This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience".
YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels or on a large dolly as necessary, and towed away.
Their people wear body cams, like cops, their cranes have cameras, and sometimes they use a DJI drone. (They bring out the drone when someone drives off an embankment and they need to plan a difficult lift.) The main purpose of all the video is to settle arguments with insurance companies over the cost of recovery.
But they started a YouTube channel for PR purposes.
Almost all this video is taken on public property on LA county roads and freeways, with the cooperation of the cops, CALTRANS, local fire departments, and other organizations that clean up other people's messes. These are very public activities, with traffic streaming by and sometimes news helicopters hovering overhead.
Totally First Amendment protected. Not a violation of YouTube's stated policies.
So what's the YouTube censorship about? Preventing corporate embarrassment. Their older videos have clear pictures of truck doors with ownership info. Container markings. License plates. Pictures of damaged goods. Now. out of fear of being cancelled by YouTube, they're blurring everything identifiable. Recently someone rolled over a semitrailer full of melons, and they blurred out not just the trucking company info, but the labels on the melons. Which the people from Pepe's say is silly, but they don't want to fight with YouTube.
poemxo · 14m ago
I wonder when people in the west will start flocking to Telegram groups (or equivalent) to get the real information the way they do elsewhere.
Aurornis · 3h ago
Note that CNN isn’t in trouble for reporting this, the person who exfiltrated the footage is.
Stealing security camera footage and giving (or possibly selling) it is a problem. This article tries to make a case that the law applied wasn’t correct on somewhat pedantic terms, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if they have a point or not.
I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
ghurtado · 1h ago
"I don't know anything about this subject and barely even skimmed the article, but if someone was charged with a crime, they probably deserved it."
But with a lot more words
johnhess · 3h ago
"the law" is the fulcrum this turns on.
if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though.
here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state
This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges.
Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to prosecute should be more banal.
ghurtado · 1h ago
> it’s stealing their stuff.
Then I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft.
JumpCrisscross · 1h ago
> I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft
Literally said I think they’re charging this wrong.
uoaei · 2h ago
"stuff" being technically, legally, IP
hluska · 1h ago
That’s unclear.
Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to a trespass charge. He was represented by an attorney with some prosecutorial experience so I think we can assume he received qualified legal advice based upon the facts of the matter. Under terms of his no contest plea, if he stays out of trouble for a year he can have his record expunged.
It sure looks like a plea bargain, in which case we’ll likely never know the actual charges the prosecution was prepared to proceed with. But there’s a clue in the article - when the report was provided to the Intercept, the locations of the security cameras were redacted. When CNN aired the clip, they apparently aired information that identified where that camera was located.
We’ll most likely never know the original charge the prosecution was prepared to proceed with, but the US takes airport security very seriously (as every country should). If taking a no contest on a trespass was considered an out, I wonder if the other charge started with a vowel like ‘e’.
burnished · 2h ago
It is in no way close to theft because theft involves depriving the victim of some good or asset.
gameman144 · 1h ago
Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner:
Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)
ipaddr · 1h ago
Those are labels. Identity theft is more identity fraud. Theft of digital assets is copyright infringement.
margalabargala · 47m ago
Identity theft is someone else stealing money from the bank, and the bank telling you that's your problem now.
ghurtado · 1h ago
"lots of theft is not theft. Like for instance, all these things that are not theft"
... Lots of murder doesn't have a victim...
.... Lots of arson doesn't involve a fire...
... Lots of trespass involves not taking a single step from your work desk ..
... War is peace, peace is war...
opello · 2h ago
And it seems like that law requires malicious intent. I wonder how that would be proven here?
hluska · 1h ago
Section A of 18.2-152.4 reads:
“A. It is unlawful for any person, with malicious intent, or through intentionally deceptive means and without authority, to:”
And Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to this charge, so he did not admit guilt but agreed to be punished as if he was guilty. He had an attorney with prosecutorial experience retained for his criminal proceeding so we can assume he entered that plea upon receiving qualified legal advice. Under terms of his plea, if he keeps his nose clean for a year, he can apply to have the charge expunged from his record.
So, this looks like a plea bargain. But since he plead no contest, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.
