Verizon Staff Busted For Allegedly Stealing Customer's Nude Pics

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Lawyer105:

thaluikhain:

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?

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.

RJ 17:
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.

RJ 17:
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.

RJ 17:
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.

Lionsfan:
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!

Lawyer105:
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.

Lawyer105:
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?

Slayer_2:
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.

While I'm not defending them. They technically did receive permission to copy said photographs when transferring data from one phone to the other. Considering that CDMA and even GSM phones if things like photos are stored on the phones memory the machines utilized to transfer only make a copy.

So yeah...just my experience working at AT&T we had to be specific about this process if a customer would like to keep their phone and how we would be making a copy. Most of the time customers don't care despite how specific we were in the process.

RJ 17:
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?

To be fair, both examples are a little different. Both involve scumbags taking advantage of someone's naivety, but in the webcam case there was no real precaution that could have been taken.

But if you're going to be so bold as to take nude pictures with your phone, you should probably do a little bit of research on what should be done to keep them out of the hands of strangers. It was a simple matter of uploading them to her computer and deleting them from her phone before handing her phone off to someone.

Still scumbags unworthy of sympathy, but the waitress was clearly being irresponsible.

.... In my experience, the homemade porn one trips across in that kind of job isn't even that good. Seriously, browse Reddit's GoneWild section and look at the stuff without a lot of votes, exact same freakin' thing. (With occasional side trips into WTF territory.) Certainly not worth risking one's job over. But we are dealing with someone who's stupid enough to boast that he did it to a complete stranger who might know the victim. God DAMN is that stupid.

Lawyer105:

thaluikhain:

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?

She gave a supposed proffesional this simple task to do, which is part of his job, and he decided instead to abuse his position and commit a crime. If I gave my computer to someone at an IT shop and wanted them to copy stuff like my bank details over to a new hard drive or some shit I'd expect them to do the job and not copy them and steal my shit.

Is it really stupidity to expect someone to do a task that there job entails and not break the fucking law?

In fact, according to you, that doesn't just make you stupid. It also makes you a criminal because, of course, technically you helped the person to steal YOUR OWN STUFF.

By the way, how does that work? How can you be arrested for helping someone to steal something you own? Because that would imply that it is not against your will, would it not?

Even if you were right, you'd still be wrong.

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

Sounds like great times. The only time I had to stumble across those was saving modeling pictures for a 40 year old woman. Still awkward, as I usually do my work with my clients beside me. I just kept clicking and hoped she wasn't looking at the thumbnails too closely.

gardian06:
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.

Pedophilia or criminal pictures are a far cry different from someone over the age of consent taking nude pictures of themselves. Both legally and morally.

Slayer_2:
snip

So far my best customer story was a lady who took her husbands laptop in to me to get repaired. I decided it was too far gone to reasonably clean it and advised a new install. She was worried he had information on there so wanted me to do a back up. As I was scanning and backing up files I ran into some pictures of her husband and another woman (with her looking over my shoulder), well needless to say the repair was no longer necessary.

Barbzilla: IT Professional and Marriage Counselor extraordinaire!

Faulty Turmoil:
snip

1
In the US the law on personal information and professionals is very clear. You can and will be prosecuted for the theft of personal information, no matter how readily available it is.

2
Even if it wasn't, the victim is never responsible for a crime. The only element you could take out of that scenario that was an effort of deliberate choice leading to the outcome, is the element of the criminal mind. The victim didn't bring her phone in with the intent to have her images stolen, the criminal did have the intent to steal those pictures after discovery though.

barbzilla:
So far my best customer story was a lady who took her husbands laptop in to me to get repaired. I decided it was too far gone to reasonably clean it and advised a new install. She was worried he had information on there so wanted me to do a back up. As I was scanning and backing up files I ran into some pictures of her husband and another woman (with her looking over my shoulder), well needless to say the repair was no longer necessary.

Barbzilla: IT Professional and Marriage Counselor extraordinaire!

Wow, some people amaze me with their lack of computer smarts. If you have to cheat, and you have to take pictures of the act, store them somewhere safe. That would be very awkward, though.

barbzilla:

Faulty Turmoil:
snip

1
In the US the law on personal information and professionals is very clear. You can and will be prosecuted for the theft of personal information, no matter how readily available it is.

