Verizon Staff Busted For Allegedly Stealing Customer's Nude Pics

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Verizon Staff Busted For Allegedly Stealing Customer's Nude Pics

image

A Verizon store worker has confessed to receiving nude pictures copied from a female customer's phone.

Two Verizon store workers have ran into trouble with the law after being caught with very private photographs stolen from a local waitress's phone.

According to the police report, Joshua Stuart, a 24-year-old working at a Verizon store in Bartow, Florida, copied the photographs when a local, unnamed waitress asked him to transfer her data from her old handset to a new smartphone. Stuart then shared the pictures, described as "very private in nature" with his fellow worker, one Gregory Lambert.

Police were informed of the theft when a local bartender came into the same store and, in what I can only imagine was one of the classiest conversations of all time, Stuart asked him if he knew any of the local waitresses and offered to show him "banging pictures." Apparently Stuart's stolen spank material storage techniques were a little rusty, as he couldn't find the pictures on his computer and instead had to ask Lambert to show the customer his copies. As it turns out, the bartender did know the waitress in question, but rather than chortle at her lady bumps, he told her what had happened and contacted the police.

Both the waitress and her friend positively identified the two employees and she confirmed that she had not given consent for the images to be copied.

The police obtained a warrant to search the store and found the images on a laptop and two phones belonging to Lambert. Lambert later confessed to receiving the images, as well as stealing similar photos from a different customer's phone. He's been charged with two felony counts of dealing in stolen property as well as misdemeanor theft and handling of lewd materials. Stuart is currently out of state, and will face charges when, or if, he returns.

Source: The Smoking Gun via The Register

Permalink

She really should have taken better precautions so as not to accidentaly expose her private information herself like that. Still, those guys are total creeps and deserved to be exposed to the naked light of day. :P

BreakfastMan here playing the role of DVS BSTrD

Whoops?

Dubious employees of the world: If you come by saucy pictures in a less-than-legitimate manner, for crying out loud don't show them to other people!

Less important but still relevant: If you give a stranger access to your personal data, they will probably look at it.

Who the hell asks a CUSTOMER if they want to check out your stolen nude pics???

You know, some people are so stupid they deserve to be locked up. These geniuses are certainly among them.

I laughed, these guys deserve what they got if they were that stupid.

MetallicaRulez0:
Who the hell asks a CUSTOMER if they want to check out your stolen nude pics???

You know, some people are so stupid they deserve to be locked up. These geniuses are certainly among them.

This, so much this. 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. However, if you are gonna be a perv, then for gods sake, don't brag about your "work" to other clients...

Captcha: "maple syrup reserve". God forbid if it runs out. God forbid.

'It ain't a bad idea 'till its gotten the Escapist Official Bad Idea seal'

Little do they know, they weren't arrested for stealing the pics, they were arrested for unprecedented amounts of stupid :D

As horrible as their actions were and however much they deserve to be locked up, I can't help feeling just a teensy bit sorry for them.

Sure, they couldn't have made a worse series of decisions if they tried, but it seems just a smidge unfair that they're going to carry the whole can for this debacle. Personally, I feel pretty strongly that the person who put those photo's on the phone and then handed it in deserves at least a portion of the head-smack that's coming on this one.

In no way am I excusing their actions but this strikes me as being remarkably similar to celebrities who scream about privacy while, at the same time, parading their private lives for all to see.

If I kept a porn-stash... and I'm certainly not saying I do!... I'd keep it on a remote HD, which would get formatted, written over and then formatted again before I passed it on to anyone else!

If you want your private stuff kept private, you're responsible for taking steps to keep it that way.

The police seemed to have forgotten the interception of communications charges and copyright infringement.

So this guy essentially told a prospective customer that he copies private and personal files?

Good thing they were "only" nudey pics and not anything financially important, such as bank details!

Classy stuff from these guys...

I'm sorry, what exactly is "handling lewd materials"?
This is a thing?

Lawyer105:
As horrible as their actions were and however much they deserve to be locked up, I can't help feeling just a teensy bit sorry for them.

