posted
The issue I have here is that this particular guy is probably at most guilty of buying something he knew was stolen - not exactly worthy of total public humiliation. I'd really like to know whether they were able to trace it back to whoever stole the computer in the first place.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The issue I have here is that this particular guy is probably at most guilty of buying something he knew was stolen - not exactly worthy of total public humiliation.
Don't know if I agree with you.
ETA: Ack. And then I got to the naked shower shot.
You have to wonder at the logic of taking pics of yourself from an angle that makes your genitals look smaller.Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The issue I have here is that this particular guy is probably at most guilty of buying something he knew was stolen - not exactly worthy of total public humiliation.
Don't know if I agree with you.
Whether the guy deserves public humiliation is sort of besides the point for me. While I thought the video was great, Rollainm is right that it's very likely that this is simply a guy who bought a stolen computer, not the guy who stole his computer. But the guy giving the talk was acting as if he was striking back against the thief directly.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The man was party to the theft if he knew the computer was stolen. That's as bad as stealing it.
No, I think the real crime was the guy's hobbies and passwords... I know people like that exist, I just don't have to be confronted with the facts of their lives on a regular basis. So pathetic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might be a good assumption that the guy knew he was buying stolen property, but it's just an assumption.
But again, the point is that the guy giving the talk was speaking as if he had landed a blow on the man who stole his computer, and it's very unlikely he did any such thing.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: The issue I have here is that this particular guy is probably at most guilty of buying something he knew was stolen - not exactly worthy of total public humiliation. I'd really like to know whether they were able to trace it back to whoever stole the computer in the first place.
I dunno. Who would buy a stolen computer that's so tied down and locked up that you can't get online with it, install any new software, or wipe the hard drive?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people have no idea how to use a computer. I know plenty of people who have bought their computer legitimately and have no idea what the difference is between the internet and a browser. The ignorance of many computer users is staggering, many people have no idea how to wipe a hard drive or install software, or even check their email beyond "I click on that button on my screen and my email opens up, I don't know, my cousin set it up for me".
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. I submit, however, that very few of those people you know like that would buy a laptop with no box and no software from an individual. People who know nothing about computers buy crappy computers from big box stores. And then their cousin sets up their internet.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe. Again, I thought the video was really funny. It just seems like people in the thread are jumping to some unwarranted conclusions.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conclusion is really not unwarranted. It's clear that he knew this was a computer that had belonged to someone else, and he either did no due diligence in finding out where it came from, or he didn't care. Buying stolen property is illegal. Ignorance is not a defense.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not defending the guy's actions. Clearly he is guilty of some wrongdoing, and I don't exactly feel bad about anything that happened to him as a result of his actions in this case (I did find the story rather amusing). But I find it odd that some of you are equating all immoral actions. They're not at all on the same level. I wonder if you actually believe they are in practice. If, say, your mother lies to you about - whatever - but nothing significant comes of it aside from perhaps losing a little trust in her, I'm fairly certain you'd be more apt to forgive her than if her lie led to someone's death. I know, it's an odd analogy, but I'm in a hurry. Hopefully my point is still clear.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, it isn't clear at all that he bought a stolen computer. He may have been the thief in the first place. If he wasn't the thief and bought it, he clearly knew it was stolen.
posted
I'm not equating all immoral actions. But I am equating the theft of property with the purchase of obviously stolen property. They are just two facets of the same crime. If no one is willing to buy the stolen computer, then thieves won't steal it. The willingness to buy something obviously stolen does indeed make you part and parcel of the crime.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
With all the talk of "clearly" floating around here, let me just say I hope you guys are never on a jury when I've been falsely accused of a crime where there is only insufficient and circumstantial evidence against me.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This happened two years after the computer was stolen, and it was on the other side of the country. I don't think it can be automatically assumed that this person was the thief. He could have purchased it from a pawn store for all we know.
...
