# But the message said "try putting your laptop near hot steam"



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In a story headlined Computer repairman collected hundreds of thousands of photos of unsuspecting women, police say:


> ...The repair ploy first came to light last summer when a Fullerton resident contacted police about suspicious messages appearing on his daughter's computer, Goodrich said. One message mimicked the appearance of a system message and read: "You should fix your internal sensor soon. If unsure what to do, try putting your laptop near hot steam for several minutes to clean the sensor."
> 
> The message led many victims to take their laptops into the bathroom while taking a shower, Goodrich said.


Maybe people need to know a little more about their computers than how to sign into Facebook before being allowed to own one?:sure:


----------



## EdJ (Jan 9, 2007)

The expression used to be 'a sucker born every minute'. With the new technology, I think it has grown to 'a sucker born every second'...... :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Sounds like this guy did more than enough to get himself arrested and convicted... but seriously... some of the victims sound kind of dumb and perhaps shouldn't be allowed to own a computer.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Sounds like this guy did more than enough to get himself arrested and convicted... but seriously... some of the victims sound kind of dumb and perhaps shouldn't be allowed to own a computer.


Better still, have the words "space for rent" tattooed on their foreheads.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> but seriously... some of the victims sound kind of dumb and perhaps shouldn't be allowed to own a computer.





MysteryMan said:


> Better still, have the words "space for rent" tattooed on their foreheads.


Yet people keep signing up for FB, Twitter and any other similar site they stumble across.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Yeah, blame the victims.

Most people aren't as techo-savvy as folks here. People are so dumb they shouldn't be allowed to own a computer? What an arrogant, elitist attitude. :nono2:

This guy was a predator. He deserves all the blame, not the users.

I'm not a musician. I work with musicians all the time. I feel like an idiot when they are discussing music theory. Maybe I'm so dumb I shouldn't be allowed to make a musical suggestions to them.

Oh, that's right. Each of us is dumb in many areas and smart in others. Even you, Stewart. :down:


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Built-in webcams are becoming a major issue. Not just in this type of case, but there are more cases where they are being enabled without the user knowing like the cases of the rental computer or the school district in Pennsylvania. The school is getting sued a second time after they showed one former student almost 4500 pictures that had been taken from his webcam.


----------



## EdJ (Jan 9, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> Yeah, blame the victims.
> 
> Most people aren't as techo-savvy as folks here. People are so dumb they shouldn't be allowed to own a computer? What an arrogant, elitist attitude. :nono2:
> 
> ...


Yea, the sleazebag that did the crime should do the time. But, I think that this is a case of giving the victim some of the blame. It is certainly no secret that computers can get one into trouble if they don't take some basic security steps. This is brought out all the time on the broad-market shows on TV. If one wants to use a tool that can inflict injury on them, they owe it to themselves to know the risks and how to use it. It is true with a tool such as a power saw and hammer as much as a computer. If a person is so lazy/ignorant/stupid not to find out how to protect their privacy and financial security when using a computer, they do deserved to be blamed.

BTW, when my wife got her laptop, the computer came with a camera in it. She wanted no part of that gadget, so she put a piece of tape over the lens.....


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Carl Spock said:


> Yeah, blame the victims.
> 
> Most people aren't as techo-savvy as folks here.


Cons and Scams can't work without victims. It isn't so much about being tech-savvy as it is about being self-aware.



dpeters11 said:


> Built-in webcams are becoming a major issue.


First thing I did on my new laptop with a built-in webcam was put a piece of black electrical tape over it. Doesn't really matter if it gets remotely activated, it can't possibly see anything.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

EdJ said:


> Yea, the sleazebag that did the crime should do the time. But, I think that this is a case of giving the victim some of the blame.
> 
> BTW, when my wife got her laptop, the computer came with a camera in it. She wanted no part of that gadget, so she put a piece of tape over the lens.....


This is about the same as the fast food store employees that were conned into pulling the fire alarms and discharging the fire suppression systems by some voice at the other end of a phone call claiming to be higher management. Seriously, if you don't have the presence of mind to verify who you're talking to before doing something like that, you don't need to be out in public alone.

Guess we posted the tape idea at the same time.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Carl Spock said:


> Yeah, blame the victims.
> 
> Most people aren't as techo-savvy as folks here. People are so dumb they shouldn't be allowed to own a computer? What an arrogant, elitist attitude. :nono2:
> 
> ...


Carl, in all fairness it's common knowledge that moisture/water and electronics are not a good mix. It's taught in our school system and printed in the user manuals that come with the product. It's one thing to lack computer skills. Being stupid is entirely different.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Let's keep in mind that these were Apple computers.
We can't expect the owners to be but so smart. :lol:


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It's quite easy for otherwise intelligent people to get fooled by someone that they consider an expert. People have tried this by expounding the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, then getting the person to sign a petition calling for it to be banned. They gladly sign, wondering why such a dangerous substance is so widely used. Sometimes signing carrying a bottle of water.

To me, putting a system board in the oven seems ridiculous to fix it, but it works for Earl.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

dpeters11 said:


> To me, putting a system board in the oven seems ridiculous to fix it, but it works for Earl.


But that actually has a plausible explanation with sound reasoning (whether or not it actually works).


