Maybe...
Ummmm...
Don't hand your selfie porn to people you don't want to have it?
Just sayin'
....Cirdan...
'Toyota dealer stole my wife's saucy snaps from phone, emailed them to a swingers website'
A Texas couple is suing Toyota and one of its car dealerships after one of its staff allegedly stole saucy snaps off their cellphone and emailed them to a swingers website. Last year, pastor Tim Gautreaux and his wife Claire were shopping for a Toyota Prius at a nearby car dealership in Grapevine, Texas. To expedite the sale, …
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 10:36 GMT Martin Summers
Re: Maybe...
No that's BS. He didn't hand them anything of the sort. He handed them the phone to look at a document and that is all that should have been looked at. The sales guy was way out of line and there's absolutely no excuse for it, at the very least if the document disappeared off the screen and he happened to see the picture he should have turned a blind eye to it and left it at that. Posting the pictures to the internet is a disgusting breach of privacy and they should sue the slimeball into the ground. You can't take back what is posted, you can't put that cat back into the bag. What you are saying is classic victim blaming and that's an incredibly wrong attitude. They did not "have it coming" no matter what you think.
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 23:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Maybe...
The question is whether the wife was aware that her naked pictures were on her husband's phone.
If she wasn't, which she might not have been, then she is a blameless victim. Her husband, meanwhile, deserves everything she no doubt did to him as a result of his endangering her, and it serves him right if she divorces him and takes the whole settlement. He may not have given permission to access her pictures, but he was reckless towards his wife's safety.
-
-
Monday 5th December 2016 10:26 GMT Halfmad
Re: Maybe...
Comparison would be handing your credit card over and having it's details swiped and sent online. People wouldn't think that's right but some are trying to justify this? Seems really wierd.
I'd never hand over my unlocked phone and I've nothing more worrying than Pokemon Go on it, but if I did I'd expect my Evee and Bulbasaur back unharmed.
-
Monday 5th December 2016 19:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Maybe...
I'd never hand over my unlocked phone
Let's look at this from a non-computer comparison.
Instead of just showing the dealer the documents he wanted, the guy handed over his entire filing cabinet with photos, phone call logs, possibly financial information, etc.
That's just careless.
-
-
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 16:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Maybe...
Get real, folks. "Victim blaming"? Stuff it. The victims naively left themselves open to exploitation by assholes. Lesson learned.
In an ideal world we could use this ubiquitous technology to record our most intimate thoughts, desires, and photos without fear. Unfortunately the technology is rife with security flaws and the world is full of assholes who will gleefully exploit them at every opportunity. Paranoia is the rule of the day.
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 17:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Maybe...
Without victim blaming there is no security. Take a look around your local car park some day and count the signs saying "Leave it on show, expect it to go."
Note that acknowledging the carelessness of the victim is not the same as exonerating the perpetrator. Also in this case the perpetrator was even stupider given the way in which he got caught.
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 17:59 GMT Martin Summers
Re: Maybe...
No we are talking victim blaming along the lines of someone's daughter (perhaps yours who knows?) dressing up with a really short skirt showing a bit of flesh to go out for the night and getting raped and someone saying "she had it coming to her dressed like that". That kind of victim blaming, it's wrong arrogant and disgusting.
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 18:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Maybe...
The guy had some culpability because he had saucy pics of someone else on the phone; he didn't protect them in any way; and he handed the device over to a 3rd party and let him go to another room with it. If it was his own dick pics, then fine, and it's his risk to take; but pretty irresponsible with compromising photos of someone else.
That's not excusing the dickbag car dealer in the slightest.
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 18:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Maybe...
I don't agree with victim blaming. It's not their fault that the photos were taken and the dealer should be prosecuted. However if you leave your doors unlocked and you get burgled, even if the burgler gets caught you can't undo the fact your house was burgled. Prevention is better than cure.
Don't take dirty pictures on your phone, people.
-
-
-
Monday 5th December 2016 05:19 GMT MrDamage
Re: Maybe...
Mycho is dead on point, and those who had a go at him for "victim blaming" should STFUM
As he pointed out, victim blaming in the way of leaving expensive goods on display in an unattended car is acceptable.