Sure, stealing property and purchasing stolen property are two facets of the same crime, but it gets tricky when trying to attach specific moral values to them. For example, I wouldn't say that purchasing products that were produced using unethical or inhumane practices is equal to running a factory that employs those practices. <edit> They're both bad, of course, but I wouldn't say they are morally equal. Obviously YMMV, but it's certainly not a clear cut moral situation.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
shadowland, I was going to mention the same thing (the source of our clothes and electronics). It's very likely we're all wearing something right now that was made by a child forced to work in a sweat shop. Is our purchasing of the product on equal footing with the person forcing them to do the labor?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How likely is it?? I'm 99% sure I'm not wearing anything produced using child labor. Most of what I have on was produced in Europe.
And no, by the way, if A) they lie about it and say it was produced under fair labor practices and B) we shop with distributors who practice due diligence regarding where their products come from, and live in a country that makes an appropriate (ymmv) attempt to regulate and restrict trade against those who practice child labor. If we do that, and still end up with child-labor made goods, that is not morally equal to forcing children to work. If you don't care, do no due diligence, or support and do not attempt to change a government or private sector which does not care and which does no due diligence, then yes, you are morally culpable for the results. But these are not parallel cases at all, and in usual hatrack fashion, these are discrete issues which are getting jammed into the same frame. For one thing, ignorance of unfair labor practices *is* a much more robust defense of purchasing such goods. For another, moral culpability for the existence and sale of such goods is obscured by systemic issues out of direct control, and often out of sight, of consumers. On the other hand, stolen goods are rarely purchased through legitimate retailers who can be reasonable assumed to be well-regulated and operating above board. Pawn-brokers, ebay sellers, and other second-hand dealers (and this is clearly a second-hand good) have their own responsibilities regarding due-diligence, but it should be kept in mind that they are often defrauded themselves, and that they deal in a business full of questionable goods.
posted
I think assuming the guy deserved the humiliation is a bit much. Pawn shop, "hey my roommate sold me this computer and moved, but I don't know how to get admin access, want to buy it?", any number of scenarios might disconnect the present user from the original crime. Sure, the most likely scenario is that this guy stole it or knew it was stolen, but I'd think there's enough chance of error that the public display of private information was a bit much.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most legit pawn shops are extremely wary of buying computers in such a condition, because the penalties for pawn shops buying stolen merchandise are pretty steep. They lose the money they are out, and too many offenses can jeopardize their license. Am I saying all pawnbrokers are legit? Heck no. But, I still think it unlikely a computer like this was sold in a pawnshop.
There is no way this guy did not know this computer was stolen, in my opinion. Did he deserve the public humiliation? No, he deserved to have the computer taken from him and returned to its owner (which happened) and to be charged with possession of stolen property (which we don't know happened or not).
The hacker took revenge against the only culpable party he could. Was it justified? Eh, that's debatable. Don't steal people's computers or buy computers that are obviously stolen and you don't have to worry about this happening to you.
Edit to add: I suspect that had he blurred the guy's face and never given us the real name and address we would still have found the bit funny. At least I would have. That is probably what took it to the level where many of us are uncomfortable.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had my laptop stolen once. It had LogMeIn and several other things installed on it, so I could easily do some of the things he suggested. But, alas, it never came back online ever.
And I have backups upon backups upon backups. I have piles of DVD burns scattered across three different family households and at work.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I suspect that had he blurred the guy's face and never given us the real name and address we would still have found the bit funny. At least I would have. That is probably what took it to the level where many of us are uncomfortable.
That and the nekkid shower pics (with nasty comments about the guy's junk) was where it went south for me.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: With all the talk of "clearly" floating around here, let me just say I hope you guys are never on a jury when I've been falsely accused of a crime where there is only insufficient and circumstantial evidence against me.
posted
I don't recall an accusation being made in the video. What specific accusation was being made? Because most of what I saw was personal criticism based on prima facie evidence of the possession of stolen property. Perhaps I missed the part where he says: "this is the man who stole my computer." Very strong implications aside, I don't recall that specific accusation being made. If you saw it, please let us know.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I suspect that had he blurred the guy's face and never given us the real name and address we would still have found the bit funny. At least I would have. That is probably what took it to the level where many of us are uncomfortable.
That and the nekkid shower pics (with nasty comments about the guy's junk) was where it went south for me.