Sure, they couldn't have made a worse series of decisions if they tried, but it seems just a smidge unfair that they're going to carry the whole can for this debacle. Personally, I feel pretty strongly that the person who put those photo's on the phone and then handed it in deserves at least a portion of the head-smack that's coming on this one.

In no way am I excusing their actions but this strikes me as being remarkably similar to celebrities who scream about privacy while, at the same time, parading their private lives for all to see.

If I kept a porn-stash... and I'm certainly not saying I do!... I'd keep it on a remote HD, which would get formatted, written over and then formatted again before I passed it on to anyone else!

If you want your private stuff kept private, you're responsible for taking steps to keep it that way.

Dafuq?

Ok, I can sorta understand blaming the victim, in the usual "you wouldn't leave your door unlocked" way...but how does that lead to feeling sorry for people who decided to go out of their way to commit crimes?

Likewise, there's a very big difference between making your fortune out of making your private life public and wanting it kept private, and having stuff on a phone and wanting it kept private

Lawyer105:

If I kept a porn-stash... and I'm certainly not saying I do!... I'd keep it on a remote HD, which would get formatted, written over and then formatted again before I passed it on to anyone else!

If you want your private stuff kept private, you're responsible for taking steps to keep it that way.

That's a lot of precautions for a porn stash. Your tastes in fap-material must be either very... interesting, or very boring.

OT: I certainly do love the assorted amounts of stupid on display here. The customer really should've realised that if you have nude pics on your phone, employees copying your data might look at them - but even that pales in comparison to showing the results of your illegal activities to a customer. If only he'd have died... we'd have a new Darwin Award recipient right there.

Lawyer105:
As horrible as their actions were and however much they deserve to be locked up, I can't help feeling just a teensy bit sorry for them.

Sure, they couldn't have made a worse series of decisions if they tried, but it seems just a smidge unfair that they're going to carry the whole can for this debacle. Personally, I feel pretty strongly that the person who put those photo's on the phone and then handed it in deserves at least a portion of the head-smack that's coming on this one.

In no way am I excusing their actions but this strikes me as being remarkably similar to celebrities who scream about privacy while, at the same time, parading their private lives for all to see.

If I kept a porn-stash... and I'm certainly not saying I do!... I'd keep it on a remote HD, which would get formatted, written over and then formatted again before I passed it on to anyone else!

If you want your private stuff kept private, you're responsible for taking steps to keep it that way.

Your comparison to celebrities is way off base. This lady wasn't flaunting her private life, nor was she a celebrity in the public spotlight. She was a a woman that wanted to transfer her data to a new phone, and these guys decided that rather than just doing their job, they'd go snooping through said data.

I'm just having trouble seeing how you can blame her because these guys broke the law. It's an extreme example, but what you're saying is along the same premise as saying that a girl in a miniskirt and tank top that gets raped deserves it because "She shouldn't have been dressed like that." Just as you seem to be saying this girl deserved to have her naked pictures stolen just because she had them on her phone. Or, I don't know, perhaps the employees could have done their job which is to mind their own business and just transfer her data like she asked...it's not like she went in there trying to seduce the employees, HOPING they'd find her pictures. She's not famous, so it wasn't a publicity stunt. Your argument makes no sense, Mr. Lawyer. :P

Lawyer105:
If you want your private stuff kept private, you're responsible for taking steps to keep it that way.

Pretty much spot on. There is an assumption though that while transferring data that the service provider wouldn't be actually reading/looking at that info but the waitress should have really thought more. Why the hell did she have sexy photos of herself on her phone too?

The guys in this story are gibbons of the highest order but I'm assuming the conversation probably came up between them and the bartender because they were all acting like lads. In this instance, the bartender recognised the waitress and felt some moral obligation to tell her but I wonder if he would have done the same if he didn't? Would he have shared in the lols and carried on his merry way?

Lawyer105:
As horrible as their actions were and however much they deserve to be locked up

Sorry, but what would throwing them in jail contribute to anything? This is a dumb thing they did, but it's hardly prison-worthy. Typically the thing where the arrest itself, a few days while awaiting bail, and a verdict of community service, will do the job.

Let alone what they were charged with... Theft? They copied digital files. Theft is the unlawfull removal of property from a person. They removed nothing and didn't commit theft.

