When Having Somebody Transfer Your Data From An Old Phone To A New One, Delete Your Self-Porn

from the helpful-reminders dept

Thu, Mar 26th 2009 6:29am — Carlo Longino

A former Miss Britain who posed for Playboy is suing UK mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse after one of its employees copied some "very intimate" pictures from her phone and tried to sell them to some newspapers. The woman, Danielle Lloyd, left her phone at the shop so employees could transfer data from it onto a new phone, and is seeking 50,000 pounds in damages for ~~her stupidity~~ the employee's actions. It's slightly ironic that the woman would be upset about the photos getting out, seeing as she once had a flourishing "glamour model" (Britspeak for soft porn) career, but the episode goes to show how easily privacy can be undermined these days. There's a presumption of privacy when people take a picture on their phone, or put something online on their private or semi-private space; but as we capture and share more and more of our lives, the presumption that the content we capture will remain private should probably diminish.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: danielle lloyd, phones, porn

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish, 26 Mar 2009 @ 6:34am

"There's a presumption of privacy when people take a picture on their phone, or put something online on their private or semi-private space"

Why would you think that? Once you tell someone something private, it's no longer private.

That being said, the guy certainly had no right to sell those pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  Hence, the word "presumption."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ura Fish, 26 Mar 2009 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  Once you tell someone something private, it's no longer private.
  
  So once someone reveals something in confidence to their doctor or lawyer or priest or spouse, it's no longer private in your opinion, eh? That's funny. I think most of the sober world would disagree with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Azrael, 27 Mar 2009 @ 1:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    And what makes you think that a doctor or lawyer or priest or spouse will keep your confidences to themselves if they think they can cash it in and get away with it ?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pk, 26 Mar 2009 @ 6:45am

Just because she's dumb enough to remove said pictures doesn't excuse the retailer's employees actions. When she dropped off her old phone for service, the phone and it's information are then in the custody of the retailer. There would seem to be a reasonable expectation from the service provider to protect that information while they were responsible for it.
Case in point, as a service provider our employees keep customer data on their laptops. As part of our security policy we whole disk encrypt all of our laptops because we assume that our customers have a reasonable expectation that we will protect their information while it's in our custody.

So, in this particular case I would disagree with "the presumption that the content we capture will remain private should probably diminish"

Had she left the phone on a train/bus/plane then I'd agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:39am
  
  Re:
  Not to deviate from the discussion but what's the point of whole disk encryption? If someone has your laptop and they login, they're able to read all the information on the computer anyway. The only thing that protects you from is if someone takes the data drive and leaves the rest of the computer behind. It's a false sense of security, especially in this case. If the retailer was a computer company rather than a cell phone company and she wanted her files copied from one computer to another she would still be at risk.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe (profile), 26 Mar 2009 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    From my admittedly modest familiarity with whole disk encryption, they can take the laptop and boot it, but without the passwords are unable to login (except of course if they brute-force their way in). the encyrption will prevent someone from connecting the drive to a different machine and reading it, or using one of the utilities that read Windows passwords and display them on the screen.
    
    Assuming they are using decent encryption.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pk, 26 Mar 2009 @ 11:38am
    
    whole disk encryption
    You can't log into the laptop until you get past the whole disk encryption passphrase. Then you log in to the O/S
    I realize that it doesn't cover all scenarios but my point was that as a service provider I have an obligation to secure my customers' data.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 26 Mar 2009 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  Case in point, as a service provider our employees keep customer data on their laptops. As part of our security policy we whole disk encrypt all of our laptops because we assume that our customers have a reasonable expectation that we will protect their information while it's in our custody.
  
  a lot of places just don't have guidelines for that sort of thing. retailers in particular are very vague on those sorts of things, and a lot of people who work for retailers probably just don't care anyway.
  
  for example, in all the corporate IT departments that i have worked for, the only time the computer usage policy was ever enforced (porn or otherwise) was as an excuse to terminate someone who was already in bad standing. the rest of the time i run into questionable material, the policy is pretty much "don't ask, don't tell". on the occasions when someone was doing something illegal, the company only took action after law enforcement got involved.
  
  so, going through people's personal stuff is bad, but so is putting your personal stuff out there for people to go through. it's also a bit naive to think that a retail employee would adhere to a store policy about personal data, or that such a policy even exists in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Karl, 26 Mar 2009 @ 6:47am

I think you're missing a sentence about the guy still being a dick for copying somebody's personal photos, taking them out of the store, and trying to sell them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 6:47am

Is that a copyright violation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:07am
  
  Re:
  It would be in the US. The moment the photo was taken, the photographer would own the copyright. Not sure about Britain.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 6:53am

She was stupid, the employee was probably criminal, the business should be liable.

Haha, sounds like your classic lose/lose/lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C.T., 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:01am

"Is that a copyright violation?"

Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mr. devious, 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:20am

The woman in question might not be "stupid" in reality. Perhaps this glamor model was hoping that someone would do what this "employee" did.Thus giving her a chance to sell her pictures once again, albeit in a questionable manner :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed, 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:28am

I'm on Danielle's side on this one. She entered into a professional relationship with someone who abused his power. It's no different than the issues the Geek Squad has run into from time to time with rogue employees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:33am
  
  Re:
  If we had copies of those pictures, we might know if she is used to (or likes) being abused.
  
  Quick, somebody find those pictures and place the URL in the comments below.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fatcat, 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:36am

this thread is useless without photos
i have worked on both used cell phones and notebooks that had the old owners "personal" videos/photos left on it....
i have never thought about selling them, but bottom line is if you don't want to share don't leave them on the device...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 7:43am

Any pictures?
Can somebody post links to those pics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Wonder, 26 Mar 2009 @ 8:17am

???
Nobody mentioned that she has a mole on her butt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 8:38am

@#16 => pics were on a cellphone, not a laptop - DOH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trollificus, 26 Mar 2009 @ 8:57am

@#15
I doan see no steenkin' mole!!

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc107/bastardlybutta/bastardly-photos/album16/danielle- lloyd-01130803.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ludwig, 26 Mar 2009 @ 9:15am

Private property
"but as we capture and share more and more of our lives, the presumption that the content we capture will remain private should probably diminish"

I agree that she was stupid to leave those on there, but I also think she has the right to sue and should win, because I would consider the pictures on her phone to be her private property which should be protected.

She trusted the employees to not steal anything of hers from the phone. I think it's similar to if she accidentally left her purse out in the open while she went to the bathroom or something, and one of the employees went into her purse and stole money, items, or private pictures of her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 9:39am

What a trashy article
Unlike most of Carla's posts this one is just poorly thought out trash.

First off: Why should Danielle Lloyd's photos/data/privacy be regarded in any different light because she used to bare her assets for a living? Just because she once posed for money doesn't make it less of a crime for somebody to steal her private photos and try to sell them.

Second: Why the hell compare data stored locally on her own device to data stored remotely on the web? There is no comparison between the two things, except that they are both possible locations for storing an image. It's like saying that there is no difference between papers stored in a safe in your bedroom and papers stored in a box on a shelf in some big warehouse. Would it not be normal to expect a locksmith to refrain from stealing your property when it was being transferred from an old safe to a new one?

Third: Yeah she was stupid not to erase them from the phone before giving it over for transfer. Maybe she just didn't care if the tech saw the photos so she just left them on. That doesn't mean it was okay for the slimeball to steal them and try to sell them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lisas, 26 Mar 2009 @ 10:06am

glamour model doesn't matter
So what if she was a 'glamour model'? So she got paid for seminude pictures before, that doesn't mean she signed a waiver for the REST OF HER LIFE.

Just cause I cook a meal for you once doesn't mean I become your private fucking chef forevermore.

She might have been foolish, but the douchebag who stole the pictures and tried to sell them is the bad guy here, and it's gross to pretend otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 10:14am

hyopthical situation
Lets say I work at a loan office, you give me your SSN. that's private info, think I should be able to see that to the highest bidder or give away freely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: hyopthical situation
  "Lets say I work at a loan office, you give me your SSN. that's private info, think I should be able to see that to the highest bidder or give away freely?"
  
  Of course! That's just the free market! If I didn't want that to happen then I shouldn't give you that information in the first place.
  
  And don't whine about not being able to get a loan without it. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else. You don't have any "right" to a loan in the first place. And you shouldn't expect the government to come in and "protect" you either. I'm tired of paying my tax dollars to have the government protect stupid people from their own stupidity. People are such babies these days.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re: hyopthical situation
    "Of course! That's just the free market! If I didn't want that to happen then I shouldn't give you that information in the first place."
    
    That's not always practical. Employers and banks are required to collect your social security number as a matter of federal law. As for everyone else, try withholding it. Your life quickly becomes a nightmare convincing clueless service reps and receptionists that they are not required to collect it.
    
    The cost of identity theft was ~$56.6 billion in 2006, and you can be sure that cost is being passed on. So it's not just your tax dollars being spent on protecting people, it's the cost of using services affect by identity theft(which is in large part accomplished with access SSNs).
    
    Enjoy that free market for SSNs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2009 @ 3:30pm

Since it is indeed copyright infringement ...
then I guess that she is owed 150K per pic ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 26 Mar 2009 @ 9:27pm

Don't be such an asshole
That employee is probably underpaid but he has zero right to sell those photos. Calling somebody stupid for expecting the people she paid to do a simple task without exploiting her sexually is not stupid; its common fucking sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pudro, 27 Mar 2009 @ 2:09am

Tone?
I've been noticing an unnecessarily harsh tone in many of Carlo's posts. It's already getting a little old. By all means, keep your posts coming. I enjoy them. But could you do it with a smidgen less attitude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas Whitney, 27 Mar 2009 @ 10:16am

The truth of the matter is that the herione should likely have downloaded her images to her PC before the incident, just as a procautionary measure.

There are ways to lock and protect information but I am uncertain that it would apply to this case.

This site: http://www.justaskgemalto.com is usually very informative about digital security issues pertaining to mobile phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]