Court Refuses To Issue Injunction Stopping Secret Web Spycams From Running On Rental Laptops
from the really? dept
A couple months ago, we wrote about the class action lawsuit from a family who discovered that the company from whom they had rented a laptop, Aaron's, had secretly installed spying software that would surreptitiously turn on the laptop's webcam, take pictures, and send them back to the company. That seems like a pretty big privacy issue, and a no brainer for the judge in the case to issue an injunction, getting the company to stop using such software until the case is sorted out.But, no such luck. The judge refused to order an injunction, pointing out, first of all, that the people suing no longer had that laptop, so there was no additional harm to them. As for everyone else in the class, there's this stunner of a line from the judge:
Moreover, it is purely conjecture that the other members of the putative class will be subjected to remote access of personal information.That doesn't make sense to me at all. If they're not subject to remote access, then such an injunction wouldn't matter anyway. Yet, if they are subject to the remote access, then the injunction can help. In other words, the judge's logic is backwards: it might not happen, so let's not try to prevent it? The court could still issue the injunction -- and if people aren't subject to that kind of remote access to their personal information, then nothing would happen.
Separately, the judge suggested that the family has a weak case, because the CFAA computer hacking law they're relying on requires interception of electronic communications... and the court isn't sure that snapping a photo of you captures electronic communications. That certainly does raise an interesting legal question. I'm not a fan of the CFAA, but if you're just spying on someone via a webcam, is that the same thing as spying what's on their desktop? I think the common sense solution is that of course both should be seen as violating the law... but it is a unique situation.
I'm not the only one surprised and confused by this. Internet lawyer Venkat Balasubramani was surprised as well:
Yikes! Privacy class actions seem out of control to me, but I'll admit even I was surprised by this result. I'm equally surprised that the Aaron's-affiliated defendants did not all just stipulate to suspending use of the software until things were sorted out. (Aarons, Inc. did, but its franchisee Aspen Way did not. In fact, Aspen Way did not participate in the hearing, which makes the denial of injunctive relief all the more perplexing.) Setting aside whether the court was correct in its view of the merits of the case, the court takes an unduly restrictive view of the facts when it states that no "interception" of an electronic communication occurred because there was no evidence that Mr. Byrd was online or communicating with someone else when the image in question was captured. Surely, given the ex-employee's testimony as to what type of information was viewed through use of the software, it's fair to presume that the Aspen Way employees are not sitting around making sure that the capture only occurred while the computer user was offline or not communicating with another person.But seriously, think about what this ruling could mean. It could certainly open up the opportunity for more software products to secretly turn your camera on, claiming it's fine because there's no "communication" going on.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You are on the right track Mr. Masnick, but you think small.
If private companies can spy on you in your own home, why shouldn't the government? Say goodbye to your privacy. Freedom of speech is next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telescreens are supposed to have cameras
Only inner party members are allowed to turn them off. The rest of us can only turn down the volume.
Big brother only wants to protect you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cover the camera
On a rental machine, I would certainly tape over it. The only reason I don't tape over my own is that I run Prey on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cover the camera
If I had to rent one, I'd be finding the webcam and taping over it too...before I even plugged it in or turned it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cover the camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cover the camera
My iMac has the same thing. Since these types of stories started popping up I find myself occasionally glancing at it, just to check. Paranoid much? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: cover the camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cover the camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: cover the camera
If the light can be controlled by firmware or software, then it can be turned off. Tape, however, is infallible...
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The mind boggles...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The mind boggles...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The mind boggles...
Then add this to the scenario, what if the person was underage and lets say recently got out of the shower and was undressed at the time?
Then will the company be making child pornography? I know that will be a key incentive to stop this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) This is a rental computer, so reformatting it might be a breech of the rental contract.
