Couple Can Sue Laptop-Tracking Company (LoJack) for Spying on Sex Chats

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/

"The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a substitute
teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.

The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and had
been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another student at
Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the laptop at a bus
station for $40, even though he suspected it was stolen, and turned
around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for $60.

Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at Kiefer, says
the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the laptop, but
that he no longer needed it after getting a new one. She asserts she had
no idea the computer was stolen

Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow, had
recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart, Carlton
Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their courtship, she
exchanged sexually explicit email and instant messages with her beau,
using the computer she had just purchased.

What she didn’t know was that Clark County School District, which
legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute’s theft recovery
service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery software
LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute employees
remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to record and
intercept any data from the machine."

"G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>
> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a substitute
> teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>
> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and had
> been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another student at
> Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the laptop at a bus
> station for $40, even though he suspected it was stolen, and turned
> around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for $60.
>
> Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at Kiefer, says
> the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the laptop, but
> that he no longer needed it after getting a new one. She asserts she had
> no idea the computer was stolen
>
> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow, had
> recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart, Carlton
> Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their courtship, she
> exchanged sexually explicit email and instant messages with her beau,
> using the computer she had just purchased.
>
> What she didn't know was that Clark County School District, which
> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery software
> LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute employees
> remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to record and
> intercept any data from the machine."

I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense is gonna fly.

G. Morgan wrote:

> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>
> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a substitute
> teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>
> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and had
> been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another student at
> Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the laptop at a bus
> station for $40, even though he suspected it was stolen, and turned
> around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for $60.
>
> Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at Kiefer, says
> the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the laptop, but
> that he no longer needed it after getting a new one. She asserts she had
> no idea the computer was stolen
>
> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow, had
> recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart, Carlton
> Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their courtship, she
> exchanged sexually explicit email and instant messages with her beau,
> using the computer she had just purchased.
>
> What she didn¢t know was that Clark County School District, which
> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute¢s theft recovery
> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery software
> LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute employees
> remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to record and
> intercept any data from the machine."

Didn't know it was stolen. Uh huh. A laptop for $60 and from a
student. If the substitute teacher tries that defense then she's
admitting she's too stupid to be a teacher after which the school's that
hired her should sue for her misrepresentation.

And, of course, it's always such a smart idea to leave the OS and apps
and data files in place on any used computer rather than flatten and
rebuild. Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they happen to find
kiddie **** on the laptop.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:j3kjn4$rs$1@news.albasani.net...
[...]

> Didn't know it was stolen. Uh huh. A laptop for $60 and from a
> student. If the substitute teacher tries that defense then she's
> admitting she's too stupid to be a teacher after which the school's that
> hired her should sue for her misrepresentation.

That's what *I* thought, and I wondered why they dropped the receiving
stolen property charge. Anyway, the dropping of the charge is no bar to
using the 'stolen property' aspect as protection for Absolute in her counter
charge of privacy violations.

> And, of course, it's always such a smart idea to leave the OS and apps
> and data files in place on any used computer rather than flatten and
> rebuild. Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they happen to find
> kiddie **** on the laptop.

According to the story, it was wiped clean of software (a BIOS rootkit is
able to make the tracking software persist) , and that is one of
the reasons she gave for believing that the low price was legitimate.

I don't believe that for a second.

VanguardLH wrote:

>Didn't know it was stolen. Uh huh. A laptop for $60 and from a
>student. If the substitute teacher tries that defense then she's
>admitting she's too stupid to be a teacher after which the school's that
>hired her should sue for her misrepresentation.

Heh, no doubt.

>And, of course, it's always such a smart idea to leave the OS and apps
>and data files in place on any used computer rather than flatten and
>rebuild.

First thing I do on all brand-new machines with factory ****.

> Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they happen to find
>kiddie **** on the laptop.

I think she can claim stupid in that case, why would a 52 y/o woman be
into CP?

Anyhow...

The text I quoted was the back-story, the real issue is if LoJack and
company are guilty of illegal wiretapping. Will be an interesting
precedent. I'm not sure which side I'm on yet. The laptop belongs to
the school and they gave LoJack permission to monitor everything and
anything on it. But...

Wiretapping laws are set at the State level. Some States it's totally
illegal to record any communications, some allow it as long as one of
the parties communicating is privy to the recording.