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

A good scammer can make quite a bit sound plausible and reasonable.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> Carl, in all fairness it's common knowledge that moisture/water and electronics are not a good mix.





dpeters11 said:


> To me, putting a system board in the oven seems ridiculous to fix it, but it works for Earl.


In fixing smoke damaged electronics that's been through a fire, I know a service tech whose first step is to take it to a self service car wash. He removes the cases in the shop but otherwise drives his pick-up into the car wash, deliberately leaving the garage door up just so he can get wonderfully strange looks from passerbys as he rinses out the smoke residue and ash with the wand. He doesn't use soap.

He used to use his dishwasher at home until his wife put her foot down.

And we don't need to go down the "common knowledge" rabbit hole that recently derailed another thread.

I stand by my previous post.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I agree Carl.

People shouldn't have to know about computers to use one anymore than they need to know about their microwave or their TV. You buy it, you turn it on, you use it.

There's also no reason that the average person shouldn't be able to trust the repairman (expert) that fixes things for them. 

I had a repairman fix my fridge a few weeks ago. He gave me some instructions on things to do with the fridge after he left and I followed his advice. I didn't research it. I didn't question it.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Carl Spock said:


> In fixing smoke damaged electronics that's been through a fire, I know a service tech whose first step is to take it to a self service car wash. He removes the cases in the shop but otherwise drives his pick-up into the car wash, deliberately leaving the garage door up just so he can get wonderfully strange looks from passerbys as he rinses out the smoke residue and ash with the wand. He doesn't use soap.
> 
> He used to use his dishwasher at home until his wife put her foot down.
> 
> ...


Yes, but that's all common knowledge among anyone with a brain that you don't do that with power on, make sure everything is completely dry before reinstalling and testing and HOPE that no capacitor is holding a charge. Someone without a brain that would take a laptop into the shower is in another category. The same category of people who would put a potato wrapped in foil or a dozen eggs in a microwave.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> Yes, but that's all common knowledge among anyone with a brain that you don't do that with power on, make sure everything is completely dry before reinstalling and testing and HOPE that no capacitor is holding a charge. Someone without a brain that would take a laptop into the shower is in another category.


There's a difference between taking it into the shower and putting it in the bathroom while you shower. And while you and I would know not to do that, I can understand how many people would not. Heck, my wife keeps her Nook and her phone in the bathroom when she's getting ready in the morning (including the shower portion). No big deal.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Just looked up the specs for my PC in the operators manual. Under enviromental it gives the following. Temperature: Operating 50 degrees-95 degrees F. Relative Humidity: 20%-80% (noncondensing). Given that I doubt that I'll place my PC in the bathroom while I'm taking a warm shower to clean the sensor regardless who tells me. Unlike some people I'm intelligent enough to read the manuals and familiarize myself with the products I purchase. What the computer repairman did was wrong and criminal. What those dingalings did was plain stupid!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> Just looked up the specs for my PC in the operators manual. Under enviromental it gives the following. Temperature: Operating 50 degrees-95 degrees F. Relative Humidity: 20%-80% (noncondensing). Given that I doubt that I'll place my PC in the bathroom while I'm taking a warm shower


Maybe we'll all be like you someday. Memorizing every manual of everything we buy and strictly adhering to all the recommendations.

I guess I shouldn't be using my laptop on my deck in the summer, eh? Even though I've done so for many years?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> Maybe we'll all be like you someday. Memorizing every manual of everything we buy and strictly adhering to all the recommendations.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't be using my laptop on my deck in the summer, eh? Even though I've done so for many years?


My post wasn't aimed at you. But if the shoe fits, then wear it well!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> Yeah, blame the victims.
> 
> Most people aren't as techo-savvy as folks here. People are so dumb they shouldn't be allowed to own a computer? What an arrogant, elitist attitude. :nono2:
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you are missing the whole point.

Yes, the guy should be arrested and convicted for all the things he did... including essentially "bugging" those computers.

Had the photos been of people in their computer room sitting at their computer... I would agree not to put any blame on the victim... but they took their computers into areas and apparently paraded in front of said computer in various stages of undress. Why would you do that?

Also... IF you buy a computer you should know how to use it. I'm not saying you need to know how to fix it! But Webcams, for example, have a little light indicating when they are on! It takes all of a second to note that light... also not walk around in front of your computer naked!

A peeping Tom, for example, is illegal if he peeps through the crack of your window to see you... but if you have no curtains and parade in front of the window naked, you can't complain if the guy across the street can see you!

Some people just don't need computers if they can't operate them. Note I said "operate"... and not "fix" or "maintain"...

Yeah, I can trust the appliance repairman to repair my microwave... but *I* need to know how to use it! IF I can't operate the microwave (put stuff in, shut door, press buttons, etc.) then I don't need to own one!

We don't let our children play in the street because we know they aren't aware of all the potential dangers. No one says "it's the traffic's fault those 2 year olds were playing in the street and nearly got hit by a car"... You keep your kids out of the street, you keep them safe... and when they are older, you have taught them how to cross a street safely before you let them out on their own.

As I stated originally... I 100% blame the predator here, and he should be raked good for all that he did. But it is also true that nearly 100% of these victims could have completely avoided the compromising pictures by not taking their laptop into the bathroom and walking around in front of it naked and taking a shower. Seriously, who does that? Even if someone says to "steam" something... Why would you do that?