No comments yet
kurikuri · 3h ago
> I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
If I were to copy the files on my work device and distribute them, I would be in violation of NDAs which could be pursued as civil offenses. If I didn’t have those NDAs, my employer could try and pursue something in court, along with firing me, but it wouldn’t be a straightforward suit.
None of these are (or at least, should be) criminal situations.
ofjcihen · 2h ago
As a DLP professional: please don’t tell people this. You can absolutely be arrested and prosecuted for this.
opello · 2h ago
What's the charge for the arrest? I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property." If it actually was a trade secret, it might make more sense.
tuckerman · 2h ago
Just because a user has privileges to access files doesn’t mean doing so is permitted for any purpose. Accessing them for this unauthorized purpose is likely computer fraud, at least under California law as I understand it.
fsckboy · 2h ago
>I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property."
if you break into your boss's house and copy his latest recordings (your boss is Stevie Wonder) you are not simply guilty of violating his copyrights.
"computer fraud and abuse act", or who knows how many other laws, are focused on various aspects of "you know you are sneaking about", or even if you don't, tuff noogies.
opello · 2h ago
Sure but the difference in value is also obvious. Stevie Wonder has a business interest in controlling the release of his music, as do other parties like a production company and a publisher. And an early release may do harm to the value of such a recording. But I don't expect most organizations that put up security cameras have a business interest in monetizing the footage.
ofjcihen · 2h ago
Depending on jurisdiction it might be theft, could be something more recently ratified that’s basically made for exactly this purpose. Could also just be a plain old federal CFAA related charge since those are pretty “malleable”.
Again, take these laws seriously and don’t do this.
opello · 2h ago
Interesting. Do you have an example of where copying data like this (something with almost no commercial value, but done without authorization, whose harm is basically the disclosure of the facts of the camera's location/positioning) was charged as theft? Because it seems like in a legal sense, copying isn't theft, but the consequences of the copy becoming generally available (say a commercial interest in the data, in the Stevie Wonder example from the sibling thread) may make the damage of the copy and subsequent release obvious. I'm also curious what has recently been enacted to cover this scenario if you have a ready example?
I believe you and heed your warning. I think it's good to understand these things too though.
noitpmeder · 3h ago
I mean in the first case you're literally stealing from your employer. If that doesn't make you a criminal for theft I don't know what does
opello · 2h ago
But the footage isn't "real property" as I understand it. The only thing the theft does is deprive the company from the opportunity to sell the footage themselves, and it's not exactly like selling security camera footage is the business model of many/any(?) company.
If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.
otterley · 1h ago
It’s a common misconception that “property” relates to physical objects (chattel) or land (real property). But that’s an incorrect and limited understanding. More generally, it’s about the right to control something and exclude others from using it.
Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.
opello · 1h ago
I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property.
However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.
bethekidyouwant · 1h ago
Really … copying video footage is theft suddenly? Jail?
qingcharles · 48m ago
Many states have super vague computer abuse statutes. Illinois' law specifically states it is a crime to violate the ToS of a network (e.g. a web site).
Also, if the defendant here is literally innocent (i.e. the statutory wording does not apply to his actions) and his lawyer still advised him to plead no contest, then he might have grounds for the conviction to be overturned. I remember that Subway Jared had some of his charges reversed because he was technically innocent of them, but his lawyer stated that he didn't check any of the evidence before recommending a guilty plea.
And, in a further ridiculous twist of justice, if the defendant pleads to something that isn't even a crime (e.g. the state simply made the statute up, or adjusted the wording so it wasn't what the law said), then you can't get that reversed if you knowingly plead to it. I remember cases where defendants pled guilty to non-crimes, but you're cooked at that point because you agreed to it.
MBCook · 1h ago
Has anyone involved been within 10 feet of a computer in the last 15 years?
The CFAA applies!
It’s like postal or wire fraud. You’re going to do it somehow in just about any possible crime. They’ll get you.
It wasn’t/shouldn’t have been a crime? They’ll get you anyway, if they want.
michaelsshaw · 1h ago
Did you read the actual statute? It hardly applies.
dooglius · 2h ago
Overreach for sure, but I don't buy at all that rubbernecking is "obviously of public interest"; hardly the Pentagon Papers we're looking at here.
ocdtrekkie · 3h ago
I'd say leaking an employer's internal data when not whistleblowing is definitely cause for termination, in the "no future employer should trust you" way, but yeah, calling this a CFAA case is a stretch.
zugi · 3h ago
Agreed, he could be fired and even sued by his former employer for damages.