And 'handling lewd materials'? Is it one of those US states that has barely abolished the clerical inquisition and still lives somewhere in the 1600's in terms of moralistic legislation?

I loled, as when i worked for vodafone NZ i had to cases kind of like this, on guy brought in a iPhone with his missus putting some... interesting things up her vag, and that was his wallpaper. he also was keen to show everyone the rest of the album

another guy was complaing that his phone was slowing down, when he had 6 GB of vids of him geting blown, fucked etc. the stupid munter swore up and down that he had no photos or vids on the phone as well... as if that would hid them when we synced it to check desk errors etc.

Blablahb:

Lawyer105:
As horrible as their actions were and however much they deserve to be locked up

Sorry, but what would throwing them in jail contribute to anything? This is a dumb thing they did, but it's hardly prison-worthy. Typically the thing where the arrest itself, a few days while awaiting bail, and a verdict of community service, will do the job.

I'll admit I was thinking more along the lines of "too stupid to be allowed to breed" locking up, rather than in relation to any crime they may or may not have committed. I say may or may not because I consider it much more in the nature of a misdemenour than a real crime.

Fasckira:

Lawyer105:
If you want your private stuff kept private, you're responsible for taking steps to keep it that way.

Pretty much spot on. There is an assumption though that while transferring data that the service provider wouldn't be actually reading/looking at that info but the waitress should have really thought more.

While it's totally fine to operate under that assumption, it's more than a little naive. In an era when governments can "lose" social security flash drives and multinational corporations can "lose" customer account and credit card information, and these events happen with monotonous regularity, placing reliance on your service provider without taking additional precautions is, imho, foolish.

RJ 17:
Your comparison to celebrities is way off base. This lady wasn't flaunting her private life, nor was she a celebrity in the public spotlight. She was a a woman that wanted to transfer her data to a new phone, and these guys decided that rather than just doing their job, they'd go snooping through said data.

Any time you have information that you don't want to share with other people (e.g. these photos) and you then make that information available to other people (e.g. by handing your phone or laptop in, or posting them on social media sites or whatever), you are tacitly accepting the risk that the information is going to go walkabout.

We're not talking about master criminals here. They didn't secretly hack her phone (or whatever) and do stuff that she could never have protected herself against. They simply took totally immoral advantage of an opportunity that SHE provided them.

I've got no issue with the dudes involved being prosecuted for misdemenours (sp?) and given community service orders or whatever. They totally deserve it. It simply goes against the grain to see her getting off completely as "the victim", when she's at least partially responsible for the problem.

What it comes down to for me is that, if you hand your bank card and PIN to some random stranger and get robbed, it doesn't make the thief less guilty, but it does make you an accessory to your own loss.

Kargathia:

Lawyer105:

If I kept a porn-stash... and I'm certainly not saying I do!... I'd keep it on a remote HD, which would get formatted, written over and then formatted again before I passed it on to anyone else!

That's a lot of precautions for a porn stash. Your tastes in fap-material must be either very... interesting, or very boring.

I don't have a porn stash, that's just what I do with my ordinary hard drives. But somehow, comparing nekkid pics of yourself to an operating system and my browser history and savegames didn't seem particularly relevant! :)

thaluikhain:

Dafuq?

Ok, I can sorta understand blaming the victim, in the usual "you wouldn't leave your door unlocked" way...but how does that lead to feeling sorry for people who decided to go out of their way to commit crimes?

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. Maybe I'm just paranoid about data security, but I simply can't comprehend the levels of stupidity involved in handing private info over to a stranger if you can possibly avoid it. And given the kind of stuff happening in the world of data security, it's probably not paranoid.

thaluikhain:

Likewise, there's a very big difference between making your fortune out of making your private life public and wanting it kept private, and having stuff on a phone and wanting it kept private

Hyperbole is the grease that oils the wheels of debate. I'm well aware that this comparison is hyperbolic... a far better one would be somebody that put stuff into a private section of a social media site and had it leaked. It's just not as much fun as comparisons go.

RJ 17:

Lawyer105:
As horrible as their actions were and however much they deserve to be locked up, I can't help feeling just a teensy bit sorry for them.