Don't buy a computer with a Web cam unless:

1. You know how to use it
2. You know how to tell if it is on
3. You know how to turn it off
4. You know where it is located and can cover it up IF you can't do steps 1-3.

Oh... and also don't eat glass or nails and don't touch a hot stove or hit your head with a hammer... and so forth.

I feel bad for the victims... but this is something completely avoidable if they knew how to operate the equipment they own.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> or hit your head with a hammer...


Wait, what? But, but how do I smooth out the welt after I bump into a doorframe?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Sorry, but you are missing the whole point.


I got your point.

It's three, actually. One, people should know how to use the electronic equipment they own. Two, people shouldn't use it in strange ways or areas. Three, this creep is a scumbucket.

I just don't agree with you on points one or two. More specifically, to expect either is unrealistic.

Thirty years of selling consumer electronics at retail taught me most folks don't have the slightest idea of how their stuff works. They view their electronics as an appliance, like their refrigerator. Put your food in and it stays cold. Power up your stereo and listen to music. Turn on your computer and it gives you the Internet.

If I was going to blame folks for being ignorant about using their electronics, or using it in strange ways, I never would have enjoyed work. (Have you ever seen a string Christmas lights in the back window of a car, hooked up to a car amp? With the right amp, they'll pulse with the music. A customer taught me that trick. It's pretty cool.) I've done more electronics training of folks than you'll ever do. But I also accepted that back in the VCR days, half the people never recorded on their VCR and over 70% never made a timer recording. It's just the way it was.

Ignorant and inappropriate use of consumer electronics is par for the course.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Carl Spock said:


> I got your point.
> 
> It's three, actually. One, people should know how to use the electronic equipment they own. Two, people shouldn't use it in strange ways or areas. Three, this creep is a scumbucket.


Ok... so you are getting my points... though I would have ordered them with the creep being point #1 since I have always acknowledged what he did was deplorable.



Carl Spock said:


> I just don't agree with you on points one or two. More specifically, to expect either is unrealistic.


Why? Because most people are giving up?

Since when did it become unrealistic to expect people to know how to use tools?



Carl Spock said:


> Thirty years of selling consumer electronics at retail taught me most folks don't have the slightest idea of how their stuff works.


I wish I could disagree with you on this point... but I can't. You're spot on... most people don't seem to have a grasp of what they are buying... but there's a difference between understanding it and using it.

I don't know all of the inner workings of my car, but I can drive it and put gas in it and generally keep it on the road and safe from accidents... and no one had to tell me it was a bad idea to talk on the phone, shave, apply makeup, etc. while driving.

While I'm on the driving analogy... why do we hold people responsible for drinking and driving? I mean, by your analogy, most people don't understand technology or how to use it properly... and lots of people drink... so why do we expect people not to drink and drive? It isn't their fault, right? It's the beer company's fault for making a product that can be consumed before driving.

But wait... we try and educate people about the effects of alcohol... and then caution them about drinking and driving... and then when they are caught drinking and driving we punish them in some way. So, hey... they are responsible for decisions they make in operating machinery that they don't always understand!



Carl Spock said:


> They view their electronics as an appliance, like their refrigerator. Put your food in and it stays cold. Power up your stereo and listen to music. Turn on your computer and it gives you the Internet.


Ok... so we don't have any expectations on people using appliances?

We do tell them to close the door on the fridge, right? And that if they don't, it might not work... might use more electricity... and may severely shorten its life? And if a person wasn't using that fridge properly, and something happened... they would be responsible, right?

If someone scratches their CDs... they can't expect to keep getting free ones just because they "don't understand" how their stereo system works to play CD, right? We do expect them to know how to put the CD in the stereo to play it, right? It matters which side is up, and so forth...

We do have expectations of people being able to comprehend the basic use of their appliances, even if they don't understand the technology going on inside.

Operation of a computer should be no different. IF you buy a Web cam, you need to be able to know how to turn it on, turn it off, and be able to tell whether it is on or off. How are they going to be able to use it at all if they can't operate these basic functions?



Carl Spock said:


> I've done more electronics training of folks than you'll ever do. But I also accepted that back in the VCR days, half the people never recorded on their VCR and over 70% never made a timer recording. It's just the way it was.


Yeah... but they must have at least known how to put a tape in the VCR and press play. IF they weren't recording and weren't playing then what was the point?



Carl Spock said:


> Ignorant and inappropriate use of consumer electronics is par for the course.


Yes... this is true... but if you hurt yourself or in the case of these people, end up with pictures of yourself on the internet because you placed your computer in a location where it really doesn't belong anyway and walked/showered in front of it naked... then you have to ask yourself... even IF that perv hadn't been spying on you... maybe your mom or your neighbor or your friend could have been watching you if you forgot and left a chat session open.

This is what I'm saying. The perv broke laws... but his success required stupidity on the part of the end-user... stupidity that likely would result in those same people being surprised to find out their mom, friend, neighbor, whomever they last chatted with was still seeing them through the Web cam.... so catching the perv stops the perv... but selling computers to people who have no clue how to operate them guarantees this will happen again, and the next time there might not be a perv planting a bug... the computer owner might be the one who activates the Web cam on his own.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Operation of a computer should be no different. IF you buy a Web cam, you need to be able to know how to turn it on, turn it off, and be able to tell whether it is on or off. How are they going to be able to use it at all if they can't operate these basic functions?


