect that the store employees might monkey around with her things instead of just doing the job she asked them to do?

Your point is valid in a situation such as a person who tries to take a short-cut through a bad neighborhood ends up getting mugged because they didn't have a taser or something. They shouldn't have been in that neighborhood in the first place.

This case, however, is dealing with what was supposed to be a trusted and trustworthy environment with trustworthy employees where no protection is supposed to be needed.

While she can expect professionalism from store bodies, if she wasn't a complete moron, she also wouldn't place any significant reliance on it either. You're not exactly talking about members of significant, registered professional bodies here. Let's face it, most of them are minimum wage (or thereabouts) flunkies.... random strangers by almost any definition. Anybody with an ounce of caution wouldn't put any personal, sensitive information in other peoples hands without taking some steps to protect it.

By this logic you shouldn't trust anyone at a government office while filling out forms that require a Social Security Number and a Birthdate. How are you supposed to know the employees there won't take all your information and commit identity theft?

 

[barbzilla]

As a computer repair tech, I would never do something this slimy, I've come across nudes before, and you should just ignore them and move on, like you would any other file.

Oh god, you just had to remind me of working on my brother-in-laws computer...

OT:
1: If you are going to keep Nude pics, its probably best to keep it somewhere secure and not give it to the techs about to work on your equipment (though the theft was in no way her fault, just a precautionary measure).
2: If you are going to work at a store where you deal with people's personal information, you should probably be up to date on the laws about sharing that information.
3: If you decide to break one of said laws, it is probably best not to share that information.
4: If you decide to share that information anyway, you should probably lawyer up as your going to jail.