But calling using your cell phone to video record a security monitor "computer fraud" and "trespass" is clearly ridiculous.
Validark · 4h ago
Today in, "We will make it illegal to do the right thing"
iowemoretohim · 3h ago
Why is leaking the video the right thing? There were multiple videos of the incident including footage from a EarthCam live camera. And the NTSB released multiple videos as part of their investigation. The video wasn't leaked in order to stop a coverup.
s_dev · 2h ago
>Why is leaking the video the right thing?
Because it's in the public interest. The law doesn't state what's right only what's permitted.
ajross · 3h ago
Isn't that an even stronger argument that the leak shouldn't be criminal?
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
No, for the same that stealing an item isn’t okay because there is more in the back.
ajross · 1h ago
Impact and harm is absolutely part of the criteria by which we judge crimes and penalties. Not sure where you're going with that.
userbinator · 2h ago
You can infinitely "steal" digital data. That's where the analogy breaks down.
Imaginary property is imaginary.
JumpCrisscross · 2h ago
> Imaginary property is imaginary
Property, a social construct, is always imaginary. The ship on IP, from insider trading laws to copyright, has sailed. If the only argument against a potential crime is IP isn’t real, the person is probably wrong.
zarzavat · 2h ago
This is all very well but exactly what type of IP is CCTV footage? It's not copyrighted. It's not patented. It's not trademarked. ...trade secret?
fuckaj · 1h ago
Copyright
userbinator · 2h ago
Stealing physical property deprives its original owner of it.
The same can't be said of IP.
umanwizard · 1h ago
So what? That at most means they’re slightly different flavors of the abstraction we call “property”.
And owning property — even physical property — entails having the right to prevent other people from using it, even in ways that don’t deprive you of it. You can’t drive my car without permission, even if you bring it back in perfect condition and I wasn’t planning on using it that day.
IncreasePosts · 4h ago
Leaking crash footage to CNN isn't clearly "the right thing". Except for CNN I guess, who probably got a lot of views and clicks from the footage.
an_guy · 4h ago
A lot of views from general population rather than being buried.
Are you suggesting such incidents should not be reported on or captured?
iowemoretohim · 3h ago
The person got paid to grant exclusive rights to the videos to CNN, this wasn't just posting to social media to spread the word.
tylerhou · 3h ago
Source they got paid?
p_ing · 3h ago
The NTSB provided the footage. Nothing further was required.
bro, no one is suggesting we should keep plane crashes secret, but yeah I do find it a little distasteful to turn on the TV and see the moment hundreds of people were killed.
hooskerdu · 3h ago
Distasteful? I understand that sentiment for the family, but we should all be exposed to the horrors of these lapses. It’s exceedingly rare that you are ever subjected to the bodily carnage, and I’m reminded of when we ceased broadcasting footage of soldiers’ caskets coming home due to it dissuading popular opinion toward war.
ipaddr · 1h ago
90% of what is shown on a news channel is negative. Everything is driven by fear in that industry.
You can't turn on a news channel and expect to feel good.
YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels or on a large dolly as necessary, and towed away. Their people wear body cams, like cops, their cranes have cameras, and sometimes they use a DJI drone. (They bring out the drone when someone drives off an embankment and they need to plan a difficult lift.) The main purpose of all the video is to settle arguments with insurance companies over the cost of recovery. But they started a YouTube channel for PR purposes.
Almost all this video is taken on public property on LA county roads and freeways, with the cooperation of the cops, CALTRANS, local fire departments, and other organizations that clean up other people's messes. These are very public activities, with traffic streaming by and sometimes news helicopters hovering overhead. Totally First Amendment protected. Not a violation of YouTube's stated policies.
So what's the YouTube censorship about? Preventing corporate embarrassment. Their older videos have clear pictures of truck doors with ownership info. Container markings. License plates. Pictures of damaged goods. Now. out of fear of being cancelled by YouTube, they're blurring everything identifiable. Recently someone rolled over a semitrailer full of melons, and they blurred out not just the trucking company info, but the labels on the melons. Which the people from Pepe's say is silly, but they don't want to fight with YouTube.