You're making a huge leap from all of your other analogies to this one. First, many laptops come with a webcam built in, so they're not necessarily buying a web cam. Second, when it is built in, many may never even use it (my wifes laptop has a webcam built in and I know for a fact she's never used it). Should they notice that there's a little light next to it when it's on? Maybe, but if they've never used it, how would they know?

There's a little light on my laptop (I don't have a webcam) that lights up all the time (it's a number 9 inside a lock). I have no idea what it is. I could probably look it up, but it's not a big deal to me.

It's not hard to imagine that many (most) users of laptops wouldn't think twice to do what some of these folks did. As I mentioned earlier, it's not like they were taking it into the shower with them. Some (and we have no idea how many) apparently took it into the bathroom while they showered. Again, so what? There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm sure my laptop (or my wifes) has been in the bathroom at one time or another when we were showering. Nothing wrong with that. You all make it sound like they ran the hot water for an hour creating a sauna. Does the article say that? No, just more jumping to conclusions by the geek squad.

They (and again, for all we know it might have been less than a handful of people) took it into the bathroom - nothing wrong with that. They also (and others) apparently didn't notice the little light next to the camera - nothing wrong with that either. The computer has lots of lights, and we don't even know if they were looking directly at the laptop when any of this occurred. More jumping to conclusions.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Gee. I didn't mean to start a heated debate. But since there is one, I'll join in. :sure:

I'm pretty sure no one here disagrees that this repair guy is a scumbag. And in terms of the predation involved I would never blame the victims. Perhaps I was being a little to flippant when I said in the OP "Maybe people need to know a little more about their computers than how to sign into Facebook before being allowed to own one?"

The viewpoint I intended to communicate is based on sound information, however. A computer hooked up to the internet is a personal privacy problem waiting to happen. The camera is not the only problem. Daily we have headline after headline about privacy issues related to the internet.

Most people are not complete nitwits about their appliances. I'm sure someone somewhere might have tried to dry their wet pet in a microwave. But overall, this isn't a problem we see frequently.

An internet connected computer is another issue. Unlike a refrigerator, people use these computers to interface with the world. As some of you know, I'm paranoid. But that does not mean the world isn't a hazardous place.

Computers deserve more respect as an interface to the world than we generally give them. We should know a little more about how they work than we do our refrigerators in order to properly operate them. They may even deserve the kind of consideration we give to operating our cars.

I cannot believe any of the women involved would have taken a video camera with the ability to send a streaming picture around the world, turned it on, and then carried into the bathroom while they took a shower.

What I understand from the story is that either (a) they did not understand their computers were indeed a video camera with the ability to send a streaming picture around the world or (b) they did understand their computers were indeed a video camera with the ability to send a streaming picture around the world and proceeded to carry it into the bathroom. Either case is troubling.

I'd be willing to bet none of them would try to dry their pet in the microwave. So I don't understand why this happened.:nono2:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I'm getting a huge (not hugh) blow of hot air off this thread. I'm using it to dry out my laptop...been using it as a boat anchor.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> You're making a huge leap from all of your other analogies to this one. First, many laptops come with a webcam built in, so they're not necessarily buying a web cam. Second, when it is built in, many may never even use it (my wifes laptop has a webcam built in and I know for a fact she's never used it). Should they notice that there's a little light next to it when it's on? Maybe, but if they've never used it, how would they know?
> 
> There's a little light on my laptop (I don't have a webcam) that lights up all the time (it's a number 9 inside a lock). I have no idea what it is. I could probably look it up, but it's not a big deal to me.


That's actually part of my point. IF you don't even know your computer came with a webcam, you have no business buying it. As phrelin just said, it's a privacy issue waiting to happen.

I feel like I have to keep reiterating that the predator deserves everything he gets as punishment... but virtually all of the violations were avoidable if people just knew they had a web cam in their computer and how to make sure it is off.

So... I could sit and whine all day about how the burglar came into my home and stole my stuff while I was asleep... or I could use the locks on my door to lock him out and make it more difficult for him to steal stuff from me. The thief is still a thief, but I didn't do myself any favors if I left my door open... and I surely couldn't argue "but I didn't know I had locks on my door, or how to use them."

People shouldn't be buying computers if they don't even know it comes with a camera.

Seriously... we just had a discussion about how people were buying those barbie (or whatever) toys that came with a webcam and people were able to spy on kids... and everyone agreed you shouldn't buy a toy that comes with a webcam and just leave it in your kid's room.

Suddenly we now think it is "too much to expect" an adult with a computer to similarly know about the web cam it has and know if it is on or not when they bring it into the shower with them?

IF we can't have that basic level of expectation... then we are doomed as a species.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> but virtually all of the violations were avoidable if people


... weren't so gullible.

Or so I keep trying to get across not only here, but in life. It takes two to tango. Every scam must have at least two people, a con and a mark. If there is no mark, the scam can't work. If none of these women fell for the 'steam cleaning' line, the con wouldn't have any pictures to drool over.

It isn't about whether the web cam is on or off or even there. It's about awareness and using common sense.

Same for all the phishing emails and other scams both on and off the web.

