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.
During the George Floyd death, the only place I could find the entire unedited footage was on liveleak, including when Floyd got into and subsequently out of the police cruiser. Nowhere else could I find that, and wondered why such an important event, triggering such outrage - didn’t have all the video available for everyone to view. A cynical person would suggest that the entire unedited footage conflicted with whatever narrative the media was pushing at the time.
Talk about anticipatory obedience, read the rest of this thread. oof.
This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply. There are no financial damages. The video is not classified. It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment). At best this is an internal policy violation that might possibly result in a termination for cause (although government employees tend to have more protections).
And yet people are still falling over themselves to reason that going against the desires of your employer must of course be illegal somehow. Not just written up per employer's policies, not just fired, not a civil suit if you've caused actual damage - but an escalation to criminal charges with the possibility of jail time, merely for not following an employer's whims. The degree to which we've already allowed top-down authoritarianism to infest our thinking is sickening.
And I think overbroad laws like the murderous CFAA have a lot to do with this. Rather than defining narrowly-scoped trespasses and a clear boundary where the rights of an individual end, they've entrenched draconian legal regimes that arbitrarily create harsh penalties. So the only way to avoid running afoul of them is to avoid upsetting anybody who might have the power to use them on you. Society has generalized this as top-down authoritarianism that flows along economic power relations, and it's sad.
> This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply.
That is incorrect. Copyright generally does not attach to works created by federal government agencies. The same is not true for works created by state and other sub-national government entities.
Harvard has an online resource center where you can learn more about this.
I do think it’s true that this particular footage is in the public domain.
>It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment).
FOIA does not apply to MWAA records. MWAA has its own access to public records policy that applies to its records. I have the unfortunate privilege of being a quasi-expert at dealing with MWAA and its records. I am one of three people to have ever appealed a MWAA Freedom of Information Policy all the way to arbitration.
(Bizarrely, binding arbitration is a requester’s final recourse. Unlike every other government entity that I know of, litigation is not an option if you think MWAA has not followed their Freedom of Information Policy.)
It is, in its most true form, a modern-day sefdom, bound by soft power, hopelessness, and above all else an unquenchable aversion to risk. The risk part predicated upon the delusion that we are in end times and things couldn't be better, so don't rock that boat. It appropriately fills the void that religion used to.
Right. A business is using the logos of other businesses to advertise their business…those vehicles are directly the subject of the video. That’s not allowed; it doesn’t make it not the case simply by the location filmed. Put it this way, I make a video and say my restaurant is great because restaurant B gets low health scores, then I plaster restaurant B’s logo all over my video to advertise my own business. Why would the fact that I stood on a public sidewalk make a difference?
(Note: I’m only talking about your described example.)
They are not using logos to advertise their business. They are using footage of their business operations to promote their business. This footage happens to contain logos of other businesses, because those other businesses put their logos places where they might be incidentally filmed. Trademark law does not give one the right to police any time your logo appears, nor does it protect one from criticism.
Your analogy misses the mark. A more appropriate analogy would be someone taking a promotional selfie while walking down the street, which includes businesses' signs in the background.
One of the videos mentioned: "Speeding Trailer with 50,000lb of Melons Rolls Over & Rips Open"[1] It shows the practical problems of uprighting a trailer that's torn at the seams. There wasn't enough structural integrity left for a simple crane lift. So they needed inflatable air bags, wooden blocks, and multiple cranes to get the thing upright. Then they moved it a bit with the cranes to unblock a lane of the freeway ramp. Then it took tens of people from CALTRANS to unload 50,000 pounds of melons so the damaged trailer could be removed empty as one piece.
Everything that could identify the trucking company or even the source of the melons was blurred out, which is a lot of work for the towing company guy who does these videos between tow jobs.
There's no copyright issue; all pictures were taken by employees of the towing company.
There's no trademark issue; showing a logo for identification purposes is legal.
There's no customer confusion issue; it's clear that the towing company isn't in the melon business.