If the story was about someone who handed their entire wallet over to a bangkok back street trader, you would all be agreeing he was a dumbass for doing so.
If the story was about someone who was hacked and had all of their data stolen because they hooked an unpatched XP machine to the interwebz and didn't even run any security software, you would all be agreeing how much of a dumbass he was.
If the story was about someone who was 419'd, you would be laughing at the greedy dumbass.
Now, this buffoon has handed over an electronic device chock full of sensitive, personal info, allowed it to be taken out of his sight by someone he didn't know from a bar of soap, and for some reason, he is exonerated from dumbass-ness?
Yes, the sales droid shouldn't have done anything except look at the documents provided, but he shouldn't have allowed the device out of sight in the first place. Better still, he should have emailed the documents straight from his phone to the sales droid.
-
-
Sunday 4th December 2016 22:25 GMT Likkie
Re: Maybe...
I am so fucking tired of hearing the words "victim blaming"!!! I'm not trying to pretend that victim blaming doesn't exist, but its gone far too far.
If I tell a person "don't walk down that dark laneway alone, there have been a few muggings there recently" thats good advice and I'm would be appreciated for it.
However, if I say "don't walk down that laneway alone, a number of people have been raped there recently" suddenly I'm accused of victim blaming. Some feminazi will have my head off because women should be able to wear what they like and walk where they like with impunity.
I agree, all people SHOULD be able to walk wherever and wear whatever they like. The reality is they can't because there are dickheads about that might harm them.
-
-
Sunday 4th December 2016 17:06 GMT fruitoftheloon
@Emmeran: Re: Maybe...
Emmeran,
a question for you, what is a 'photo is', apparently abbreviated to "photo's"?
I mean some mean spirited folk may take such spoutings to be vapid dribble of someone who had a best a tenuous understanding of grammar (and even less of common courtesy).
I look forward to your response.
-
-
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 12:27 GMT CheesyTheClown
Re: Unless you're the FBI...
I regularly have conversations with my children regarding this exact problem. I explain that they should never want any photographs on their phones they don't want out in the wild. This has nothing to do with right and wrong. But an example of a conversation at breakfast this morning. We were discussing with our 13 year old daughter and 14 year old son about their friends using snus, drinking and vaping. I explained that while I don't condone these activities, under no circumstance are they to ever walk home alone or use a normal taxi while drunk. They are to pick up the phone and have me come get them or send an Über to them since it's safer than a random taxi being driven by the owner's brother-in-law. Also, they are never ever ever allowed to take a sip of a drink they haven't seen poured or have had out of their eyesight for even a second.
It is not right I should have to have these conversations with two children. But it's right that I do. Just because people shouldn't do bad things doesn't mean they won't.
So, while I agree with you, your point is overly altruistic and not meaninful because these things will happen and the best advice is... don't store pictures like these on any electronic devices.
Oh... and damn... lucky pastor.
-
Sunday 4th December 2016 02:39 GMT tom dial
Re: Unless you're the FBI...
The FBI does not have that right either. They, and other law enforcement officers may apply for warrants, as may their counterparts in many other countries. If the application is granted they have the right to conduct a search as the warrant specifies.
As for the article, it is not clear why the plaintiffs think they have a basis to seek not only compensation, but enrichment, from the dealer who employed the alleged perpetrator or, even more remote, from Toyota itself. The employee's act is said to be a criminal offense, and the agency's sales director has been charged. Dealership liability may depend on details like whether the accused had previous history of similar behavior and whether they knew of it, and if they did not, whether they had done reasonable (probably a jury question) pre-hire due diligence. Toyota's liability may be limited by their relationship to the dealer and details in the documents that govern the relationship. Toyota certainly will not want to set a precedent for future similar claims, but given their likely rarity might end up negotiating a settlement with sealed terms for some fraction of the amount demanded.
-
Sunday 4th December 2016 04:32 GMT Kiwi
Re: Unless you're the FBI...