If no one had ever fallen for the Nigerian scam, it would have died out within a few months, yet here we are years later and people are STILL falling for it.

How many people have fallen for the Irish Lottery scam over the last few decades? Or the chain letters that proclaim gloom and doom if you don't send out 20 copies?

Geeze, we still have people falling for the rapture/end of the world scam.

It isn't about knowing how to use a computer or microwave or television. It's about knowing how to use that thing on your shoulders between your ears.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Trevor Harwell should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As for his victims I repeat what I stated before. The words 'Space for Rent" should be tattooed on their foreheads.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's actually part of my point. IF you don't even know your computer came with a webcam, you have no business buying it.


Can you point me to where I said people buy a laptop without knowing it has a webcam??

Maybe the problem is that some of these peoples computer skills are on par with your reading skills. We're not all perfect, are we?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Can you point me to where I said people buy a laptop without knowing it has a webcam??
> 
> Maybe the problem is that some of these peoples computer skills are on par with your reading skills. We're not all perfect, are we?


From your earlier post:



spartanstew said:


> First, many laptops come with a webcam built in, so they're not necessarily buying a web cam. Second, when it is built in, many may never even use it (my wifes laptop has a webcam built in and I know for a fact she's never used it). Should they notice that there's a little light next to it when it's on? Maybe, *but if they've never used it, how would they know*?


So I'll ask... what are you saying they don't know?

Are you saying they don't know there is a web cam?

Are you saying they know there is a web cam but don't know how to tell if it is in use or how to turn it off?

Your post was not clear... so there are different ways to interpret it.

But either way... IF they don't know the web cam is there or simply don't know how to use (or not use) it... it still falls on the consumer to know what it is they are buying.

I have never used the web cam on my iMac, for example... but I know it is there... and I know when it is on (if it gets turned on accidentally for example) and I know how to turn it off OR at least put something in front of it so that it can't take pictures I don't want it to take.

You seem to be arguing that not only are people stupid (they don't know how to use stuff) but that it should be ok to be stupid and nothing is ever your fault even if you could avoid lots of heartache by being less stupid.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> So I'll ask... what are you saying they don't know?


They would have no way of knowing that a certain light on the laptop means that the webcam is on if they've never used the webcam. Just like the example I gave of my laptop. I have 5 lights on my laptop (and docking station). I know what 4 of them mean, not the fifth. Doesn't matter to me.

You're also assuming that these people saw the light. The perpetrator had remote access to their web cams. How do you know he wasn't turning it off whenever they'd look towards it? How do you know they even noticed the light if he didn't? I don't look at my laptop every time I enter the room it's in. I would imagine most people don't.

My point is that you (and others) are making a lot of assumptions in order to bash some of these victims. Did some of them do stupid things? Maybe, but we have no way of knowing based on that article. Yet, many jump to criticize them based on ASSUMPTIONS.

Do we know any of them saw the light on the webcam?  NO
Do we know that any of them took the laptops into the bathroom and proceeded to take a long hot shower? NO
Do we know that there was any way for any of them to detect a problem? NO

Just because you know everything about your computer doesn't mean that everyone does, nor should they. I doubt everyone knows what all the lights on their DVR are for either. They just want it to record shows that they can watch. There's no reason for them to know.

You can say a laptop is different, because it''s connected to the www and therefore can be a danger. Perhaps, but that doesn't get by the fact that the vast majority just buy a laptop to get on the internet. If it doesn't work, they call someone to fix it.

If every individual in America understood their computers and laptops as much as you seem to think they should, half the members of this community would be out of work.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Computers are different than most any other piece of technology. They are inherently confusing.

A nine year old can drive a car. The kid won't be able to drive well, and might crash soon down the road, but just by watching mom and dad drive, a child with no training can start a car, put it in gear, press down on the pedal and drive. And yet a computer novice, even if they've been watching others use computers for years, will be lucky to get a computer to switch off the desktop screen without some training.

Back in the 1980s, with the introduction of the VCR, the consumer electronics industry went beyond the ability of the Average Joe to use their piece without training. It's been downhill from there.

Stewart, you keep saying it's the responsibility of the consumer to know how their electronics work. I wish this was the case and it was that easy, but it isn't and it has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. My mother was considered remarkable by her friends because she could make timer recordings on her VCR. Her friends were college educated, successful, well-read women and they just couldn't get it. Smart by any standard, her friends couldn't figure out a VCR.

The consumer electronics industry - my industry - has decided more features trumps intuitive operation. A computer is the ultimate expression of that philosophy. 

It is an unfortunate decision. A computer could be easy to operate. Instead of a little light that says a webcam is on, the screen could be flashing a banner, telling people to hit the "N" key to turn the webcam off. But instead, we'd rather make people know what an unmarked, little light being on means, then have them call up a sub-menu, scan down, and click a box to turn the webcam on and off (or whatever the procedure is on an Apple computer). 

Now that's dumb. It isn't people that are stupid, it's computers.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I know this wasn't done in this case, but I have been wondering. Is it possible to disable the light with software? On a Mac forum, they say it's impossible, but wasn't sure if that was true.

And Spartanstew, as an FYI, that's your Numlock. Heck, I've been dealing with computers a long time, see a light on and it takes me a bit to realize its scroll lock.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Ah, number lock. Thank you. 