There's no trade secret issue; this was a very public event, on public property, with TV news coverage.
There's no intent to defame issue; the towing company was there because the California Highway Patrol called them to clean up the mess, not because someone didn't like the guy who rolled over his truck.
There's no right of publicity issue for a wrecked truck.
There's no ownership right to the video because the trucker didn't contract with the towing company; the California Highway Patrol did. (The trucker will be getting a big bill from the state.)
There's no issue of "interfering with police" - the cops called in the towing company and guided them to the scene.
If the intention of the videos is to cover the process of towing the cars in general, then there is no need to include specific personally identifiable information, so removing those details seems quite reasonable to me.
Regardless of Youtube's rules, this just seems like good practice. Surveys and opinion polls in newspapers and scientific research normally redact that sort of information, for example.
Trading one "private sector" state surveillance and narrative control platform for another isn't much of an improvement.
That said, I hate to break it to you, but there is no real question of 'when', or even 'if'. The general public simply does not care, no matter how much abuse they are subjected to by mainstream platform operators.
There will always be a minority who care enough to embrace decentralization, open source, good e2ee, but they are the exception to the vast majority, at least inside the US, who simply do not care enough to change their behavior.
What percentage of Americans do you think would voluntarily, permanently relinquish their own fourth amendment rights for $5000? Scary thought experiment when you recall studies that have found only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech.
> ... "only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech."
Mere decades ago, not knowing this kinda stuff would get you failed in grade-school Civics class, and again in junior high, and yet again in high-school (at least where I grew up, here in the "Great NorthWest" Rocky Mountains area USA).
Used to be that knowing the basics about how your government worked and what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen was considered "required knowledge" (right alongside basic history, math, reading, etc) to help prepare you for "life in the real world".
Here in Spain we use telegram a lot. I've heard in the US it's used only for piracy and drugs but we use it for everything. There's groups letting people know of Nvidia card availability. Groups for every community I'm part of (WhatsApp sucks at group chats), from makerspaces, lgbt events to tattoo artists, gigs etc. There's also a group exposing the faces of metro pickpockets because the police doesn't care. Stuff like that.
The good thing is that Telegram is not American so you don't get this prude censorship BS that you get on American apps (show half a nipple and get banned). Especially in the LGBT groups this can be a problem but also in the makerspace one (one of our members really loves making certain toys lol). Of course actual porn is not ok but that's fine, we don't use it for that.
I also like that their premium subscription is super affordable, only 2€ per month (it's cheaper if you don't pay through the Apple/Google ripoff stores) and it offers a lot of cool and useful features like automatic translation and transcription (which actually works unlike WhatsApp's)
I'm really quite happy with it and on top of everything bots are a fully supported first class citizen there so you don't have to screw around with hacky code like with WhatsApp. I have several bots for myself. So if there's a feature I want that it doesn't have I can simply add it!
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”
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.
> 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.
cant be theft, as it he copyed from one format to another...different video standards/resolutions...and if he gave a copy, of the copy away and the third party(cnn) has not been charged, even though they published the footage, and profited by that, then yes him getting criminaly charged for what is an indiscression at best is unusual.
what would be of interest is if the same organisation that "owned" the cameras and footage has ever demanded that employies share footage taken on there phones, or requires employies to carry a personal phone for work, as that would further muddy any notion of personal/private
....all to cover up what is egregious behavior on the part of military pilots in civilian airspace....but realy part of an attempt to intimidate the public into not documenting military and police crime.
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’.
What's unclear, exactly? Whether video documentation obtained privately belongs to the person who owns the camera and storage media? Because I think it's about as clear as it gets.
Different but comparable example. Some jobs, if you mess up you just get fired. Other jobs you could end up in prison, for doing the same/similar thing.
A prison officer has a sexual relationship with a prisoner, should they simply be fired or also have a jury heard criminal court process then a record?
.. Not that it should be relevant, but now factor in the prison officer is female, newly qualified and the training college wrote to the prison to warn that the prison officer is not suitable to be a prison officer because they are not robust enough. The prisoner is also highly manipulative and has a documented history of romance with vulnerable females.