2
Even if it wasn't, the victim is never responsible for a crime. The only element you could take out of that scenario that was an effort of deliberate choice leading to the outcome, is the element of the criminal mind. The victim didn't bring her phone in with the intent to have her images stolen, the criminal did have the intent to steal those pictures after discovery though.

Are you directing that at me or Lawyer? Because I'm on the same side as you.

Faulty Turmoil:

barbzilla:

Faulty Turmoil:
snip

1
In the US the law on personal information and professionals is very clear. You can and will be prosecuted for the theft of personal information, no matter how readily available it is.

2
Even if it wasn't, the victim is never responsible for a crime. The only element you could take out of that scenario that was an effort of deliberate choice leading to the outcome, is the element of the criminal mind. The victim didn't bring her phone in with the intent to have her images stolen, the criminal did have the intent to steal those pictures after discovery though.

Are you directing that at me or Lawyer? Because I'm on the same side as you.

Oops, sorry for the confusion. I was directing it at Lawyer, and anyone else of the opinion that the victim was in the wrong. I find it to be aberrant behavior, when people attack the victim of a crime instead of the criminal.

Yes there are things that can be done to prevent certain things from happening, but without the criminals the crime would never occur period end of discussion.

barbzilla:

Faulty Turmoil:

barbzilla:

1
In the US the law on personal information and professionals is very clear. You can and will be prosecuted for the theft of personal information, no matter how readily available it is.

2
Even if it wasn't, the victim is never responsible for a crime. The only element you could take out of that scenario that was an effort of deliberate choice leading to the outcome, is the element of the criminal mind. The victim didn't bring her phone in with the intent to have her images stolen, the criminal did have the intent to steal those pictures after discovery though.

Are you directing that at me or Lawyer? Because I'm on the same side as you.

Oops, sorry for the confusion. I was directing it at Lawyer, and anyone else of the opinion that the victim was in the wrong. I find it to be aberrant behavior, when people attack the victim of a crime instead of the criminal.

Yes there are things that can be done to prevent certain things from happening, but without the criminals the crime would never occur period end of discussion.

Exactly. I wonder if they'd be singing the same tune if they accidentally left their car unlocked or something and someone stole it. Then the police come by and say "Well, as far as I can see it's pretty much your fault. So we're going to arrest you for aiding in the theft of your own car."?

'cause I bet there'd be pretty big WTF all round.

And this is why I will never, ever take pictures or make videos of that nature on my phone. Way too embarrassing and people simply can't be trusted with the info. That stuff is meant to be private, and the moment you allow anyone to access it, you're in trouble. Glad these two got caught, and I'm forced to wonder if the guy will actually return to the state or if he's going to run. Do let us know, escapist.

The victim-blaming in the comments is honestly atrocious. This woman did not in any way, shape or form give permission for strangers to go looking at her pictures. The existence of them was not an invitation, and it was not her fault that some highly unprofessional, not to mention rude, employees decided to rifle through her files. I'm so glad they got caught.

Lawyer105:

Lionsfan:
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!

It's not a matter of being stupid and handing it out willy nilly. It was on her private phone, and she was trusting the employees with her private info, ie to transfer the data without a problem. The credit card example still does hold up, in both cases you're handing over information to someone who is supposed to be trustworthy, and trusting they act professional.

But if you want to talk about the securing angle, or encryption, then how about this. It's like leaving your house for a little bit and leaving the door unlocked, then returning home and finding out someone burgled the place.

You could have taken more precautions, but at the end of the day sole fault still goes to the asshole who robbed you.

This lady could have removed the photos off of her phone, but at the end of the day, sole fault still goes to the assholes who stole the pics. Saying otherwise is victim-blaming at its finest (or worst I guess)

RJ 17:

Lawyer105:
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.

Lawyer105:
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?

often at sit down restaurants (basically any that have servers and tipping) you usually give them payment when you get your check and they take it and charge/get change at a register at the bar or elsewhere.

and most shopping online doesn't require a pin, but does require a billing address. so that would require a small amount of investigation into the name on the card

What kind of phone is the waitress using?? SIM micro sd card woman, get with the times. Her old phone can't be THAT old.

