["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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>