Why would it lead to more than them getting fired? What would be the crime? If the idea is that they've coerced/raped a prisoner, presumably that prisoner is making that allegation, and it's the rape allegation that gets investigated/tried, as with any other serious allegation of a crime. If it's consensual, that sounds like they're just not trustworthy to do their job and should be let go.
But this is the point I am making, if I have a relationship with someone at work, particularly when one person is subordinate or position of authority, then we'd simply be fired... but a prison officer will face a criminal prosecution of Misconduct in Public Office, and possibly face prison time themselves. Seems somewhat unfair for a low paying job.
There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.
Theft of private data deprives the owner of privacy. Theft of corporate secrets deprives the company of competitive advantage (and if not prosecuted, economy at large of incentives to innovate). IP theft deprives IP holder of ownership claim (and if not prosecuted, arts at large of incentives to create). Identity theft deprives the identity holder of whatever access to their identity provided to them. This can be continued infinitely.
These scenarios are not the same, and using “theft” for all of them is not precise. However, it is 2025 and in developed countries this sort of crime happens more often than basic theft of physical property, and the detriment from it is often much, much more severe than from basic theft of physical property. (I am sure I don’t need to explain how depriving IP owner of ownership claim can cost the original creator much more than depriving them of some single physical asset, both literally financially and in terms of psychological damage.) It’s therefore important to have a short, mainstream, easy to understand and non-legalese term for these scenarios.
Without any suitable mainstream term the word “theft” is a good enough intuitive approximation—if anything, it’s a bit too mild of a term.
> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.
Of course there is. It's origin is the crime of taking of tangible property owned by someone else without consent. It did not apply to intangible property because it predates any concept of legally protected intellectual property that can be duplicated without loss.
Now, there was also the metaphorical use of theft for non-criminal / non-tangible things but poetic use of language shouldn't be confused with primary meanings. For example, "plagiarism" comes from the Latin for "kidnapping" coined playfully by a comic. It was never a crime or ever resembled actual kidnapping. If you call your poem "my baby" because of how precious it is to you, it doesn't become one. Badly editing your poem is not murder either yet you might complain in such dramatic terms.
You might want to argue something about metaphors and secondary meanings but we shouldn't consider the crime of kidnapping to mean reciting other's verses any more than a summer's day should mean temperate people. If we start taking metaphorical uses literally then you also have to start claiming silly things like most kidnapping being legal.
Only in later industrial society did the metaphor become less metaphorical in written law for criminal acts that emerged post-printing-press that were being called fraud, deception, infringement and piracy.
> deprives the owner of privacy
It's pretty metaphorical to describe such things as property that can be stolen.
With this latitude you can frame every injury as theft e.g. stabbing is the theft of good health, murder is theft of life, perjury is theft of a fair trial etc. You might choose to use such language because it's how we roll, but we also know that, as offences, they are not theft.
When an item cannot be traded or restored to the owner, is it property that can be owned and stolen or are concepts of injury, damage and destruction more legitimate?
When it comes to intellectual property, it's closer to contract law where citizens are compelled to abide by contracts the state issues and enforces. The movement of intangible theft from metaphor into law for breaching such a contract was popularised by the beneficiaries to rhetorically inflate an illusion of loss and justify severe sanctions for acts not considered unlawful for most of human history.
> It's pretty metaphorical to describe such things as property that can be stolen.
Stealing is a pretty wide term meaning deprivation of a good, asset, property, service, etc. If it means deprivation only of physical goods at some point in time, sure; this is 2025 outside now. Theft of physical goods is so first millenium.
Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
The word has become overloaded in recent decades to mean other things as well, but for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently
> Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
> for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently
Nothing in your comment is in contradiction to mine, or suggests that the word has been “overloaded”. That’s what theft is. Intellectual property is property, trade secrets are property.
> with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
You denied that deprivation was ever part of the term
Your statement was
> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.