BreakfastMan:
expose her private , exposed,naked

Its like you're trying so hard yet not trying hard enough >:)

mysecondlife:
What kind of phone is the waitress using?? SIM card woman, get with the times. Her old phone can't be THAT old.

BreakfastMan:
expose her private , exposed,naked

Its like you're trying so hard yet not trying hard enough >:)

I tried for as long as I could, and as hard as I could, butt that was still the best I could cum up with, and that is the naked truth. :P

BreakfastMan:

mysecondlife:
What kind of phone is the waitress using?? SIM card woman, get with the times. Her old phone can't be THAT old.

BreakfastMan:
expose her private , exposed,naked

Its like you're trying so hard yet not trying hard enough >:)

I tried for as long as I could, and as hard as I could, butt that was still the best I could cum up with, and that is the naked truth. :P

Heh, ok. Try not to strain any more muscles while performing under pressure. Right fella?

Man, that guy was a massive boob, it all went tits up for him XD

Okay I will stop the puns now. What kind of clunge steals nude pics? Just use google imgs like everyone else!

luckshot:
often at sit down restaurants (basically any that have servers and tipping) you usually give them payment when you get your check and they take it and charge/get change at a register at the bar or elsewhere.

Really?? In London, they all bring a handheld reader to your table and you pay that way. Card doesn't leave your sight. If/when I'm travelling and they haven't discovered fire yet, then I go with them to the register/bar to keep an eye on my card.

luckshot:

and most shopping online doesn't require a pin, but does require a billing address. so that would require a small amount of investigation into the name on the card

What sort of investigation are you suggesting? Most billing information requires a sendee's name. There's no investigating to do. Besides... that still doesn't address the issue that, by working through a recognised CC-vendor (Mastercard, Visa etc.) they'd still need security codes/key fobs that they wouldn't have access to.

Lionsfan:
It's not a matter of being stupid and handing it out willy nilly. It was on her private phone, and she was trusting the employees with her private info, ie to transfer the data without a problem. The credit card example still does hold up, in both cases you're handing over information to someone who is supposed to be trustworthy, and trusting they act professional.

But if you want to talk about the securing angle, or encryption, then how about this. It's like leaving your house for a little bit and leaving the door unlocked, then returning home and finding out someone burgled the place.

You could have taken more precautions, but at the end of the day sole fault still goes to the asshole who robbed you.

This lady could have removed the photos off of her phone, but at the end of the day, sole fault still goes to the assholes who stole the pics. Saying otherwise is victim-blaming at its finest (or worst I guess)

I'll say it again, since you're clearly not hearing me.

There is no question that the dudes involved deserve what's coming to them.

That said, I've got no sympathy for the "victim" because as far as I'm concerned she was an active participant in the problem. Does that make her a criminal? No, don't be silly. But it DOES mean that she shouldn't be allowed to play the victim card. She's an idiot and deserves a slap upside the head. Possibly a lecture on basic security in the modern era. Certainly not sympathy, and all those people that are going "awww, poor her" are part of the problem.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES! Enough with the entitled expectation that the world should look after you.

Faulty Turmoil:

Exactly. I wonder if they'd be singing the same tune if they accidentally left their car unlocked or something and someone stole it. Then the police come by and say "Well, as far as I can see it's pretty much your fault. So we're going to arrest you for aiding in the theft of your own car."?

'cause I bet there'd be pretty big WTF all round.

Umm... no. Missing the point. If I left my car open with the keys in the ignition and somebody stole it, I'd still expect them to be prosecuted for theft.

But I certainly wouldn't go around with the "poor me's", or expect the insurance company to pick up the tab for my stupidity (not that I think they would in that sort of situation, but I wouldn't even try).

Lawyer105:

Umm... no. Missing the point. If I left my car open with the keys in the ignition and somebody stole it, I'd still expect them to be prosecuted for theft.

But I certainly wouldn't go around with the "poor me's", or expect the insurance company to pick up the tab for my stupidity (not that I think they would in that sort of situation, but I wouldn't even try).