Ohio's law says one party must know they are being recorded, and these
two lovebirds didn't. In addition, Ohio has a little 'extra' for sexual
communication: http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/ohio.html

____________

"But the judge found that there were grounds to believe Absolute had
gone too far, and that a jury might reasonably decide that it had
violated the plaintiffs’ privacy and broken the law. The case raises an
important issue about the length that someone can legally go to recover
stolen goods."

“It is one thing to cause a stolen computer to report its IP address or
its geographical location in an effort to track it down,� Rice wrote in
his decision (.pdf). “It is something entirely different to violate
federal wiretapping laws by intercepting the electronic communications
of the person using the stolen laptop.�

FromTheRafters wrote:

>According to the story, it was wiped clean of software (a BIOS rootkit is
>able to make the tracking software persist) , and that is one of
>the reasons she gave for believing that the low price was legitimate.
>
>I don't believe that for a second.

Nor do I, I would have called the kids parents to ask first.

But I don't think LoJack needed to take screen shots of her with her
legs spread apart (no ****), to get the information needed to locate the
missing unit. I think a better approach would have been for LoJack to
disable the boot sequence, informing them that unit is stolen, and
provide a telephone number to call and explain what happened and make
arrangements to return it.

I'll bet there are hundreds if not 1000's of hot laptops being sold
daily to unwitting buyers. An opportunity for the recipient of the
stolen goods to do the right thing before a Federal Case had to be made
of it would have been nice. (Or a SWAT team busting in @ 3A - worst
case!) ;-)


(legs apart ref.)
__________________
"According to court documents, in June 2008 Magnus began recording
Clements-Jeffrey’s keystrokes and monitoring her web surfing. At one
point, while snooping on Clements-Jeffrey’s webcam communications with
her boyfriend, Magnus also captured three screenshots from her laptop
monitor, which showed Clements-Jeffrey naked in the webcam images. In
one picture, her legs were spread apart."

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:j3kjn4$rs$1@news.albasani.net:

> And, of course, it's always such a smart idea to leave the OS and
> apps and data files in place on any used computer rather than
> flatten and rebuild. Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they
> happen to find kiddie **** on the laptop.

Vanguard, You can flatten and rebuild a lojacked system all day long,
it's still going to be lojacked when you reload windows. [g]


--
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.

G. Morgan <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in
news:4trs57ph8st2quvbpvp4dbpkpj6kvca9c3@Osama-is-dead.net:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>>Didn't know it was stolen. Uh huh. A laptop for $60 and from a
>>student. If the substitute teacher tries that defense then she's
>>admitting she's too stupid to be a teacher after which the school's
>>that hired her should sue for her misrepresentation.
>
> Heh, no doubt.
>
>>And, of course, it's always such a smart idea to leave the OS and
>>apps and data files in place on any used computer rather than
>>flatten and rebuild.
>
> First thing I do on all brand-new machines with factory ****.
>
>> Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they happen to find
>>kiddie **** on the laptop.
>
> I think she can claim stupid in that case, why would a 52 y/o woman
> be into CP?
>
> Anyhow...
>
> The text I quoted was the back-story, the real issue is if LoJack
> and company are guilty of illegal wiretapping. Will be an
> interesting precedent. I'm not sure which side I'm on yet. The
> laptop belongs to the school and they gave LoJack permission to
> monitor everything and anything on it. But...
>
> Wiretapping laws are set at the State level. Some States it's
> totally illegal to record any communications, some allow it as long
> as one of the parties communicating is privy to the recording.
>
> Ohio's law says one party must know they are being recorded, and
> these two lovebirds didn't. In addition, Ohio has a little 'extra'
> for sexual communication:
> http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/ohio.html
>
> ____________
>
> "But the judge found that there were grounds to believe Absolute had
> gone too far, and that a jury might reasonably decide that it had
> violated the plaintiffs’ privacy and broken the law. The case
> raises an important issue about the length that someone can legally
> go to recover stolen goods."
>
> “It is one thing to cause a stolen computer to report its IP
> address or its geographical location in an effort to track it
> down,� Rice wrote in his decision (.pdf). “It is something
> entirely different to violate federal wiretapping laws by
> intercepting the electronic communications of the person using the
> stolen laptop.�
>

HEHEHE.. I'll be watching this case with a vested interest. I always
suspected some of it's activities needed to be challenged in a
courtroom, I *knew* they weren't right. If I pulled even a quarter of
the information retrieval they do, I'd be sued for all sorts of
violations. Wiretapping being but one of them. I wonder how much
confidential data they've recovered due to the spying? :)


--
I am a sinner
Hold my prayers upto the sun
I am a sinner
Heaven's closed for what I've done.