Sure, they couldn't have made a worse series of decisions if they tried, but it seems just a smidge unfair that they're going to carry the whole can for this debacle. Personally, I feel pretty strongly that the person who put those photo's on the phone and then handed it in deserves at least a portion of the head-smack that's coming on this one.

In no way am I excusing their actions but this strikes me as being remarkably similar to celebrities who scream about privacy while, at the same time, parading their private lives for all to see.

If I kept a porn-stash... and I'm certainly not saying I do!... I'd keep it on a remote HD, which would get formatted, written over and then formatted again before I passed it on to anyone else!

If you want your private stuff kept private, you're responsible for taking steps to keep it that way.

Your comparison to celebrities is way off base. This lady wasn't flaunting her private life, nor was she a celebrity in the public spotlight. She was a a woman that wanted to transfer her data to a new phone, and these guys decided that rather than just doing their job, they'd go snooping through said data.

I'm just having trouble seeing how you can blame her because these guys broke the law. It's an extreme example, but what you're saying is along the same premise as saying that a girl in a miniskirt and tank top that gets raped deserves it because "She shouldn't have been dressed like that." Just as you seem to be saying this girl deserved to have her naked pictures stolen just because she had them on her phone. Or, I don't know, perhaps the employees could have done their job which is to mind their own business and just transfer her data like she asked...it's not like she went in there trying to seduce the employees, HOPING they'd find her pictures. She's not famous, so it wasn't a publicity stunt. Your argument makes no sense, Mr. Lawyer. :P

Neither does yours, seeing as they clearly stated several times that the people committed a crime, and deserve to be locked up.

There is a difference between saying something is somebodies fault, and suggesting that if they had decided to be more careful they could have avoided the trouble in the first place. It isn't condoning crimes, it is encouraging people to look out for themselves.

I am not sure why some people find this so difficult to grasp.

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.

Legion:
There is a difference between saying something is somebodies fault, and suggesting that if they had decided to be more careful they could have avoided the trouble in the first place. It isn't condoning crimes, it is encouraging people to look out for themselves.

I am not sure why some people find this so difficult to grasp.

Possibly because of stuff like the above.

What a pair of boobs!
and also nude pics!

BreakfastMan:
She really should have taken better precautions so as not to accidentaly expose her private information herself like that. Still, those guys are total creeps and deserved to be exposed to the naked light of day. :P

BreakfastMan here playing the role of DVS BSTrD

You get off this time because I wasn't awake yet.
The puns must flowwwwwwww

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?

These two fools deserve everything coming to them, but the woman's not blameless either. She really should have been more careful with those lewd images of herself. She should have deleted the photos before taking the device in.

Why would you even leave nudes on a phone and take it to someone else to transfer data... I mean come onnnnnnnnn. Weather you like it or not, when you ask people to do that, chances are some kid is gonna sort through your stuff and see if they like anything and want to copy it. Honestly she should have had the common sense to not hand delicate material like that to someone.

That being said, it is immoral what they did, but not someone god-awful crime like someone people are saying it is.

[its not like the phone company she uses doesn't already have a copy of those photos on their server...cause chances are she sent them to someone so they have already been uploaded somewhere]

Lawyer105:
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? Which of the people in those situations have committed the crime/s and which are the victim/s?

You can condemn someone for their foolishness, but to say they should be counted as an accessory in the crime committed against them, and that's it's unfair that only the people who committed crimes are being charged with committing crimes is abusrd victim blaming.

thaluikhain:

Lawyer105:
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? Which of the people in those situations have committed the crime/s and which are the victim/s?

You can condemn someone for their foolishness, but to say they should be counted as an accessory in the crime committed against them, and that's it's unfair that only the people who committed crimes are being charged with committing crimes is abusrd victim blaming.

yeah this situation is more along the lines of handing your credit card to the guy at the drive through window so you can pay for your food, and then they steal the information on it/use it to purchase stuff on their iphone.

she trusted people with a task that she couldn't do without them and THEY committed a crime

Grey Carter:
He's been charged with two felony counts of dealing in stolen property as well as misdemeanor theft and handling of lewd materials.

So if they're found guilty of the first charge, I guess pirated/unauthorized copies of purely digital media = stolen property, at least in that jurisdiction. Just wanted to point that out, as it's an interesting way to go with this.