Since I never use the number keyboard (I use the numbers up top), I don't know if I would have noticed that/figured it out.

But now I'm down to 4 lights and I know what each of them are.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't own anything that I don't know how to use properly. I'm better at some things than other things... practice makes perfect and all that... and I can't fix everything I own when/if it breaks... but I know what things in my home are supposed to do and how to turn them on and off.

I can't fathom why it is acceptable, much less apparently encouraged by some, that it is "ok" for people to own things that they have no idea how to use properly.

Why would you even buy something if you either: Don't already know how to use it OR intend to learn how to use it once you purchase it... What's the point of owning a computer, for example, if you aren't going to learn how to operate it properly?

How do these people who can't tell if their webcam is on or off (or even if they have one) able to get on the internet in the first place? Based on the low expectations we are setting up here for the "average user" I'm amazed they can take a shower without hurting themselves, much less avoid being watched while doing so. Amazingly I have somehow managed to avoid being recorded by my computer while in a state of undress. I must be a genius!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm amazed they can take a shower without hurting themselves, much less avoid being watched while doing so.





> In 2008, an estimated 234,094 nonfatal bathroom injuries among persons aged ≥15 years were treated in U.S.
> 
> The precipitating events in 37.3% of injuries were bathing (excluding slipping while bathing), showering, or getting out of the tub or shower;


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6022a1.htm?s_cid=mm6022a1_w

You were saying? :sure:


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Per Webster: Stupid 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthlesss: a stupid or foolish person......the definition not only applies to Trevor Harwell's victims but some of the people on this thread as well.  Not being knowledgeable of a appliance one purchases and uses is a pretty lame excuse to use when something goes wrong. Why do you think they come with Operating Manuals and Product Information Guides? Hell, just look at some of the posts on this site where people are having problems with their receivers and are asking for help. In some cases they could have rectified the problem themselves had they read the Operators Manual that came with their receiver. It's one thing to be the victim of a crime when the situation is completely out of your control. It's another when one's stupidity is a major contributing factor!


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I can't fathom why it is acceptable, much less apparently encouraged by some, that it is "ok" for people to own things that they have no idea how to use properly.


They know how to use it well enough for their purpose.



> Why would you even buy something if you either: Don't already know how to use it OR intend to learn how to use it once you purchase it... What's the point of owning a computer, for example, if you aren't going to learn how to operate it properly?


If they had no intention of making a webchat, or ever using the webcam, why should they have to learn about that part of the computer? For years, I didn't have or need a home network and was ignorant as to how to set it up. I still have no idea of how to use the webcam in my laptop. I've never found a need to turn it on. I can build my own computer but I can't turn on the webcam. Does that make me stupid? No, just ignorant.

And *MysteryMan*, it was back in junior high shop class that the teacher taught me the difference between ignorant and stupid. He thought we all were ignorant. Only a few of us were stupid. :grin:



> How do these people who can't tell if their webcam is on or off (or even if they have one) able to get on the internet in the first place?


Easy. They learned enough about their computer to start the browser and surf the web.

Just like both MysteryMan and you can't understand how it would be possible to use a computer for just this limited purpose, I can't understand why you two are insisting that every owner of a computer must become an expert.

A lot of people have learned to cook only well enough to keep themselves fed. Should we insist everyone become a gourmet? Most people can only write well enough to communicate. Should they all be forced to become English majors? I can only garden well enough to not kill my plants. Do I need to be a naturalist to have a nice looking front yard?

It's not supid to learn just enough about a task to get by. In this complicated, multi-tasking world, that seems pretty smart to me.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Carl Spock said:


> They know how to use it well enough for their purpose.
> 
> If they had no intention of making a webchat, or ever using the webcam, why should they have to learn about that part of the computer? For years, I didn't have or need a home network and was ignorant as to how to set it up. I still have no idea of how to use the webcam in my laptop. I've never found a need to turn it on. I can build my own computer but I can't turn on the webcam. Does that make me stupid? No, just ignorant.
> 
> ...


Per Webster: Ignorant 1. Lacking education or knowledge. 2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake. 3. Unaware or uninformed......It's one thing to be ignorant of how to properly use a appliance. It's stupid not to familarize yourself with it before using it. That's what Owner Manuals and Product Information Guides are for. Try committing a crime and telling a judge you were "ignorant" of the fact that it was against the law (ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law). Trevor Harwell knew what he was doing was against the law. He gambled and lost. He wasn't ignorant, he was stupid. The same applies to the victims. They may have been ignorant on how to properly use a computer but were stupid for not familiarizing themselves and learning how to use a computer before operating one!


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Wait, what? But, but how do I smooth out the welt after I bump into a doorframe?


I know all about being taller than some doorframes--OUCH!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

As I stated before, we all strive to be as perfect as you Mystery Man. 

Memorizing every manual for everything ever purchased, understanding every feature of everything ever purchased (even the feature's you don't use). That's quite a feat.

You really expect people to understand every feature of camera's (for example) that they buy? EVERY single camera you can buy comes with features that hardly anybody wants. They want to aim it and take a picture. What's the difference? You really expect everyone to understand all the settings and how to adjust the aperture and the shutter priority mode and ISO speed? Do you know all of those on every camera you own? Doubt it.