Stealing security camera footage and giving (or possibly selling) it is a problem. This article tries to make a case that the law applied wasn’t correct on somewhat pedantic terms, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if they have a point or not.
I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
But with a lot more words
if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though.
here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.
This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges.
Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to prosecute should be more banal.
Then I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft.
Literally said I think they’re charging this wrong.
Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to a trespass charge. He was represented by an attorney with some prosecutorial experience so I think we can assume he received qualified legal advice based upon the facts of the matter. Under terms of his no contest plea, if he stays out of trouble for a year he can have his record expunged.
It sure looks like a plea bargain, in which case we’ll likely never know the actual charges the prosecution was prepared to proceed with. But there’s a clue in the article - when the report was provided to the Intercept, the locations of the security cameras were redacted. When CNN aired the clip, they apparently aired information that identified where that camera was located.
We’ll most likely never know the original charge the prosecution was prepared to proceed with, but the US takes airport security very seriously (as every country should). If taking a no contest on a trespass was considered an out, I wonder if the other charge started with a vowel like ‘e’.
Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)
... Lots of murder doesn't have a victim...
.... Lots of arson doesn't involve a fire...
... Lots of trespass involves not taking a single step from your work desk ..
... War is peace, peace is war...
“A. It is unlawful for any person, with malicious intent, or through intentionally deceptive means and without authority, to:”
And Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to this charge, so he did not admit guilt but agreed to be punished as if he was guilty. He had an attorney with prosecutorial experience retained for his criminal proceeding so we can assume he entered that plea upon receiving qualified legal advice. Under terms of his plea, if he keeps his nose clean for a year, he can apply to have the charge expunged from his record.
So, this looks like a plea bargain. But since he plead no contest, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.
No comments yet
If I were to copy the files on my work device and distribute them, I would be in violation of NDAs which could be pursued as civil offenses. If I didn’t have those NDAs, my employer could try and pursue something in court, along with firing me, but it wouldn’t be a straightforward suit.
None of these are (or at least, should be) criminal situations.
if you break into your boss's house and copy his latest recordings (your boss is Stevie Wonder) you are not simply guilty of violating his copyrights.
"computer fraud and abuse act", or who knows how many other laws, are focused on various aspects of "you know you are sneaking about", or even if you don't, tuff noogies.
Again, take these laws seriously and don’t do this.
I believe you and heed your warning. I think it's good to understand these things too though.
If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.
Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.
However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.
Also, if the defendant here is literally innocent (i.e. the statutory wording does not apply to his actions) and his lawyer still advised him to plead no contest, then he might have grounds for the conviction to be overturned. I remember that Subway Jared had some of his charges reversed because he was technically innocent of them, but his lawyer stated that he didn't check any of the evidence before recommending a guilty plea.
And, in a further ridiculous twist of justice, if the defendant pleads to something that isn't even a crime (e.g. the state simply made the statute up, or adjusted the wording so it wasn't what the law said), then you can't get that reversed if you knowingly plead to it. I remember cases where defendants pled guilty to non-crimes, but you're cooked at that point because you agreed to it.
The CFAA applies!
It’s like postal or wire fraud. You’re going to do it somehow in just about any possible crime. They’ll get you.
It wasn’t/shouldn’t have been a crime? They’ll get you anyway, if they want.
But calling using your cell phone to video record a security monitor "computer fraud" and "trespass" is clearly ridiculous.
Because it's in the public interest. The law doesn't state what's right only what's permitted.
Imaginary property is imaginary.
Property, a social construct, is always imaginary. The ship on IP, from insider trading laws to copyright, has sailed. If the only argument against a potential crime is IP isn’t real, the person is probably wrong.
And owning property — even physical property — entails having the right to prevent other people from using it, even in ways that don’t deprive you of it. You can’t drive my car without permission, even if you bring it back in perfect condition and I wasn’t planning on using it that day.
Are you suggesting such incidents should not be reported on or captured?
https://youtu.be/SQm-fRrNMjM
You can't turn on a news channel and expect to feel good.