O i had a really good chuckle reading this one. Good Job on all counts, the dudes and the waitress.

Always need a good laugh in the morning.

I once heard of a study where people were asked what would be a just punishment for rape and their answers were grouped by the amount of pornography they had recently watched. Those that had "consumed" large amounts of porn were much more lenient in their responses.

As I look at the diverse answers about how much fault belongs to the employees and how much belongs to the waitress, I wonder if we could repeat the results by classifying our answers with consumption levels.

Lawyer105:

RJ 17:
Your comparison to celebrities is way off base. This lady wasn't flaunting her private life, nor was she a celebrity in the public spotlight. She was a a woman that wanted to transfer her data to a new phone, and these guys decided that rather than just doing their job, they'd go snooping through said data.

Any time you have information that you don't want to share with other people (e.g. these photos) and you then make that information available to other people (e.g. by handing your phone or laptop in, or posting them on social media sites or whatever), you are tacitly accepting the risk that the information is going to go walkabout.

We're not talking about master criminals here. They didn't secretly hack her phone (or whatever) and do stuff that she could never have protected herself against. They simply took totally immoral advantage of an opportunity that SHE provided them.

I've got no issue with the dudes involved being prosecuted for misdemenours (sp?) and given community service orders or whatever. They totally deserve it. It simply goes against the grain to see her getting off completely as "the victim", when she's at least partially responsible for the problem.

What it comes down to for me is that, if you hand your bank card and PIN to some random stranger and get robbed, it doesn't make the thief less guilty, but it does make you an accessory to your own loss.

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?

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.

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?

Legion:
Neither does yours, seeing as they clearly stated several times that the people committed a crime, and deserve to be locked up.

There is a difference between saying something is somebodies fault, and suggesting that if they had decided to be more careful they could have avoided the trouble in the first place. It isn't condoning crimes, it is encouraging people to look out for themselves.

I am not sure why some people find this so difficult to grasp.

Same answer as above. When you go to a cell phone store and ask for a data transfer, you shouldn't have to be paranoid that they're going to go snooping through your phone and keep what they want to keep. Because at that point you're not being careful, you're being paranoid. Just who else is she supposed to go to in order to get her data transfered if she's not supposed to trust the people at the frickin' cell phone store? "Well the pictures shouldn't have been on there in the first place." Well then I guess the store owner that gets robbed shouldn't have had all those products on the shelves. I guess the bank that gets robbed shouldn't have had all that money in the vault. I guess the girl that gets raped shouldn't have been wearing that miniskirt.

Pics or it didn't... wait, better not.

Everyone knows that if you watch/copy that kind of pictures from a customer you show them to your coworkers but not to your customers.

Slayer_2:

MetallicaRulez0:
Who the hell asks a CUSTOMER if they want to check out your stolen nude pics???

You know, some people are so stupid they deserve to be locked up. These geniuses are certainly among them.

This, so much this. 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. However, if you are gonna be a perv, then for gods sake, don't brag about your "work" to other clients...

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.

Orcboyphil:
The police seemed to have forgotten the interception of communications charges and copyright infringement.

what copyright is being infringed? where? "interception of communications" you do realize that digital communication is actually considered less safe, and it wasn't intercepted in transit it was "recovered" from static memory.

Palademon:
I'm sorry, what exactly is "handling lewd materials"?
This is a thing?

regrettably yes this is a thing. basically it means having in the persons possession material of a sexual, or "questionable" nature, so it is basically up to the person looking them over if the charge applies, and depending on the jurisdiction determines the penalty: some will only place it on the record without actually giving penalty, then there are those that places that will give community service, and then there are some that treat it so severely as like a year in jail per image.

the funniest part is that this can be applied to like a nipple shot, and not like full nudes, or sex acts. and this is primarily a US thing (makes me a little less proud to be an American)

So I suppose you could say there are two pairs of boobs in this story..

Lame puns aside, the staff here are clearly in the wrong, and should be given suitable punishments. Community service, suspension etc. That said, the woman really should know better. If you've got naked photos of yourself on your phone, you don't just hand it over to other people, hm?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

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
Register for a free account here