Where it’s literally there in dozens of definitions across the English language.
“Intellectual property” is a new legal construct, at most 500 years old, compared with physical ownership which dates back millennia. The term itself is a mere 200 years old, but mainly ignored in the US until just a few decades ago.
This is interesting, I definitely use "theft" colloquially for all these things.
For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)
Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.
Actually it attempts to shift liability from the victim (the bank, who was defrauded) to an unrelated party who may or may not be affiliated with the bank at all.
I think the above things are commonly considered theft. Totally fair to contend that the definition is wrong (and IMO that's a reasonable-minded contention), but I don't it's particularly double-think to bucket these digital "thefts" in the same category as physical thefts, either.
“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.
> 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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
There are intangible kinds of property and assets that are more valuable than “real property”. Trade secrets is an obvious one, being a special case of intellectual property. It would be absolutely irrational for legal system to classify theft of iPhone as criminal and theft of IP as civil, when the former cost $700 and monetizing the latter could finance creator’s entire life.
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.
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.
I worked in surveillance cameras for a long time and started my own company in the field. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diminish the value of location/bearing.
Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera.
With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, someone got into the wheel well of a plane at O’Hare in Chicago so taxiway security is not a solved problem. Leaking camera locations and bearings is dangerous.
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.
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.
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.
The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.
I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if
the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”
Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.
I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :)
I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.
> thanks in part to CNN’s initial failure to redact some CCTV text that described the location of the camera
This is the most important bit. That journalist had one fucking job. Technically, their job was handed to them in a platter. Now their incompetence is going to cost someone else's livelihood and possibly, life. What a sad state of affairs.
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.
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.
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.
Of course harm matters. Stealing a priceless original is worse, and punished harder, than stealing a commodity out of a corner store. That doesn’t mean the latter is fine.
> a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution!
And I’d say someone who premeditates a company wide shutdown, triggers it, and then doesn’t offer to help after its damage becomes clearly apparent crosses the line of criminal responsibility.
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.
You’re correct, it is not copyright. It comes closer to me asking to use your computer to check my bank account and then emailing myself all your identify documents.
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.
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.
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.
The person who leaked the video worked in a police dispatch center. Those personnel aren't supposed to leak information. Would it be ok for an EMS tech to leak videos? How about a surgeon? The incident occurred in public view with many existing videos and eyewitnesses and other telemetry information. It wasn't like this guy was swinging for the fences to get the Zapruder tape to us.
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.
During the George Floyd death, the only place I could find the entire unedited footage was on liveleak, including when Floyd got into and subsequently out of the police cruiser. Nowhere else could I find that, and wondered why such an important event, triggering such outrage - didn’t have all the video available for everyone to view. A cynical person would suggest that the entire unedited footage conflicted with whatever narrative the media was pushing at the time.
Talk about anticipatory obedience, read the rest of this thread. oof.
This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply. There are no financial damages. The video is not classified. It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment). At best this is an internal policy violation that might possibly result in a termination for cause (although government employees tend to have more protections).
And yet people are still falling over themselves to reason that going against the desires of your employer must of course be illegal somehow. Not just written up per employer's policies, not just fired, not a civil suit if you've caused actual damage - but an escalation to criminal charges with the possibility of jail time, merely for not following an employer's whims. The degree to which we've already allowed top-down authoritarianism to infest our thinking is sickening.
And I think overbroad laws like the murderous CFAA have a lot to do with this. Rather than defining narrowly-scoped trespasses and a clear boundary where the rights of an individual end, they've entrenched draconian legal regimes that arbitrarily create harsh penalties. So the only way to avoid running afoul of them is to avoid upsetting anybody who might have the power to use them on you. Society has generalized this as top-down authoritarianism that flows along economic power relations, and it's sad.
> This is about a government created footage from a surveillance camera. Copyright, or any other notion of imaginary property, most certainly does not apply.
That is incorrect. Copyright generally does not attach to works created by federal government agencies. The same is not true for works created by state and other sub-national government entities.