Meh, he was posting those pictures online to anonymous strangers, and he was doing it on a stolen computer, and by all appearances he is a total douche bag. Public humiliation is not illegal, is it? I think I can understand this speaker's attitude. The guy was doing all this stuff, along with all the porn and the mass booty-call messaging with *his* computer. It's rather sickening.
Now, going on some of the same logic. It's not incredibly smart to do all this public exposing of the guy's life given that *this video* was also bound to end up online, and that the guy himself would possibly eventually be made aware of its existence, and that he may seek retaliation, either legally or otherwise. So I would never have given his name or address, at the least. Though for all we know, these details were changed (although it didn't look like that was the case). The guy was also apparently in the army, so that's just all playing with fire.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I don't really have a problem with revenge in many cases. I thought this was pretty funny, and think it's a pretty good lesson in not buying stolen computers.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if we assume that the man in the video is the thief, I'm curious about what exactly in this video is funny. Certainly it's not the hacker's commentary.
I felt happy that the hacker found his computer. I smiled at certain moments of success. I was fascinated by some of the steps that he took to locate it. I was amazed at how easily some of the information was able to be retrieved and at some of the poor decisions the man in the video made. It was entertaining, to say the least. But I cringed at more things than I laughed at. Honestly, I'm not sure that I laughed at a single thing in the video.
I realize that pinpointing specifically why something is humorous is a pretty tricky thing to do. And I'm not saying that none of it should be funny. But I'm genuinely curious about what was supposed to be funny about this.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Please rise, honorable judge 4chan takes the bench.
It's funny because its true.
Like when they found evidence to locate the names, address and other information about some people who tortured cats on youtube and turned them over to the police for animal cruelty.
IP: Logged |
posted
I also wasn't sure what the "don't mess with a hacker's computer" point was. Nothing he did was "hacking", as I understand the term. He just used some of the well-publicized functions of his computer. (ssh, vnc, viewing the encrypted password file.)
I guess writing a script to check the DynDNS entry was something...
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me about this is that two wrongs don't make a right.
Sure, the guy either stole his computer or (more likely) purchased his stolen computer, and he should be suitably punished by our criminal justice system.
But the actions of the "hacker" are pretty horrendous too - not only did he steal private information from the guy, and use this stolen information to access this guys account on multiple websites (including financial ones), but he then disseminated this information. Unless he gave this guys warning before making his presentation (and even if he did, just to a lesser extent) he enabled quite a lot of identity theft.
I would have found the story compelling/humorous had he shown the process with some level of self-censorship. As it was the video is someone bragging about "getting back" as someone thinking it makes them look cool when all it really does is makes them look like a lowlife themselves.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I also wasn't sure what the "don't mess with a hacker's computer" point was. Nothing he did was "hacking", as I understand the term. He just used some of the well-publicized functions of his computer. (ssh, vnc, viewing the encrypted password file.)
I guess writing a script to check the DynDNS entry was something...
Thats verily the definition of conventional hacking, exploiting security vulnerabilities, cracking is when you break past otherwise secure defenses as I understand it.
Originally I'm fairly sure it was a hacker is someone who does it within legal means (ie, hacks his own companies network to find ways to making it more secure) and a cracker who does it maliciously.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Well, that was a waste of 15 minutes. Did anything spectacular happen in the last 5 minutes?
This guy needs to take a public speaking course.
Really? I found him quite amusing. Ymmv. This is not a convention for people who like public speaking, so I think he is probably way up there in terms of talent for that pool.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Well, that was a waste of 15 minutes. Did anything spectacular happen in the last 5 minutes?
This guy needs to take a public speaking course.
He was articulate and didn't stutter and was perfectly understandable and knows how to properly use powerpoint, I'ld say that puts him at the same level as my teachers, so dunno what issues you had.
IP: Logged |
posted
The best way to use powerpoint is to NOT use powerpoint.
This whole story could be summed up: My computer was stolen (what was the deal with the manhole?) The thief didn't wipe the hard drive, and I was able to access the computer remotely, so I logged in and found this information:
Oh, and here's montage of pictures of the thief. What a jerk. I got my computer back.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
