#Epic Fail: couple photo emailed from stolen device

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

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#113346 14-Jan-2013 16:01

Hahaha.

What a pair of loosers.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/8175917/Infamy-for-stolen-iPhone-photo-couple

Good riddance to them for stealing someones beloved smart phone!

-Al

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#744640 14-Jan-2013 16:11

Did you read the article? There is not even enough information in the article about when the photo was taken let alone other factors. In case you could not work it out for yourself the article clearly states either of these two people may have nothing to do with the theft.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#744651 14-Jan-2013 16:34

She also reminded people the couple pictured may not necessarily be the burglars.

"Just be aware that we have never accused these people of burglary or theft - we simply noted their pics were on a stolen iPhone which they could have had access to by any number of means," she said.

For all intents they could just be friends of the person who stole it originally and have no idea their photo was being taken on a stolen device.

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.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 81

#744653 14-Jan-2013 16:37

Also, I hope "loosers" is some sort of intentional reverse irony :p

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#744669 14-Jan-2013 17:17

The alleged police, and the alleged media (and anyone else for that alleged matter), can disclaim all they allegedly like, the fact of the alleged matter is that most alleged viewers of the alleged photo, and the alleged attached explanation, are likely to believe that one of the alleged couple probably allegedly stole the alleged handset.

And regardless of the allged disclaimers, the allegd police *probably* think that too, and are allegedly looking to bust someone asap, so why not start with an alleged couple who have allegedly taken a selfie on an allegedly stolen phone.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#744684 14-Jan-2013 17:51

I don't see anything wrong with distributing the picture and asking for information or the people to come forward. I'm sure that is well within the privacy act. But publishing the photo with headlines like "stolen iPhone couple etc" is just wrong prior to conviction.

In some cases it would even prejudice a trial or complicate jury selection. I did not see the original publication on the NZ Police Facebook page but I doubt they published it with that kind of introduction at all. That would be laughably silly and only make the police look like idiots in the eyes of the court and many of the public. They would not do it.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744687 14-Jan-2013 17:55

freitasm:

She also reminded people the couple pictured may not necessarily be the burglars.

"Just be aware that we have never accused these people of burglary or theft - we simply noted their pics were on a stolen iPhone which they could have had access to by any number of means," she said.

For all intents they could just be friends of the person who stole it originally and have no idea their photo was being taken on a stolen device.

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.

Breach of Privacy Act by Police? No way:

Privacy Act 1993, Section 6, Principle 11 e:

(e)that non-compliance is necessary—
(i)to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences; or

In plain english, the Police are not bound by the privacy act, if non compliance is nessecary when investigating an offence....

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744697 14-Jan-2013 18:10

gzt: Did you read the article? There is not even enough information in the article about when the photo was taken let alone other factors. In case you could not work it out for yourself the article clearly states either of these two people may have nothing to do with the theft.

Yes I did read the article funnily enough.

I also know about the well established legal doctrine of recent possession, which states, in the absence of any other explanation, a person in possession of property recently stolen (case law states "recent" can be up to a couple of months) is either the theif or the receiver.

http://www.jimoneillaw.com/47-Recent%20Possession%20Stolen%20Goods.html

Thus at the moment, on the face of it, they are very likely to be either the theif or the receiver. (Max time so far is only about 5 weeks)

Also, taking a second look at the photo, and the closness of the picture to the faces, it certainly looks like a self portrait, not a picture taken by someone else.

Yes its possible, though I think unlikely, that they are not involved in the theft, IMHO I think though that the suggestion they are not involved is niave.

So based on :

1) Recent possession
2) Probability of self portrait
3) Im not niave

I think they (actually just "he") stole it.

-Al

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#744700 14-Jan-2013 18:19

That's a long way from your first post, which is a good thing.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#744703 14-Jan-2013 18:24

bigal_nz: in the absence of any other explanation, a person in possession of property recently stolen (case law states "recent" can be up to a couple of months) is either the theif or the receiver.

Which is the Occam's Razon Tony linked before. Pretty much the simplest explanation is almost always the right one.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744709 14-Jan-2013 18:35

gzt: That's a long way from your first post, which is a good thing.

Long way from first post?

