#Epic Fail: couple photo emailed from stolen device

Forums › Off topic › #Epic Fail: couple photo emailed from stolen device

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

BDFL - Memuneh
79309 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#744871 15-Jan-2013 09:08

surfisup1000:
freitasm:
Actually I'd even say NZ Police is in breach of privacy laws, seeing they have no firm case against this couple - unlike for example footage of an assault captured in CCTV.

Oh please.

What has the country come to.

IANAL. It was explained later in the thread that Privacy Act has exceptions for the police in case of investigative work.

So don't be condescending, Read the whole thing before doing that.

gzt

17157 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#744875 15-Jan-2013 09:20

@surfisup1000: Use light green "Single Page" button at top of page.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#744924 15-Jan-2013 10:54

Bototm line I think he is guilty. I hope he gets busted. I have no sympathy for him, I hope the owner gets his phone back.

Whether he is the theif or the receiver (I still maintain hes one or the other), if people on this forum think that stolen property is sold to unsuspecting people who unwittingly buy it, they are living in a dream world.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79309 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#744941 15-Jan-2013 11:18

I don't think anyone here said "stolen property is sold to unsuspecting people who unwittingly buy it".

What people are saying is that you think he's guilty and the discussion revolves not around "did he buy stolen property or not" but "what evidence you have of his guilt?"

If you know more about this case than what's public then you might be bound to not reveal it. In this situation posting in a public forum might not be a good idea as it may change the course of justice and be seen as in contempt of court.

I reserve my judgement about these people until a court says so after due process.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#745012 15-Jan-2013 12:39

freitasm: I don't think anyone here said "stolen property is sold to unsuspecting people who unwittingly buy it".

What people are saying is that you think he's guilty and the discussion revolves not around "did he buy stolen property or not" but "what evidence you have of his guilt?"

If you know more about this case than what's public then you might be bound to not reveal it. In this situation posting in a public forum might not be a good idea as it may change the course of justice and be seen as in contempt of court.

I reserve my judgement about these people until a court says so after due process.

Yes, actually several statements here make me believe bigal_nz has inside knowledge about this case and at least some understanding of the technology the police have or don't have.

Since it's ok in bigal_nz's book to make vast blanket assumptions then it must be Ok for me to assume you are police or ex police. So if you know he's guilty why don't you just go get an arrest warrant for him and arrest the guy? If you really don't know, then you are not setting a great example of impartiality.

When you've done that, suggest you try out some basic face recognition software, there are several off line stand alone packages that will handle small datasets. Failing that there are a plethora of commercial products aimed at police/govt that will do far greater things such as integrate with social media, cctv, pre crime pattern recognition etc. One of them is even made here in Chrstchurch. Or just wait for trapwire. Although before that happens I think you might want to at least give the impression of an impartial justice system at street level.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#745119 15-Jan-2013 14:35

Back on a less controversial and more geeky note.

I wonder if anybody thought to check for GPS coordinates in the EXIF data?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79309 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#745125 15-Jan-2013 14:37

Perhaps the original, but the one online doesn't have any EXIF data.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#745127 15-Jan-2013 14:40

freitasm: Perhaps the original, but the one online doesn't have any EXIF data.

The pic in the stuff article was probably cropped off the Police's facebook page and facebook would have stripped it if the Police hadn't already.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#745246 15-Jan-2013 18:08

turnin:
freitasm: I don't think anyone here said "stolen property is sold to unsuspecting people who unwittingly buy it".

What people are saying is that you think he's guilty and the discussion revolves not around "did he buy stolen property or not" but "what evidence you have of his guilt?"

If you know more about this case than what's public then you might be bound to not reveal it. In this situation posting in a public forum might not be a good idea as it may change the course of justice and be seen as in contempt of court.

I reserve my judgement about these people until a court says so after due process.

Yes, actually several statements here make me believe bigal_nz has inside knowledge about this case and at least some understanding of the technology the police have or don't have.

Since it's ok in bigal_nz's book to make vast blanket assumptions then it must be Ok for me to assume you are police or ex police. So if you know he's guilty why don't you just go get an arrest warrant for him and arrest the guy? If you really don't know, then you are not setting a great example of impartiality.