Harvard has an online resource center where you can learn more about this.
See https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/
I do think it’s true that this particular footage is in the public domain.
>It's essentially a public record, and FOIA likely does apply (as noted by one tiny comment).
FOIA does not apply to MWAA records. MWAA has its own access to public records policy that applies to its records. I have the unfortunate privilege of being a quasi-expert at dealing with MWAA and its records. I am one of three people to have ever appealed a MWAA Freedom of Information Policy all the way to arbitration.
(Bizarrely, binding arbitration is a requester’s final recourse. Unlike every other government entity that I know of, litigation is not an option if you think MWAA has not followed their Freedom of Information Policy.)
See https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/files/legacyfiles/freedo...
It is, in its most true form, a modern-day sefdom, bound by soft power, hopelessness, and above all else an unquenchable aversion to risk. The risk part predicated upon the delusion that we are in end times and things couldn't be better, so don't rock that boat. It appropriately fills the void that religion used to.
Right. A business is using the logos of other businesses to advertise their business…those vehicles are directly the subject of the video. That’s not allowed; it doesn’t make it not the case simply by the location filmed. Put it this way, I make a video and say my restaurant is great because restaurant B gets low health scores, then I plaster restaurant B’s logo all over my video to advertise my own business. Why would the fact that I stood on a public sidewalk make a difference?
(Note: I’m only talking about your described example.)
They are not using logos to advertise their business. They are using footage of their business operations to promote their business. This footage happens to contain logos of other businesses, because those other businesses put their logos places where they might be incidentally filmed. Trademark law does not give one the right to police any time your logo appears, nor does it protect one from criticism.
Your analogy misses the mark. A more appropriate analogy would be someone taking a promotional selfie while walking down the street, which includes businesses' signs in the background.
One of the videos mentioned: "Speeding Trailer with 50,000lb of Melons Rolls Over & Rips Open"[1] It shows the practical problems of uprighting a trailer that's torn at the seams. There wasn't enough structural integrity left for a simple crane lift. So they needed inflatable air bags, wooden blocks, and multiple cranes to get the thing upright. Then they moved it a bit with the cranes to unblock a lane of the freeway ramp. Then it took tens of people from CALTRANS to unload 50,000 pounds of melons so the damaged trailer could be removed empty as one piece.
Everything that could identify the trucking company or even the source of the melons was blurred out, which is a lot of work for the towing company guy who does these videos between tow jobs.
There's no copyright issue; all pictures were taken by employees of the towing company.
There's no trademark issue; showing a logo for identification purposes is legal.
There's no customer confusion issue; it's clear that the towing company isn't in the melon business.
There's no trade secret issue; this was a very public event, on public property, with TV news coverage.
There's no intent to defame issue; the towing company was there because the California Highway Patrol called them to clean up the mess, not because someone didn't like the guy who rolled over his truck.
There's no right of publicity issue for a wrecked truck.
There's no ownership right to the video because the trucker didn't contract with the towing company; the California Highway Patrol did. (The trucker will be getting a big bill from the state.)
There's no issue of "interfering with police" - the cops called in the towing company and guided them to the scene.
There's nothing in IP law that applies here.
Just fear of YouTube.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M5RnQlSJ58
That instance sounds like a clear cut abuse then, why isn’t a fine being sought as allowed?
If the intention of the videos is to cover the process of towing the cars in general, then there is no need to include specific personally identifiable information, so removing those details seems quite reasonable to me.
Regardless of Youtube's rules, this just seems like good practice. Surveys and opinion polls in newspapers and scientific research normally redact that sort of information, for example.
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.
Trading one "private sector" state surveillance and narrative control platform for another isn't much of an improvement.
That said, I hate to break it to you, but there is no real question of 'when', or even 'if'. The general public simply does not care, no matter how much abuse they are subjected to by mainstream platform operators.
There will always be a minority who care enough to embrace decentralization, open source, good e2ee, but they are the exception to the vast majority, at least inside the US, who simply do not care enough to change their behavior.