As for the article, it is not clear why the plaintiffs think they have a basis to seek not only compensation, but enrichment, from the dealer who employed the alleged perpetrator or, even more remote, from Toyota itself
What could be nice is for Toyota to counter-sue for things like loss of reputation.. Or maybe they just need to let these people know that Toyota's lawyers each charge$10k/hr, there's 20 of them, and if the couple loses against Toyota then they will be paying full costs?
Sue the bugger who stole the pics (if he did, maybe there was something else going on here? Especially given the 5minute time frame, the picture being left open (really, I'm doing something dodgy, I know enough to find and get the pictures off you phone inside 5 minutes, and I'm stupid enough to leave one open?) , but leave the other innocents alone. Or, hopefully, they will sue you and leave you ruined.
Being a pastor, he should know better!
-
-
Monday 5th December 2016 04:00 GMT Dazed and Confused
Re: Unless you're the FBI...
> Sue the bugger who stole the pics
Well because at the time he is alleged to have stolen the pictures he was working on behalf of the Toyota dealer and it was as "the dealer" he asked for and was given access to the phone.
If he'd give the guy his phone to look at in a bar social then no he shouldn't be allowed to sue the guys employer.
-
Monday 5th December 2016 09:55 GMT Kiwi
Re: Unless you're the FBI...
Well because at the time he is alleged to have stolen the pictures he was working on behalf of the Toyota dealer and it was as "the dealer" he asked for and was given access to the phone..
Alleged to have stolen the pics. Good bet he didn't. Story stinks. Hope Toyota makes sure any gains this couple get are lost in a counter suit. And then some.
Toyota was not there. Dealer probably followed "due diligence" in the hiring of this person. Hope you become a boss and someone working for you does something wrong which, on the scale of bad things you can do to someone, really is pretty minor. (Yes, I blame the pastor for having pics of his wife on his phone and strongly suspect it wasn't so much "innocent victim" as "dirty scoundrel trying to scam a stupidly litigious system").
No one but the person who sent the pics to the site was responsible. Oh, and if it wasn't the pastor who sent the pictures to that site, then he was also at least 99.999% responsible.
If you are not directly or knowingly involved in the commission of a crime (or whatever the civil version is as in this case), you are not guilty. If you hire a convicted criminal to work for you, knowing their crimes but having reasonable grounds to expect decent behaviour you're not guilty. It is disgusting that the US still lets this sort of thing continue, and even more disgusting that supposedly intelligent people actually call for innocent parties to be held accountable for someone else's actions!
And despite all that, since he is going after innocent parties in all this (the dealership and Toyota, unlikely they had any clue that the accused would act like this), the pastor should, before anything else, quit his position as pastor. There's a whole swathe of versus that would speak against his suit, the position he's put his wife in, his carelessness etc. (Yes, like all Christians I sin, and several times a day most days - but I am not someone claiming such a position of responsibility and integrity!)
-
-
-
Sunday 4th December 2016 16:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Unless you're the FBI...
"The FBI does not have that right either. They, and other law enforcement officers may apply for warrants, as may their counterparts in many other countries. If the application is granted they have the right to conduct a search as the warrant specifies."
Seriously Tom? If you think that is the case please do a search for "Snowden" and read the many articles written on the topic by Greenwald. Better yet, anyone who thinks the government and it's agents, including the FBI, DEA, all the way down to local police and DA's with (search term) "Parallel Construction" are following any laws they can or are told to ignore you have a lot of reading to catch up on.
If you think laws and rights are determining the actions being taken by today's democratic governments you need to do a lot of reading, lots and lots, just to catch up.
-
Monday 5th December 2016 00:40 GMT tom dial
Re: Unless you're the FBI...
I don't claim to have read all the "Snowden" and Greenwald articles, but have read enough of them to know they do not speak much to the FBI, DEA, or even DHS.
Parallel construction, presumably intended to conceal intelligence sources and methods, is not by itself contrary to law as far as I am aware, any more than is concealing the identity of confidential informants who provide information to justify warrant issue. The NSA is permitted to refer to domestic law enforcement authorities information obtained by lawful (under US law) foreign intelligence surveillance. The articles that "revealed" these activities were unfortunately vague about the source of the information and the conditions under which it was obtained. They also did not make clear whether the authors did not know or knew and elected to leave it unmentioned.
