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

[FromTheRafters]

"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.

[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.

[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.

[FromTheRafters]

"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.

[...]

[unruh]

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.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

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?

[FromTheRafters]

"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]

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.

> [...]

[FromTheRafters]

"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.