"Dustin" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F52A6126389AHHI2948AJD832@no...
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:j3kjn4$rs$1@news.albasani.net:
>
>> And, of course, it's always such a smart idea to leave the OS and
>> apps and data files in place on any used computer rather than
>> flatten and rebuild. Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they
>> happen to find kiddie **** on the laptop.
>
> Vanguard, You can flatten and rebuild a lojacked system all day long,
> it's still going to be lojacked when you reload windows. [g]

Would it only persist if it was reloaded with the same OS
that it was originally installed to work with? Like if it came
with XP pro and you wiped it and loaded Vista would it only
have limited functionality or is it capable of upgrading with
the new OS when it phones home?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:11:30 -0400, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would it only persist if it was reloaded with the same OS

It's a rootkit in bios that will reinstall itself in any windows system.

I don't know if it would damage a linux installation, or not. It
definitely wouldn't work though.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

FromTheRafters wrote:
> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>
>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a substitute
>> teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>
>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and had
>> been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another student
>> at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the laptop at a
>> bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was stolen, and
>> turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for $60.
>>
>> Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at Kiefer,
>> says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the
>> laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a new one. She
>> asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>
>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow,
>> had recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart,
>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just purchased.
>>
>> What she didn't know was that Clark County School District, which
>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>
> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense is
> gonna fly.

It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.

The issue now is something entirely different, and she has a good chance
of winning.

"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:j3nlei$ce$2@news.datemas.de...
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
>> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>>
>>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a substitute
>>> teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>>
>>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and had
>>> been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another student
>>> at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the laptop at a
>>> bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was stolen, and
>>> turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for $60.
>>>
>>> Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at Kiefer,
>>> says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the
>>> laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a new one. She
>>> asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>>
>>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow,
>>> had recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart,
>>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just purchased.
>>>
>>> What she didn't know was that Clark County School District, which
>>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>>
>> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense is
>> gonna fly.
>
> It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.

The charges were dropped, so I assume it wasn't ever presented in court.

The charges were dropped is not the same as being found innocent
of a charge, they probably just didn't want to persue it.

> The issue now is something entirely different, and she has a good chance of
> winning.

Right, now she is not the defendant and the charge is not stolen property.

I suspect they will be found guilty because of how they handled the information
rather than how they gained it.

"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:op.v03yddzwa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:11:30 -0400, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Would it only persist if it was reloaded with the same OS
>
> It's a rootkit in bios that will reinstall itself in any windows system.
>
> I don't know if it would damage a linux installation, or not. It
> definitely wouldn't work though.

I agree, what I meant was that if it leverages itself by modifying ntldr
or some other NT specific driver file in memory it wouldn't work on W98.
Or if some other driver specific to XP it wouldn't work on Vista etc..

I understand that they have one for the Mac too.

"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:op.v03yddzwa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:11:30 -0400, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Would it only persist if it was reloaded with the same OS
>
> It's a rootkit in bios that will reinstall itself in any windows system.
>
> I don't know if it would damage a linux installation, or not. It
> definitely wouldn't work though.

That's one of the good things about Linux. When a Windows
system OS is identified you be be very sure that certain
programs are there. You can know what editors are being
used, what browser in most cases, even what library files
are there. With Linux, all you can be sure of is that there is
a penguin graphic somewhere. :o)

FromTheRafters wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:j3nlei$ce$2@news.datemas.de...
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>>>
>>>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a
>>>> substitute teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and
>>>> had been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another
>>>> student at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the
>>>> laptop at a bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was
>>>> stolen, and turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for
>>>> $60. Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at
>>>> Kiefer,
>>>> says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the
>>>> laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a new one.
>>>> She asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>>>
>>>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow,
>>>> had recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart,
>>>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>>>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>>>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just purchased.
>>>>
>>>> What she didn't know was that Clark County School District, which
>>>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>>>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>>>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>>>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>>>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>>>
>>> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense is
>>> gonna fly.
>>
>> It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.
>
> The charges were dropped, so I assume it wasn't ever presented in
> court.

Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to
present for a case to go forward.