Ultimately, the decision to issue a warrant rests with a judge who is at least nominally independent of the prosecutor and other law enforcement agents. They may rubber stamp the application, but it at least is a (possibly virtual) piece of paper that, in the US at least, can later be challenged in court if the warrant turns up information that leads to prosecution.
-
Wednesday 7th December 2016 15:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Parallel Construction legal in some places
Looks like Tom has been vindicated, at least in the UK as the Reg has reported that Parallel Construction is, or may be, a legal tactic to ensure convictions and hide sources and methods. Lets keep in mind what that means. The idea of needing warrants and oversight still exists but only for crimes and activities that are not of interest to the government or it's agencies.
Agencies in some places are not in any way bound by such laws and can, legally in some places, pretend to have used those laws to hide what they are doing and how they are doing it.
These same agencies can, and have already, lied to elected representatives (in the USA the Congress) and those in charge of overseeing their activity. This creates a shadow government that not only does not answer to the people or it's representatives but can and have had people imprisoned with created evidence.
BTW keep reading about Snowden's revelations, even drug dealers are sitting in prison due to parallel construction methods, I say drug dealers but we really only have the word of those who created the evidence as to their guilt or innocence on the charges.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 15:38 GMT SVV
Re: a million bucks?
"Why do these incidents almost always happen in either Texas or Florida?"
Because they almost always involve good ol' virtuous Christian preachers who have a direct line to the big guy in the sky, and those places got more than plenty of them.
And 1 million bucks in damages? Isn't greed supposed to be one of the deadliest sins for these types? Something about rich men being less likely to enter the kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? I guess he wants the bucks more than the salvation of his eternal soul.
Still, at least it was his wife, cos he'd never have dared sue for the loot if the photos recorded some of the more ususl antics of these types.
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 13:11 GMT macjules
Re: a million bucks?
Last time I recall Toyota NA paying out big time was when one of their managers in Florida promised his staff a new Toyota as a bonus but instead gave them a Toy Yoda, claiming they had misheard.
Would have though a pastor would be of the forgiving kind when it comes to million dollar lawsuits ..
-
Monday 5th December 2016 07:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: a million bucks?
Rubbish.
it was one person in a HOOTERS bar who THOUGHT she had won a "toyota" but was given a "toy yoda".
It wasnt a presesent to "his staff" at all.
Christ, a five second search would have saved you all the embarrasement of being wrong.
http://laughingsquid.com/woman-thought-she-won-a-toyota-not-a-toy-yoda/
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 13:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: a million bucks?
"I doubt Toyota USA will be need to defend because they do not manage the dealership which is likely a franchise. "
This is the US, lawyers go for the people with the most money and rely on the jury to do the rest.
(Mind you, over here a good solicitor will tell you not to go after someone who hasn't got enough money to pay your costs rather than try to flog you no win no fee insurance.)
-
-
Sunday 4th December 2016 09:42 GMT JosephEngels
Re: a million bucks?
I'm shocked, shocked that you would even suggest that one of America's fine pastors, who selflessly devote themselves to religion would even consider such a stunt.
You know as well as I that he would surely give any damages he received to charity anyway, right?
I'll get my coat, as she clearly forgot hers ....
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 03:15 GMT James O'Shea
that name
His name is Matthew Luke Thomas. He, allegedly, stole pix from a pastor. He's naked for two writers of the Gospels and an apostle, and he does naughty things to one of m'man Jesus' fishers of men. And said fisher of men is also named for an apostle. It's just too bad that wifey isn't named Mary.
being stuck with multiple saints' names myself (hey! Irish!) I noticed the names first thing.
-
-
Saturday 3rd December 2016 18:57 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Re: that name
@Captain Badmouth/James O'Shea
O'Shea was a saint?
Here's a rather tenuous link from O'Shea to another heavenly being
Milo O'Shea played Durand Durand in the film Barbarella. Barbarella (Jane Fonda). is rescued by Pygar, the Angel.
icon: Paris for title role in a remake of Barbarella, with extended scenes in the Orgasmostron on the DVD additional features
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