When you've done that, suggest you try out some basic face recognition software, there are several off line stand alone packages that will handle small datasets. Failing that there are a plethora of commercial products aimed at police/govt that will do far greater things such as integrate with social media, cctv, pre crime pattern recognition etc. One of them is even made here in Chrstchurch. Or just wait for trapwire. Although before that happens I think you might want to at least give the impression of an impartial justice system at street level.

No inside knowledge. No blanket assumptions, I have based my conclusions on various inferences and based on factual statistics.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#745247 15-Jan-2013 18:08

hashbrown: Back on a less controversial and more geeky note.

I wonder if anybody thought to check for GPS coordinates in the EXIF data?

Thats a good thought!

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#745253 15-Jan-2013 18:32

freitasm: I don't think anyone here said "stolen property is sold to unsuspecting people who unwittingly buy it".

So are you accepting that most stolen property is sold to people with some element of guilty knowledge?

freitasm:What people are saying is that you think he's guilty and the discussion revolves not around "did he buy stolen property or not" but "what evidence you have of his guilt?"

My conclusion about his guilt is based on:

1. Recent possession doctrine
2. Looks like a self portrait, therefore he had "possession"
3. Device had not been wiped and therefore even a cursory look at the data on the device would have shown information about the owner. It follows that if you accept point 2, then you accept that one of the two was smart enough to operate the camera on the device.
4. And if you also accept that most stolen property is sold to people with an element of guilty knowledge then they most probably knew it was stolen or turned a blind eye

Now GZ isnt a court of law, and even if you accept all the above conclusions, this may not meet the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" but im rather synical.

freitasim:
If you know more about this case than what's public then you might be bound to not reveal it. In this situation posting in a public forum might not be a good idea as it may change the course of justice and be seen as in contempt of court.

I know nothing more than than whats publically available and exercising freedom of speech. Not close to contempt of court.

freitasim:
I reserve my judgement about these people until a court says so after due process.

As you are entitled to do, but I doubt you will ever hear the outcome. So I have come to make up my own mind, based on conclusions as outlined above.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79309 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#745266 15-Jan-2013 18:49

bigal_nz:
freitasm: I don't think anyone here said "stolen property is sold to unsuspecting people who unwittingly buy it".

So are you accepting that most stolen property is sold to people with some element of guilty knowledge?

The fact I cleared up on misunderstanding doesn't mean I accept something else. Do not put words in my replies.

bigal_nz:
freitasim:
If you know more about this case than what's public then you might be bound to not reveal it. In this situation posting in a public forum might not be a good idea as it may change the course of justice and be seen as in contempt of court.

I know nothing more than than whats publically available and exercising freedom of speech. Not close to contempt of court.

"Freedom of speech". Why do you feel the need to invoke this trump card? No one is preventing you from saying anything. People is just showing other views of the same case, that's all.

Malboo

57 posts

Master Geek

#745282 15-Jan-2013 19:37

Funny enough 2 weeks ago we handed in to the Lower Hutt Police a photo taken from my wifes stolen Nokia 610 which ended up on her facebook page
I just deleted everything remotely after my 9 year old daughter pointed out the photo LOL
Now we password protect our phones and I dont expect too much of a result as the Police have more urgent stuff to do and I have to be careful about putting the photo about

gzt

17157 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#745290 15-Jan-2013 20:01

As I explained earlier, doctrine of possession is a misleading term.

Purely on the subject of possession itself, it is not as simple as you make out bigal_nz. If the iPhone photo is the only evidence presented by a prosecution and the accused is/are law abiding citizens then a jury could easily find not guilty of possession and thus not guilty of theft/receiving without hearing a word from the accused. There needs to be a bit more evidence of any kind before conviction is certain.

In this case my guess is the Police already have GPS coordinates for the photo etc and will be matching it with recovered property and other information gained during an investigation. This might or might not involve the couple very much at all in the end. Your presumption of guilt is actually based on your personal assessment of the likelyhood of gaining a conviction. This became pretty obvious when you stopped presuming guilt for one half of the couple earlier.

NZCrusader

646 posts

Ultimate Geek

#745310 15-Jan-2013 20:34

$1000 bet that the people in the photo were the ones that stole the phone.

My instincts are seldom wrong.

NZ / AU Battlefield 4 Gaming Community
http://www.sonsofvalour.net/forums/forum.php

1 | 2 | 3 | 4