What percentage of Americans do you think would voluntarily, permanently relinquish their own fourth amendment rights for $5000? Scary thought experiment when you recall studies that have found only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech.
https://studyfinds.org/constitution-americans-rights/
> ... "only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech."
Mere decades ago, not knowing this kinda stuff would get you failed in grade-school Civics class, and again in junior high, and yet again in high-school (at least where I grew up, here in the "Great NorthWest" Rocky Mountains area USA).
Used to be that knowing the basics about how your government worked and what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen was considered "required knowledge" (right alongside basic history, math, reading, etc) to help prepare you for "life in the real world".
It's still required knowledge.
People have always crammed for the tests, then promptly forgotten it.
> ... "then promptly forgotten it."
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes. :shrug:
Here in Spain we use telegram a lot. I've heard in the US it's used only for piracy and drugs but we use it for everything. There's groups letting people know of Nvidia card availability. Groups for every community I'm part of (WhatsApp sucks at group chats), from makerspaces, lgbt events to tattoo artists, gigs etc. There's also a group exposing the faces of metro pickpockets because the police doesn't care. Stuff like that.
The good thing is that Telegram is not American so you don't get this prude censorship BS that you get on American apps (show half a nipple and get banned). Especially in the LGBT groups this can be a problem but also in the makerspace one (one of our members really loves making certain toys lol). Of course actual porn is not ok but that's fine, we don't use it for that.
I also like that their premium subscription is super affordable, only 2€ per month (it's cheaper if you don't pay through the Apple/Google ripoff stores) and it offers a lot of cool and useful features like automatic translation and transcription (which actually works unlike WhatsApp's)
I'm really quite happy with it and on top of everything bots are a fully supported first class citizen there so you don't have to screw around with hacky code like with WhatsApp. I have several bots for myself. So if there's a feature I want that it doesn't have I can simply add it!
In almost every context when someone says something like "real information" it almost always means "information I like or agree with".
Clearly “real information” here means “not blurred”. Stop spreading FUD.
Real information. Telegram. Pick one.
Outside the US, WhatsApp already fills that role, but like Telegram, "real information" is an optimistic descriptor.
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”
"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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
cant be theft, as it he copyed from one format to another...different video standards/resolutions...and if he gave a copy, of the copy away and the third party(cnn) has not been charged, even though they published the footage, and profited by that, then yes him getting criminaly charged for what is an indiscression at best is unusual. what would be of interest is if the same organisation that "owned" the cameras and footage has ever demanded that employies share footage taken on there phones, or requires employies to carry a personal phone for work, as that would further muddy any notion of personal/private ....all to cover up what is egregious behavior on the part of military pilots in civilian airspace....but realy part of an attempt to intimidate the public into not documenting military and police crime.
Stealing? Theft? Is there a god-given right for corporate or government interests to withhold lethal air crash footage from the public?
"stuff" being technically, legally, IP
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’.
What's unclear, exactly? Whether video documentation obtained privately belongs to the person who owns the camera and storage media? Because I think it's about as clear as it gets.
Different but comparable example. Some jobs, if you mess up you just get fired. Other jobs you could end up in prison, for doing the same/similar thing.
A prison officer has a sexual relationship with a prisoner, should they simply be fired or also have a jury heard criminal court process then a record?
.. Not that it should be relevant, but now factor in the prison officer is female, newly qualified and the training college wrote to the prison to warn that the prison officer is not suitable to be a prison officer because they are not robust enough. The prisoner is also highly manipulative and has a documented history of romance with vulnerable females.
Why would it lead to more than them getting fired? What would be the crime? If the idea is that they've coerced/raped a prisoner, presumably that prisoner is making that allegation, and it's the rape allegation that gets investigated/tried, as with any other serious allegation of a crime. If it's consensual, that sounds like they're just not trustworthy to do their job and should be let go.
No, the prisoner did not make an allegation.
