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

[FromTheRafters]

"Jenn" <me@fakee..mail.com> wrote in message news:j3mh2s$aak$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/31/2011 5:11 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "Dustin"<bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9F52A6126389AHHI2948AJD832@no...
>>> VanguardLH<V@nguard.LH> wrote in news:j3kjn4$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 porn 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?
>>
>>
> Interesting thread... My laptop came with a Lo-jack CD. After reading all
> the discussions so far, I'm wondering what the consensus is as far as loading
> the Lo-jack program onto my laptop?

I still think it is a good thing for retrieving a stolen laptop.

As for all of the hoopla - if I want to install spyware on my computer
that activates the webcam and then posts photo, IP, and geolocation
data somewhere then I should be able to do so. If that computer gets
stolen and resold it is a case of 'caveat emptor' as far as the new
owner being spied upon is concerned.

It *is* an interesting case nonetheless.

[David W. Hodgins]

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.)

[David W. Hodgins]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:34:16 -0400, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still think it is a good thing for retrieving a stolen laptop.

Giving control of your pc to a company, and trusting all of their
employees? I don't think so.

It isn't hardware based, so it can be removed if the thief, realizes
it's there, or reformats, but there is freeware to allow you to do
the same thing, yourself.

http://preyproject.com/

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.)

[Bullwinkle.]

LOL and how old is this laptop?

You is safe no one wants to spy on you fat sloppy ass
except bd.


"Jenn" <me@fakee..mail.com> wrote in message
news:j3mh2s$aak$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
Interesting thread... My laptop came with a Lo-jack CD. After reading
all the discussions so far, I'm wondering what the consensus is as far
as loading the Lo-jack program onto my laptop?

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

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.

[FromTheRafters]

"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.

[FromTheRafters]

"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
newsp.v03ymmj5a3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:34:16 -0400, FromTheRafters <erratic.howard@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I still think it is a good thing for retrieving a stolen laptop.
>
> Giving control of your pc to a company, and trusting all of their
> employees? I don't think so.
>
> It isn't hardware based, so it can be removed if the thief, realizes
> it's there, or reformats, but there is freeware to allow you to do
> the same thing, yourself.
>
> http://preyproject.com/

This one does involve hardware in cooperation with certain
manufacturing partners.

Absolute

http://blog.lojackforlaptops.com/201...-is-recovered/

[FromTheRafters]

"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
newsp.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.

[FromTheRafters]

"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
newsp.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. )

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

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.************/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.