My first post claimed two things:
1. They are theifs
2. They are loosers.

I still maintain they are loosers & theifs:
(a) He is a looser because he is (very probably) a theif, and been busted very publically
(b) Ok, I accept she probably not a theif, but shes a looser by association - for going out with a theif (again probably girlfriend, but hey they are pretty cuddly looking)

So my position has not changed from my original post.

In fact the more I think about this, the more I think their (his) guilt can be inferred.

If the program that "emailed" the photos, was still installed, then no attempt had been made to wipe the device...so if follows that the owners data was probably still on the phone.

Even a cursory browse of the data on the device would have shown it belonged to someone else!

Whats more, speaking generally here, with the large amounts of personal and familiy photos on smart devices these days, when you steal a phone, its not just the phone you steal, its often family memories which cannot be replaced.

Sympathy for these two, theifs or not, = 0.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#744714 14-Jan-2013 18:45

I was going to suggest that whilst we don't know if these people stole the phone or we're just photographed the police should be a bit more careful, but the exception to the rule stated above includes "investigation" which means they can do/say whatever they like as long as it can be argued that by doing so it investigates the theft.

If I stole a phone I'm sure I wouldn't take my own photo's with it.

I also suspect the police could easily match the faces to their own records, if this isn't the case then they must not have an existing criminal record.

Clearly the media did make mention of the police quotes but at the very end of the article, no doubt so as not to spoil a good story too early. some people don't read the article to completion, as we can see here.

I presume for what ever reason the device does not have a remotely activate-able GPS . I know of Android apps that can be installed remotely and install and run in the background to produce a location, surely there are apple apps that do this. Might have saved some embarrassment for two potentially innocent people.

There have been disparaging comments on the Police facebook page about the couple, and the photo has since been removed. Someone inside the police has had a change of heart and I'm not sure this will be the last we hear of this. It's only a stolen phone, is it ok to set people up for public mockery over a $800.00 item ? On moral grounds I think this sort of exposure should be reserved for kidnappings/murders and more serious crimes.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#744721 14-Jan-2013 18:49

I think it is not *just* a stolen iPhone. Two houses were burgled at the same time... We don't know what else is missing.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#744723 14-Jan-2013 18:51

bigal_nz:
gzt: That's a long way from your first post, which is a good thing.

Long way from first post?

My first post claimed two things:
1. They are theifs
2. They are loosers.

I still maintain they are loosers & theifs:
.

you "might" be right that they stole the phone and then took photo's of themselves with it, which means they have little forethought or knowledge of how these things work, perhaps that makes them loosers and thIEves ,,,,,,but how do you know this couple took the phone ? I'm intrigued.

If they took the phone ( and other items from the avondale robberies) then yes fine, boil them in their own excrement, but what if they didn't

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user

#744727 14-Jan-2013 18:55

turnin:
bigal_nz:
gzt: That's a long way from your first post, which is a good thing.

Long way from first post?

My first post claimed two things:
1. They are theifs
2. They are loosers.

I still maintain they are loosers & theifs:
.

you "might" be right that they stole the phone and then took photo's of themselves with it, which means they have little forethought or knowledge of how these things work, perhaps that makes them loosers and thIEfs ,,,,,,but how do you know this couple took the phone ? I'm intrigued.

The conclusion they are the theif or the receiver is based on the doctrine of recent possession. See above. I have included a link now.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 155
Inactive user

#744728 14-Jan-2013 18:58

bigal_nz:
turnin:
bigal_nz:
gzt: That's a long way from your first post, which is a good thing.

Long way from first post?

My first post claimed two things:
1. They are theifs
2. They are loosers.

I still maintain they are loosers & theifs:
.

you "might" be right that they stole the phone and then took photo's of themselves with it, which means they have little forethought or knowledge of how these things work, perhaps that makes them loosers and thIEfs ,,,,,,but how do you know this couple took the phone ? I'm intrigued.

The conclusion they are the theif or the receiver is based on the doctrine of recent possession. See above. I have included a link now.

Yep, I get the doctrine, but if I steal a phone and take a photo of you, do that mean you are in possession of the phone. It's possible it's a portrait shot but I cant see any arms holding the phone.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4