But this is the point I am making, if I have a relationship with someone at work, particularly when one person is subordinate or position of authority, then we'd simply be fired... but a prison officer will face a criminal prosecution of Misconduct in Public Office, and possibly face prison time themselves. Seems somewhat unfair for a low paying job.
It is in no way close to theft because theft involves depriving the victim of some good or asset.
There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.
Theft of private data deprives the owner of privacy. Theft of corporate secrets deprives the company of competitive advantage (and if not prosecuted, economy at large of incentives to innovate). IP theft deprives IP holder of ownership claim (and if not prosecuted, arts at large of incentives to create). Identity theft deprives the identity holder of whatever access to their identity provided to them. This can be continued infinitely.
These scenarios are not the same, and using “theft” for all of them is not precise. However, it is 2025 and in developed countries this sort of crime happens more often than basic theft of physical property, and the detriment from it is often much, much more severe than from basic theft of physical property. (I am sure I don’t need to explain how depriving IP owner of ownership claim can cost the original creator much more than depriving them of some single physical asset, both literally financially and in terms of psychological damage.) It’s therefore important to have a short, mainstream, easy to understand and non-legalese term for these scenarios.
Without any suitable mainstream term the word “theft” is a good enough intuitive approximation—if anything, it’s a bit too mild of a term.
> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.
Of course there is. It's origin is the crime of taking of tangible property owned by someone else without consent. It did not apply to intangible property because it predates any concept of legally protected intellectual property that can be duplicated without loss.
Now, there was also the metaphorical use of theft for non-criminal / non-tangible things but poetic use of language shouldn't be confused with primary meanings. For example, "plagiarism" comes from the Latin for "kidnapping" coined playfully by a comic. It was never a crime or ever resembled actual kidnapping. If you call your poem "my baby" because of how precious it is to you, it doesn't become one. Badly editing your poem is not murder either yet you might complain in such dramatic terms.
You might want to argue something about metaphors and secondary meanings but we shouldn't consider the crime of kidnapping to mean reciting other's verses any more than a summer's day should mean temperate people. If we start taking metaphorical uses literally then you also have to start claiming silly things like most kidnapping being legal.
Only in later industrial society did the metaphor become less metaphorical in written law for criminal acts that emerged post-printing-press that were being called fraud, deception, infringement and piracy.
> deprives the owner of privacy
It's pretty metaphorical to describe such things as property that can be stolen.
With this latitude you can frame every injury as theft e.g. stabbing is the theft of good health, murder is theft of life, perjury is theft of a fair trial etc. You might choose to use such language because it's how we roll, but we also know that, as offences, they are not theft.
When an item cannot be traded or restored to the owner, is it property that can be owned and stolen or are concepts of injury, damage and destruction more legitimate?
When it comes to intellectual property, it's closer to contract law where citizens are compelled to abide by contracts the state issues and enforces. The movement of intangible theft from metaphor into law for breaching such a contract was popularised by the beneficiaries to rhetorically inflate an illusion of loss and justify severe sanctions for acts not considered unlawful for most of human history.
> It's pretty metaphorical to describe such things as property that can be stolen.
Stealing is a pretty wide term meaning deprivation of a good, asset, property, service, etc. If it means deprivation only of physical goods at some point in time, sure; this is 2025 outside now. Theft of physical goods is so first millenium.
Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
The word has become overloaded in recent decades to mean other things as well, but for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently
> Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
> for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently
Nothing in your comment is in contradiction to mine, or suggests that the word has been “overloaded”. That’s what theft is. Intellectual property is property, trade secrets are property.
> with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
You denied that deprivation was ever part of the term
Your statement was
> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.
Where it’s literally there in dozens of definitions across the English language.
“Intellectual property” is a new legal construct, at most 500 years old, compared with physical ownership which dates back millennia. The term itself is a mere 200 years old, but mainly ignored in the US until just a few decades ago.
I wrote:
> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.
It is always depriving of something. Just not always of physical something. The rest of my comment goes on about depriving of non-physical things.
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)
Those are labels. Identity theft is more identity fraud. Theft of digital assets is copyright infringement.