I guess a more valid comparison would be if you were to leave your car at a garage for it to be fixed and the mechanics stole your radio. Still not your fault.

Sure she could have taken more care and deleted the pictures first, and yes, that would have been a more sensible thing to do. But my main problem with what you are saying is that she should be charged with a crime because of what two assholes did. Which isn't fair in any way.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELVES! Enough with the entitled expectation that the world should look after you.

And this bit here? It's not entitled to expect someone to provide a service that is a part of their job. Sure, you shouldn't expect the world to look after you, but you should be able to expect that you can trust someone to do a task for you without screwing you over. Trusting people doesn't mean that you expect them to look after you, and saying that the victim should blame themselves, even only partially, is not right.

Faulty Turmoil:
Sure she could have taken more care and deleted the pictures first, and yes, that would have been a more sensible thing to do. But my main problem with what you are saying is that she should be charged with a crime because of what two assholes did. Which isn't fair in any way.

I didn't say she should be charged with a crime! (except possibly, gross stupidity) I simply said that she carries a portion of the responsibility for this fiasco and should be treated, in the Court of Public Opinion less like a victim and more like an accessory.

Faulty Turmoil:
And this bit here? It's not entitled to expect someone to provide a service that is a part of their job. Sure, you shouldn't expect the world to look after you, but you should be able to expect that you can trust someone to do a task for you without screwing you over. Trusting people doesn't mean that you expect them to look after you, and saying that the victim should blame themselves, even only partially, is not right.

You can expect it but, in this day and age, assuming it and taking no precautions on your own is moronic. Ultimately, she should not be blamed for the theft... that's on the thieves. She should be blamed for giving them the opportunity.

Lawyer105:

Faulty Turmoil:
Sure she could have taken more care and deleted the pictures first, and yes, that would have been a more sensible thing to do. But my main problem with what you are saying is that she should be charged with a crime because of what two assholes did. Which isn't fair in any way.

I didn't say she should be charged with a crime! (except possibly, gross stupidity) I simply said that she carries a portion of the responsibility for this fiasco and should be treated, in the Court of Public Opinion less like a victim and more like an accessory.

From Wikipedia:

Common law traditionally considers an accessory just as guilty as the principal(s) in a crime, and subject to the same penalties. Separate and lesser punishments exist by statute in many jurisdictions.

By saying that she should be treated as an accessory you are saying that she should be treated as a criminal.

Faulty Turmoil:
And this bit here? It's not entitled to expect someone to provide a service that is a part of their job. Sure, you shouldn't expect the world to look after you, but you should be able to expect that you can trust someone to do a task for you without screwing you over. Trusting people doesn't mean that you expect them to look after you, and saying that the victim should blame themselves, even only partially, is not right.

You can expect it but, in this day and age, assuming it and taking no precautions on your own is moronic. Ultimately, she should not be blamed for the theft... that's on the thieves. She should be blamed for giving them the opportunity.

I give people the opportunity to stab me in the back when I turn around, I also give people the opportunity to steal my drink if I put it down to get something out of my backpack for example. Just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean that you can be blamed if someone else takes advantage of that(unless, of course, you were doing it deliberately to try to get someone to take it). Each person is responsible for what they do (special circumstances accepted, of course). Besides, I'm guessing the point of calling the victim stupid is to make her learn from her mistake? Because I don't think she needs that really. I think she's learned very well from what happened.

Giving someone an opportuity implies that you know the opportuity is there, correct? Maybe she forgot that she had them on her phone? Maybe, she knew they were on there but thought that these guys would be proffessional and, you know, just do their fucking job. Now if you trusted a known thief with your money, then sure, that's stupid. However, you have to remember that these two weren't criminals before this happened. It's not unreasonable to think, or assume, that you can give these "proffesionals" your stuff and, in return for money, they just get on and do what you wanted.

Faulty Turmoil:
By saying that she should be treated as an accessory you are saying that she should be treated as a criminal.

You're taking a single word, removing it from it's context (which I went out of my way to explain) and you're complaining about it? Seriously?!

I think I'm done talking to you until you're prepared to do better. Try harder. You can do it if you really want to.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here