> The charges were dropped is not the same as being found innocent
> of a charge, they probably just didn't want to persue it.

Actually, people aren't found innocent. They are found "not guilty."

Consider OJ Simpson. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard
to meet.

http://www.google.com/search?q=beyon...w=1324&bih=876

or the short form:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3jocxbe

On the other hand, having the charges dropped often means the case was a
non-starter.

>> The issue now is something entirely different, and she has a good
>> chance of winning.

They went too far, but she's allowed her embarrassment to get the better
of her. On the other hand, if it's handled correctly, it wil establish a
standard.

> Right, now she is not the defendant and the charge is not stolen
> property.
> I suspect they will be found guilty because of how they handled the
> information rather than how they gained it.

In civil cases, guilt is not the issue. It's all about liability. In
this case, that liability should turn on both issues.

Juergen Nieveler wrote:

>
>G. Morgan <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, wonder what her excuse will be if they happen to find
>>>kiddie **** on the laptop.
>>
>> I think she can claim stupid in that case, why would a 52 y/o woman be
>> into CP?
>
>What makes this sound unrealistic to you, the age or the fact she's a
>woman?

Both, I guess. I've never seen a woman show up on "To Catch a Predator"
on NBC.

FromTheRafters wrote:

>
>"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>news:op.v03yddzwa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net.. .
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:11:30 -0400, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it only persist if it was reloaded with the same OS
>>
>> It's a rootkit in bios that will reinstall itself in any windows system.
>>
>> I don't know if it would damage a linux installation, or not. It
>> definitely wouldn't work though.
>
>That's one of the good things about Linux. When a Windows
>system OS is identified you be be very sure that certain
>programs are there. You can know what editors are being
>used, what browser in most cases, even what library files
>are there. With Linux, all you can be sure of is that there is
>a penguin graphic somewhere. :o)


Doesn't matter what O/S, they can halt the boot process before it even
gets to the OS loader.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:j3nlei$ce$2@news.datemas.de...
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>>>
>>>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a substitute
>>>> teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and had
>>>> been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another student
>>>> at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the laptop at a
>>>> bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was stolen, and
>>>> turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for $60.
>>>>
>>>> Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at Kiefer,
>>>> says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the
>>>> laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a new one. She
>>>> asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>>>
>>>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow,
>>>> had recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart,
>>>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>>>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>>>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just purchased.
>>>>
>>>> What she didn't know was that Clark County School District, which
>>>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>>>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>>>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>>>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>>>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>>>
>>> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense is
>>> gonna fly.
>>
>> It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.
>
> The charges were dropped, so I assume it wasn't ever presented in court.
>
> The charges were dropped is not the same as being found innocent
> of a charge, they probably just didn't want to persue it.

Lets see, the police did not charge you last night for murder. That does
not mean that you are innocent.

Charges get dropped because the prosecution does not think that they
will get a conviction. Which means that the person IS innocent. One of
the key features of the rule of law in common law countries is that you
are innocent until you are proven guilty. Since she was not proven
guilty, she IS innocent.

>
>> The issue now is something entirely different, and she has a good chance of
>> winning.
>
> Right, now she is not the defendant and the charge is not stolen property.
>
> I suspect they will be found guilty because of how they handled the information
> rather than how they gained it.

It is a civil suit. It is not a matter of innocence or guilt, but of
whether or not they inflicted damage.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well then there must not be any if NBC did not show any.

Jeez,
"G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
news:eeev57pclor4mna6p6ast4kq9s7ttpsl3q@Osama-is-dead.net...
Juergen Nieveler wrote:

>

Both, I guess. I've never seen a woman show up on "To Catch a Predator"
on NBC.

"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:j3od4e$6f2$1@news.datemas.de...
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
>> news:j3nlei$ce$2@news.datemas.de...
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>>>>
>>>>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a
>>>>> substitute teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and
>>>>> had been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another
>>>>> student at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the
>>>>> laptop at a bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was
>>>>> stolen, and turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for
>>>>> $60. Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at Kiefer,
>>>>> says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given him the
>>>>> laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a new one.
>>>>> She asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>>>>
>>>>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old widow,
>>>>> had recently renewed a romance with her high school sweetheart,
>>>>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>>>>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>>>>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just purchased.
>>>>>
>>>>> What she didn't know was that Clark County School District, which
>>>>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>>>>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>>>>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>>>>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>>>>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense is
>>>> gonna fly.
>>>
>>> It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.
>>
>> The charges were dropped, so I assume it wasn't ever presented in
>> court.
>
> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present for
> a case to go forward.

Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.

>> The charges were dropped is not the same as being found innocent
>> of a charge, they probably just didn't want to persue it.
>
> Actually, people aren't found innocent. They are found "not guilty."

True, they are assumed innocent until proven otherwise.

[...]

> On the other hand, having the charges dropped often means the case was a
> non-starter.

Often. Also sometimes a PR move on the part of the complainant.
Bring charges to teach them a lesson, drop them for PR purposes.

[...]

"G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
news:ujev571l56n9815oarcveimc575c9rbmdm@Osama-is-dead.net...
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>
>>"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
>>news:op.v03yddzwa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net. ..
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:11:30 -0400, FromTheRafters
>>> <erratic.howard@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Would it only persist if it was reloaded with the same OS
>>>
>>> It's a rootkit in bios that will reinstall itself in any windows system.
>>>
>>> I don't know if it would damage a linux installation, or not. It
>>> definitely wouldn't work though.
>>
>>That's one of the good things about Linux. When a Windows
>>system OS is identified you be be very sure that certain
>>programs are there. You can know what editors are being
>>used, what browser in most cases, even what library files
>>are there. With Linux, all you can be sure of is that there is
>>a penguin graphic somewhere. :o)
>
>
> Doesn't matter what O/S, they can halt the boot process before it even
> gets to the OS loader.
>
Yes, I wasn't speaking specifically to this case with the above comment.

Juergen Nieveler wrote:

>G. Morgan <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote:
>
>>>What makes this sound unrealistic to you, the age or the fact she's a
>>>woman?
>>
>> Both, I guess. I've never seen a woman show up on "To Catch a Predator"
>> on NBC.
>
>Selective reporting.
>
>Google a bit - for example for female schoolteachers abusing boys.
>
>Doesn't usually gets reported as abuse in the same way men abuse kids
>since people seem to assume it's cool for a teenage boy to get a
>learning- by-doing sex education... but technically, it IS abuse.

True...

On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present for
>> a case to go forward.
>
> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.

criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges. It
is up to the state.
Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.

FromTheRafters wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:j3od4e$6f2$1@news.datemas.de...
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in
>>> message news:j3nlei$ce$2@news.datemas.de...
>>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> "G. Morgan" <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vv4r57piudgb7r0n0oquauegbv9hrs8khb@Osama-is-dead.net...
>>>>>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ed-for-spying/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The case revolves around a laptop that Clemens-Jeffrey, a
>>>>>> substitute teacher, bought from one of her students in 2008.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The laptop belonged to Clark County School District in Ohio, and
>>>>>> had been stolen from one of its students in April 2008. Another
>>>>>> student at Kiefer Alternative School subsequently purchased the
>>>>>> laptop at a bus station for $40, even though he suspected it was
>>>>>> stolen, and turned around and offered it to Clements-Jeffrey for
>>>>>> $60. Clements-Jeffrey, who was a long-term substitute teacher at
>>>>>> Kiefer, says the student told her his aunt and uncle had given
>>>>>> him the laptop, but that he no longer needed it after getting a
>>>>>> new one.
>>>>>> She asserts she had no idea the computer was stolen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clements-Jeffrey, described in court papers as a 52-year-old
>>>>>> widow, had recently renewed a romance with her high school
>>>>>> sweetheart,
>>>>>> Carlton Smith, who lived in Boston. In the course of their
>>>>>> courtship, she exchanged sexually explicit email and instant
>>>>>> messages with her beau, using the computer she had just
>>>>>> purchased. What she didn't know was that Clark County School
>>>>>> District, which
>>>>>> legally owned the laptop, had purchased Absolute's theft recovery
>>>>>> service, which includes the installation of its remote-recovery
>>>>>> software LoJack, onto client computers. The system gives Absolute
>>>>>> employees remote access to a stolen computer and allows them to
>>>>>> record and intercept any data from the machine."
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that the "I didn't know that it was stolen" defense
>>>>> is gonna fly.
>>>>
>>>> It already did fly. The charges were dropped because it flew.
>>>
>>> The charges were dropped, so I assume it wasn't ever presented in
>>> court.
>>
>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to
>> present for a case to go forward.
>
> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.

