∞ Couple can sue LoJack software maker, court rules

Wired:

U.S. District Judge Walter Rice ruled last week against Absolute Software, which provides software and services for tracking stolen computers. Absolute sought a summary judgment in its favor, insisting that one of its theft recovery agents acted properly when he captured sexually explicit images of Susan Clements-Jeffrey communicating via webcam with her boyfriend and passed them to police in an effort to recover the stolen computer.

Clements-Jeffrey is a substitute teacher who bought a stolen laptop from a student then used it to exchange explicit webcam video with her boyfriend, all of which was recorded by Absolute’s LoJack software (available for both OS X and Windows). The judge ruled that tracking IP addresses and trying to get a location fix on a stolen computer was acceptable, but intercepting video transmissions may violate federal wiretapping laws.

LoJack isn’t the only software to do this. I expect we’ll be hearing more about this case before it’s resolved.

DrKoob

That teacher is an idiot. Probably why he is a substitute. The judge is an idiot. He is protecting someone who has committed a felony–receiving stolen property. Now if LoJack took it and distributed the video, that’s a different story.

Anonymous

Yes, the teacher is an idiot for buying a stolen laptop. The judge said that the recording MAY violate federal laws, but that doesnt make the judge an idiot. If anything, he should be respected for acknowledging that this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the courts. I can’t see how anyone could argue otherwise.

http://www.aichon.com Brad

This doesn’t make any sense to me. The proper owner of the device had full knowledge that the software was installed, so it was hardly done without knowledge. Would it be illegal wiretapping if I consented to have my home phone tapped but then had it used by a visitor without my knowledge?

Neph

I think it would, actually. IANAL, but part of the definition of wiretapping, from my understanding, includes whether the person being monitored has an “expectation of privacy”. I think it’s pretty clear in this case that Clements-Jeffrey may have expected the channel to be private, given she was engaging in sexual activity with her boyfriend. And whether she was the “proper owner” is irrelevant; someone committing a crime does not make it okay for other people to commit crimes against them. Besides, she may not have been aware the computer was stolen if, for instance, the student claimed he was selling his own computer.

http://mcdevzone.com/ mike3k

LoJack for Laptops doesn’t have image capture capability built in.The only way images will be recorded is if the owner of the device reports it stolen and explicitly gives permission for the advanced theft recovery tools to be downloaded and installed.