Receiving a photograph obtained from a Facebook account without the user’s permission is the same as receiving a stolen TV, Queensland Police have said after the arrest of a Fairfax journalist.
The head of the Queensland police fraud squad, Brian Hay, admitted this morning that police were “still cutting our teeth” in the rapidly evolving online environment and named cyber crime as the biggest law-enforcement challenge.
He said some aspects of yesterday’s arrest of journalist Ben Grubb could become a test case, adding: “I expect complaints of this nature to continue.”
[snip]
Detective Superintendent Hay used an analogy to describe why Grubb was targeted. “Someone breaks into your house and they steal a TV and they give that TV to you and you know that TV is stolen,” he said.“The reality is the online environment is now an extension of our real community and if we go into that environment we have responsibilities to behave in a certain way.” He said: “I think the cyber environment represents the greatest challenge to law enforcement in the history of policing.”
He also confirmed that the police media unit misrepresented the situation on its official Twitter feed last night. After Grubb had tweeted about his arrest, the media unit tweeted that he had not been officially arrested, but it was forced to retract that statement this morning.
What the hell are the cops in Queensland smoking?
This sounds like it’s more of a “test case” for the MPAA and RIAA. Cause I seriously doubt that any police force gives a crap if someone grabbed a copy of a photo. off of someone’s Facebook page, who was lacks in protecting access to it. To continue their stupid analogy… If someone’s Tv set were sitting out on their front lawn, where anyone strolling by might think if was refuse. Like in a box marked, “Free for anyone to take”. Would it be a crime to receive such a Tv from a pal who liberated it under those conditions? Highly doubtful.
I’ve actually had my car broken into, late at night on a lone city street. And the cops basically acted like it was my fault, for leaving something tempting looking, inside the car, between the driver seat and rear seats. In this case a duffel bag with work clothes in it. Some clown(s) had to shine a light in there, just to spot it. And then threw big rocks against the windows until one finally broke. But the cops who showed up, after spending more time visting a local donut shop, than patrolling the street. Acted as if it was an unheard of incidence. And my carelessness had caused some character to break the law.
So if not locking EVERYTHING in your car, out of sight, is the only way to prevent theft. Then why isn’t it an automatic default option on Facebook? You should have to choose to permit each photo, etc., to be shared. And not the other way around. But that troll who created it, apparently is more concerned with fostering a lack of privacy, than protecting it.
Mr Grubb was insensitive to the issue and hostile/bullying. He could have asked a (real life) friend who did not friend him on facebook to be a subject for this test of vulnerability. Trivial. Any half-thinking person would do so. Instead he targeted known adversary. As such it is a crime.
Also, it is time to punish people for hacking online. He could not just go and see the photos … he needed to perform actions he knew were illegal. Having a cheap lock in real life is not permission to steal.
Glenn E, you missed the point I think. The Facebook page was broken into (hacked) and the photo removed without permission. It wasn’t just sitting on a public page waiting to be taken. It was done as part of a demonstration on how to hack Facebook and get hold of other peoples private photos.
So the correct analogy would be if someone sent you a flyer with pictures in the mail, and you took the flyer, and placed it under a magnet on your refrigerator. The police then seized the refrigerator, and arrested you for stealing the flyer.
The police aren’t smoking anything! If i have a photo on my profile and some dick journalist wants to run a story without my permission because he effectively stole my photo by hacking or using a friends of mine account then i hope he gets punished to the full extent of the law. Like number 1 said, just because i don’t have high or any security on my property does not mean you can steal my property!
This web inter-tubes world is weird. I don’t understand it. It is a lawless place that needs to be reigned-in, lest it become a haven for thieves, liars, and beggars. I tell tell ‘ya it’s up to no plumb-good.
Is the web even fo’ REAL? Gim’mee a freaking break here! I don’t even know how you digitalize a piece of toast, but apparently it can be done.
Don’t steal my digitalized toast! For the love of all that is retarted I beg of you even to please spare my toast crumbs. Is nothing sacred in this wild and wooly tube-verse?
Someone posted something online, a forum that was created to facilitate information exchange, and they are upset because someone got a copy of it. Legal arguments, i.e. bullshit, aside that’s a bit like sticking your wedding tackle in a lions mouth and getting upset when it bites down.
Not a facebook user so I know little of what I speak of. But surely there are controls to stop your images from being downloaded. Was the owner of the page too lazy to protect his photos? And, did facebook complain? Don’t they claim ownership of anything posted?
Truthfully, I don’t know if I’m more surprised they are pursuing this case or that the Queensland police have an “official Twitter feed.”
I don’t use twitter, either.
The Queensland police are not only smoking crack, but several other substances as well.
The full text of the linked article also said this, ” This incident comes after Queensland Police in 2008 charged a 61-year-old man with serious child abuse offences over uploading to the internet a foreign video of a Russian circus family that showed a man swinging a baby by its arms.
The charges carried a maximum 20-year jail term but all charges were dropped after Fairfax revealed the offending clip had been classified by federal government censors as MA15+.”
I am surprised no-one has yet raised the argument…
“The original was left in place, the owner of the original photo was not at any time deprived of it!
So there is no theft per-se.
Yes it is wrong to ‘hack’ into an account,
and yes, it is wrong to distribute a photo to which you have no rights,
BUT IT IS NOT THEFT!”
It’s the law and the cops enforce the law. The laws may be crazy in the view of most of the public but they are on the books. The cops now regard the public at large as being criminals and they commonly lie to criminals.
The public can’t trust the cops and the cops don’t trust the public so everything is …you come up with a word.
It’s completely ridiculous. Using the term stealing is way over the top. Nothing was “taken” unless you consider taking a photograph of somebodies property stealing. The analog is if somebody posts a sign in their front yard and somebody else comes along and takes a picture of it. Taking pictures is not a crime unless you are video taping law enforcement officers violating someones rights.
As for “hacking” a facebook page?! Give me a break. Facebook is exactly what it says. Real privacy should not even be considered. You are posting to a public forum. You don’t do that if you want privacy. You do it because you want to tell the world.
“Someone breaks into your house and they steal a TV and they give that TV to you and you know that TV is stolen,”
Wait, they consider it illegal to take back your own property if the thief returns it?