This is interesting, I definitely use "theft" colloquially for all these things.
For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)
Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.
Identity theft is someone else stealing money from the bank, and the bank telling you that's your problem now.
these are deliberate attempts to shift the overton window.
Identity theft in particular is a poor term because it shifts the blame from the verifier (the one who actually got things wrong) to the victim.
Actually it attempts to shift liability from the victim (the bank, who was defrauded) to an unrelated party who may or may not be affiliated with the bank at all.
"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...
I think the above things are commonly considered theft. Totally fair to contend that the definition is wrong (and IMO that's a reasonable-minded contention), but I don't it's particularly double-think to bucket these digital "thefts" in the same category as physical thefts, either.
And it seems like that law requires malicious intent. I wonder how that would be proven here?
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.
[flagged]
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Edit out swipes.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> 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.
As a DLP professional: please don’t tell people this. You can absolutely be arrested and prosecuted for this.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
There are intangible kinds of property and assets that are more valuable than “real property”. Trade secrets is an obvious one, being a special case of intellectual property. It would be absolutely irrational for legal system to classify theft of iPhone as criminal and theft of IP as civil, when the former cost $700 and monetizing the latter could finance creator’s entire life.
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.
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.
I worked in surveillance cameras for a long time and started my own company in the field. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diminish the value of location/bearing.
Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera.
With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, someone got into the wheel well of a plane at O’Hare in Chicago so taxiway security is not a solved problem. Leaking camera locations and bearings is dangerous.
Sure but where is the commercial value?
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
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.
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.
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.
I am an attorney but this is not legal advice.
The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.
I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”
Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.
I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :)
I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.
Really … copying video footage is theft suddenly? Jail?
> thanks in part to CNN’s initial failure to redact some CCTV text that described the location of the camera
This is the most important bit. That journalist had one fucking job. Technically, their job was handed to them in a platter. Now their incompetence is going to cost someone else's livelihood and possibly, life. What a sad state of affairs.
Ehhh. It was from a fixed position CCTV camera. It was going to be found
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you read the actual statute? It hardly applies.
That didn’t stop them from charging them, did it?
Facts have never stopped US prosecutors
[flagged]
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.
>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.
Isn't that an even stronger argument that the leak shouldn't be criminal?
No, for the same that stealing an item isn’t okay because there is more in the back.
Impact and harm is absolutely part of the criteria by which we judge crimes and penalties. Not sure where you're going with that.
Of course harm matters. Stealing a priceless original is worse, and punished harder, than stealing a commodity out of a corner store. That doesn’t mean the latter is fine.
There's a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution!
> a spectrum between "not fine" and criminal prosecution!
And I’d say someone who premeditates a company wide shutdown, triggers it, and then doesn’t offer to help after its damage becomes clearly apparent crosses the line of criminal responsibility.
You can infinitely "steal" digital data. That's where the analogy breaks down.
Imaginary property is imaginary.
> 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.
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?
Copyright
CCTV footage is not a creative work, it doesn't even have an author.
You’re correct, it is not copyright. It comes closer to me asking to use your computer to check my bank account and then emailing myself all your identify documents.
Stealing physical property deprives its original owner of it. The same can't be said of IP.
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.
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.
A lot of views from general population rather than being buried.
Are you suggesting such incidents should not be reported on or captured?
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.
Source they got paid?
Ok and? CNN acquired the video and reported on it. They didn't hide or destroy it.
The NTSB provided the footage. Nothing further was required.
https://youtu.be/SQm-fRrNMjM
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.
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.
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.
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.
The person who leaked the video worked in a police dispatch center. Those personnel aren't supposed to leak information. Would it be ok for an EMS tech to leak videos? How about a surgeon? The incident occurred in public view with many existing videos and eyewitnesses and other telemetry information. It wasn't like this guy was swinging for the fences to get the Zapruder tape to us.
> The incident occurred in public view…
So what was the harm in releasing a video of said public view, that almost certainly would've been subject to FOIA anyways?
Was the information proprietary or classified?