I'm sure there's many things you own that you don't fully understand how to use, but your condescension is only surpassed by your own ignorance of the fact that people are different than you. The internet is a certainly a great place to try and prove your better than everyone else. I imagine it helps hide the painful highschool years spent alone in mom's basement unaccompanied by a female worth spying on. Revenge of the nerds, indeed.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Gee whiz guys. I started this thread and I didn't think it was all that important other than as a cautionary tale. Tone it down a little.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

^ What he said.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not losing any sleep over it... I'm just amazed that there are so many excuses to be made for people not taking a few minutes to familiarize themselves with their computers so that this cannot happen to them.

This could be a teaching moment... where people learn better to use their computers and avoid this happening to them... but instead basic operation of a web cam and computer has become synonymous with "expert" and rocket science somehow. That sounds like setting the bar for intelligence pretty low to me.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> As I stated before, we all strive to be as perfect as you Mystery Man.
> 
> Memorizing every manual for everything ever purchased, understanding every feature of everything ever purchased (even the feature's you don't use). That's quite a feat.
> 
> ...


Watch my fingers, I'm going to type slow just for you. I never said I am perfect nor did I say I or anyone else should memorize every manual that comes with everything they purchase. Your poor reading skills and lack of comprehesion are quite evident. Perhaps attending a course in adult education will bring you up to par.  What I did say is one should "familarize" themself with the appliances they purchase before using them. That's called common sense and that's why Owners Manuals and Product Information Guides are provided. Maybe if the dingalings who fell for Trevor Harwell's scam had done that they wouldn't be one of his victims. Actually it was Dad's basement. The last time I was there was when I was 17, just after graduating High School and just before I entered the Army. I made a career with the Army. Did three combat tours in Nam and finished with a combat tour in Desert Storm. Gave me little time to reflect on my highschool years. I retired from the Army when I was 42. I invested in income properties and was able to retire permanently before I was 50. I notice your still working. Even made your team attend a hour meeting on Memorial Day as you so proudly posted on another thread. That must of went over like a fart.  The bottom line is it takes intelligence and some common sense to prevent becoming a victim in a scam like Trevor Harwell's. You fall short on both counts!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not losing any sleep over it... I'm just amazed that there are so many excuses to be made for people not taking a few minutes to familiarize themselves with their computers so that this cannot happen to them.
> 
> This could be a teaching moment... where people learn better to use their computers and avoid this happening to them... but instead basic operation of a web cam and computer has become synonymous with "expert" and rocket science somehow. That sounds like setting the bar for intelligence pretty low to me.


+1


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not losing any sleep over it...


Nor I. Anybody who gets bent out of shape over a discussion on an Internet board should unplug their computer for the day, go out for a long walk and spend some time with family. There are more important things than DBSTalk.

In my case, I've found the discussion in this thread invigorating and have enjoyed the civil banter back and forth with MysteryMan, you and others. 



> This could be a teaching moment... where people learn better to use their computers and avoid this happening to them...


My problem, Stewart, is I had thirty years of teachable moments.

They were regarding stereos but it's the same difference. Many folks were like you (and me and MysteryMan), who want to know everything about their piece, would try to learn every trick and actually read the owner's manuals. But they are on the far right end of the bell curve. Other folks are like a good friend of mine who was told by his parents not to get too near an electrical outlet because sparks could jump out of it. That was the way he grew up. (Doug has done a good job of growing out of this ignorance and is now pretty good with computers.) I also remember a customer's wife who when I tried to teach her how to use her new Harmony remote, threw up her hands and walked out of the room. No, that's incorrect. She ran out. After that, if she wanted to do something with the home theater more than change channels, her husband or her kids had to do it. While she is an extreme example, you don't know the number of cheat sheets I made up to help people work their home theaters, knowing those notes would be lost in a bottom drawer, even though anything more than changing the volume and channel was challenging for them. Beyond the cheat sheets and the training after the sale, what would you have me do, Stewart? I had one elderly couple who lived 40 miles out of town. I probably made a half dozen trips to their house to help them when they got stuck working their home theater. I'm not making excuses. This is the reality of people and consumer electronics.

I wish everyone was on the far right end of the bell curve, like you. It would have made my life much easier. I also would have sold more stereos because an educated consumer is one who wants the latest and the greatest. But you don't know how many customers who, when daylight savings time started, would drive to my store and I or one of my salesman would have to go out to their car and reset the clock on their Alpine car stereo. That was a teachable moment. We'd show them how to do it in the future. Most people appreciated the lesson and could adjust their clock from then on. But there were other customers who would be back in the fall, asking us to set their clock back an hour. One of them is my best friend. He refuses to learn how to set his clock. By now, he's used to it being off half the year because I refuse to reset it anymore. You're right. He should learn how to set it. He's plenty smart enough. I can tell him to go to Hell but I can't tell that to a customer.

I, too, am done with this thread. I've said all I can say about this subject. If I can make one last over-generalization, I found many folks wished technology stopped with what they learned in their teens and twenties. After that, they struggled to learn how things worked. Fortunately, that is not true of other people. In general, people on this board want new and different technology, and enjoy learning how it works. But we aren't the norm. My experience is that the majority of people will learn only enough about their machines to get by. It's the way they are, their nature. I know of no teachable moment that can change that.