2) When you purchase a new laptop, most OEM reinstall disks they give you come with the same bloatware that existed before the reformat, so you'll probably be screwed anyways, sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
After unwrapping the kleenex
Just install Linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds like a user to me. Any tech savy person can uninstall unwanted 'bloatware'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compare to apple store
Its interesting to compare this case to the incident with the Apple Store and performance artist taking photos of customers ( http://goo.gl/BQAqa ). obviously the privacy issues are very different, but considering the hacking alone issue, it seems like the relevant facts are similar - both involve remotely activating a webcam and using it to surreptitiously observe and photograph them. If remotely controlling a webcam in this fashion constitutes hacking in one of these incidents it should be considered hacking in both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compare to apple store
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Compare to apple store
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Compare to apple store
My point is just that, regarding the hacking charge (where hacking is classified as an interception of communications), both situations are equally likely to be hacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Compare to apple store
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If ever the words Legality and Privacy should enter the same sentence on the internet, let it be known that within 10 replies of said sentence, one(or more) replies shall attempt to reconcile whatever the topic to being for Child Pornography, or against its censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interception
That being said, this case is disgusting and the store's behavior is abhorrent. I hope that the family is also suing for the traditional privacy torts as well and this statute. Those would seem to give a better basis for recovery at first glance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computer cameras
In other words, "Ooohh, my computer has a security boo-boo. No worries though, a band-aid will make it aaaallll better." (Those little round Band-aids are best since the actual lens doesn't get adhesive on it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pervs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Underage minors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retesting...
If they fail - like an elderly person who should no longer be driving - they should be stripped of their seat and remanded into remedial education.
Judges who are illiterates in technology are as worthless at judging the issues as they are judging a case in a language they don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bust 'em with child porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Signed Agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Signed Agreement
Just because it is in the "agreement" does not mean it is legal nor does it preclude a civil suit, regardless of any mandatory arbitration clause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same as School case?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/harriton-high-school-spie_n_467491.html
Like this case the judge should have stopped the use of the software. For any lawsuits over pictures taken from this ruling forward that show personal information, compromising pictures of minors (like them undressing in the school's case), etc. should include the judge as a defendant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District
which I thought was covered here but I didn't find it with a quick search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
We've all seen how public opinion can tip companies like news international into bankruptcy (oh wait thats next week teeheehee!) and a company like Aaron's will lose MILLIONS as customers turn away...."hey thats the store with the guys that like to masturbate to pictures of their customers children.....I'm off to best buy"......etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) rent laptop from Aaron's
2) begin filming your horror movie with laptop
3) ????
4) lolz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron's blows ponies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are setting prescedent (sic).....
Yep, those devices sending info back to the parent company are not 'electronic communication' and when the government starts requesting the footage so they can start 'looking for those darn copyright thieves' or 'hunting terrorists (you know who you are... all you citizens with views that that don't line directly up with the current government interpretation of the 'law').
Sure it's a crackpot conspiracy theorist point of view, but don't come crying to me when it actually happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
broad hints on how to go forward in a way that could work.
He cannot say so directly as he's forbidden from helping.
Firstly, don't rely on wiretap privacy law where peeping
tom privacy law is more appropriate. Even though a computer
was used through the internet this was more like peeking
through a window than tapping your phone. Somebody has
confused the two and may have said you can't use the right
approach because the wrong one was rejected.
For your best example of such an approach look up that
recent case where a school was nailed for doing the exact
same thing to it's students with loaned school laptops
computers. This case has a weaker defence than that one.
Secondly, get the proof. Just because they could spy on
you and you have indications the might have done it, you
still have to bring the judge something he can use, whether
it be proof obtained in the normal course of discovery or
proof that they obstructed discovery to keep evidence out
of your hands. With either you win and if they tried to
hide or destroy evidence instead of letting their lawyer
handle it they not only lose by default, they are in deep
trouble for that second procedural offence.
To do both, put together a class action for a peeping tom
kind of eavesdropping offence so that you can legally
search their offices for proof they spied on any member of
your class and don't forget to look for signs that they
tried to hide anything at all from the lawyers on either
side. That maximizes your likelihood of success and gives
you the lawful opportunity to pool your resources so your
lawyer can dig more deeply than you can afford alone.
Once the offender sees you will win whether or not he
cooperates he'll probably beg for a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny Thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]