It doesn't quite work that way, but it's not an important distinction,
so there's no need to have a long non-topical discussion.

>>> The charges were dropped is not the same as being found innocent
>>> of a charge, they probably just didn't want to persue it.
>>
>> Actually, people aren't found innocent. They are found "not guilty."
>
> True, they are assumed innocent until proven otherwise.
>
> [...]
>
>> On the other hand, having the charges dropped often means the case
>> was a non-starter.
>
> Often. Also sometimes a PR move on the part of the complainant.
> Bring charges to teach them a lesson, drop them for PR purposes.

Goes back to what I said above. Briefly, it is not the aggrieved party
that brings the charge but the State. Victims do not get to decide
willy-nilly to "drop the charges." (Consider the consequences if that
were how our legal system worked.)

What you're thinking of the mechanism for certain kinds of petty
complaints in situations where the police have declined to charge anyone
because they deem it a non-starter for whatever reason--most often
because there's no evidence but merely s/he said, s/he said. If the
putative victim insists, s/he can still have his day in court, but s/he
brings the complaint in his or her own name.

> [...]

unruh wrote:
> On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to
>>> present for a case to go forward.
>>
>> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
>
> criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges.
> It is up to the state.
> Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
> up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.

Are you Howard, back from the grave?

"unruh" <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnj5vvrm.6b3.unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca. ..
> On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present
>>> for
>>> a case to go forward.
>>
>> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
>
> criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges. It
> is up to the state.
> Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
> up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.

Which also means that the "I didn't know it was stolen" claim went
untested on that charge. Despite picking nits, I still don't think it flies.
The price, and the source, and the serial number being obliterated
seem to be enough clues for anyone.

"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:j3p0kk$29d$1@news.datemas.de...
[...]
> What you're thinking of the mechanism for certain kinds of petty complaints in
> situations where the police have declined to charge anyone because they deem
> it a non-starter for whatever reason--most often because there's no evidence
> but merely s/he said, s/he said. If the putative victim insists, s/he can
> still have his day in court, but s/he brings the complaint in his or her own
> name.

I was only thinking that "dropped charges" does not mean
that the "I didn't know it was stolen property" claim was
even tested.

FromTheRafters wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:j3p0kk$29d$1@news.datemas.de...
> [...]
>> What you're thinking of the mechanism for certain kinds of petty
>> complaints in situations where the police have declined to charge
>> anyone because they deem it a non-starter for whatever reason--most
>> often because there's no evidence but merely s/he said, s/he said.
>> If the putative victim insists, s/he can still have his day in
>> court, but s/he brings the complaint in his or her own name.
>
> I was only thinking that "dropped charges" does not mean
> that the "I didn't know it was stolen property" claim was
> even tested.

Apparently she was credible, and they believed her story. Although it
seems to happen often that cops will get a hardon for the innocent, it
rarely goes the other way. If they think your story makes sense, it
probably does.

I would suspect that her lack of clue about the live security features
was a big selling point in her favor. She would have known that they
existed, and the fact that she ignored them indicates she was operating
under the theory that they had been disabled or removed at the time the
computer was removed from service. This would lead to the conclusion
that she genuinely believed her purchase to be a licit transaction.

The other possible theory is that she is just too ****ing stupid to be
walking the streets unattended. Always possible, but in her case, not
all that likely.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.computer.security.]
On 2011-09-02, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
> "unruh" <unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnj5vvrm.6b3.unruh@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca. ..
>> On 2011-09-01, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. The prosecutor has to believe s/he actually has a case to present
>>>> for
>>>> a case to go forward.
>>>
>>> Or the aggrieved (the school) declines to pursue charges.
>>
>> criminal charges do not require an aggrieved party to pursue charges. It
>> is up to the state.
>> Now if the school then refused to testify, they could either be called
>> up for contempt or the prosecutor could drop the charges.
>
> Which also means that the "I didn't know it was stolen" claim went
> untested on that charge. Despite picking nits, I still don't think it flies.
> The price, and the source, and the serial number being obliterated
> seem to be enough clues for anyone.

It was tested, by the prosecutor. Who is a lawyer.


>
>

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:

>The other possible theory is that she is just too ****ing stupid to be
>walking the streets unattended. Always possible, but in her case, not
>all that likely.

Well, she is a substitute teacher. Even full time teachers are not
producing literate graduates.