Trust me, I tried.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I actually know what you mean... unfortunately.

I tell the story of a guy I knew... so actually it is his story...

He was working in a store, selling computers... and one day a customer called. She was having troubles printing. This guy went through all kinds of configuration stuff on her computer... then he thought of something... he remembered selling her the computer and she didn't buy a printer that day.. so he asked her about the printer... if it was connected, did she have paper.

Turns out, she was holding paper up to the screen... and expecting something to happen. Sadly, this is a true story.

I've long argued that the affordability of computers and somewhat ease-of-use has setup a false sense of intelligence in many, and resulted in a lot of people owning and using computers that aren't qualified to operate them.

Thinking about driving a car... you don't give your kids the keys until you know he can operate it... you teach him, and in most states they are required to take a course and get a certificate before getting a permit or license to drive from the state.

But computers... now that they are cheap... everyone owns one. And some cause damage by using them improperly...

Not everyone should own sharp knives... not everyone should own a computer. I knew kids growing up that if they kept on the path they were own, I would have argued they didn't need to be anywhere near a computer where they could wreak havoc by accidentally doing all sorts of things.

Think for a moment... maybe the person who can't operate that computer... who thought it was a good idea to give it a steam bath... and didn't know about the web cam... maybe that person works at your bank and is responsible for entering/checking data! Or maybe they work for an insurance company processing claims... or a hospital or other medical company entering records... and imagine their lack of computer operating skills there having a more negative impact than naked pics of them being taken by a pervert!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

One of the frustrations of being savvy is dealing with those who are not. People who can't figure out how to use tabs while word processing and spacebar across to line things up on each line are part of the non-savvy ... and there have been much worse examples in this thread.

But there are things I don't know ... and many times I would not want to do the job these non-savvys do for a living because in those areas I'm not savvy. Within my area of expertise I'm pretty good ... within their area of expertise they are pretty good. NOBODY knows it all and only a total fool believes that they know it all.

Even with the known things we become comfortable. Unless you are paranoid do you think about the cameras around your home? It is hard to buy a cell phone without a camera (or TWO) on it. Do you ALWAYS make sure the cell camera is pointing away from you when changing clothes? Does your spouse and children? Or do you assume that your phone camera isn't hackable?

Yes, we're savvy. Some of us are paranoid. We assume that if there is a microphone present that it is on and transmitting our secrets to the ones that we want to share them with the least. We cover the cameras on our laptops (do we also disable the microphone permanently?). But much of what we know has come from other's mistakes or perhaps devious thoughts of how we can exploit a weakness in a system.

So we now have a cautionary tale to remind us that a camera can be live at any time (just like a microphone). Don't do anything in front of either of those that you don't want to share.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

In that case, I'd like to apologize to everyone for what I did last Thursday night at about 9:30. I'm usually not that messy.

I knew I shouldn't have downloaded the DBSTalk ap onto my phone. :nono2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

This discussion also brings up an interesting side-bar... which is the downside of having so many all-in-one devices.

It is getting harder to buy a phone that doesn't have a camera... and as noted, harder to buy a computer that doesn't come with a camera.

So as more and more things come bundled together, you increase the odds of there being some component of that all-in-one that the end-user didn't want or doesn't know how to use and isn't willing to put forth the effort to learn about.

Things like the original article in this thread would be much less likely, I suspect, if the Web cam in question was a third-party add-on that the customer had to buy separately and install... Granted, it doesn't remove all the pitfalls, but it increases the awareness of the webcam if you had to install it vs it just being there.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> nor did I say I or anyone *else should memorize every manual *that comes with everything they purchase. ....What I did say is one should "familarize" themself with the appliances they purchase before using them.


So, they could familiarize themselves with the manual, and which light means the web cam is on, but a year later having not used the webcam, unless they've memorized it, how would they remember??

The only way to satisfy your definition of "familiarize", is to indeed memorize, lest they get chastised by you for forgetting.

Even though, as I've said before, and you keep failing to address, we have no proof that anyone even saw the light on on their laptop while it was being used. *No proof at all that anyone of these people did anything that even you or I might not have done*, but yet you still feel the need to criticize them. That's a YOU problem.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> So, they could familiarize themselves with the manual, and which light means the web cam is on, but a year later having not used the webcam, unless they've memorized it, how would they remember??
> 
> The only way to satisfy your definition of "familiarize", is to indeed memorize, lest they get chastised by you for forgetting.


I know you weren't responding to my post... but I had 2 cents to offer anyway 

Are you saying that most people are so dumb that they couldn't remember something they read about their computer?

You seem to be painting a very bleak picture of humanity and their ability to assimilate long-term knowledge.

IF your assessment is true, then I'm even more sure that these people shouldn't be allowed to own a computer. IF they can't retain knowledge any better than that... who knows what else they are doing to endanger themselves on a regular basis.



spartanstew said:


> Even though, as I've said before, and you keep failing to address, we have no proof that anyone even saw the light on on their laptop while it was being used. *No proof at all that anyone of these people did anything that even you or I might not have done*, but yet you still feel the need to criticize them. That's a YOU problem.


Here's what we do have proof of...

1. The predator was in their homes to "fix" their computers, and while there he installed software that allowed him to control their computers remotely AND operate the web cam in order to send himself pictures.

2. Some of these people took the computer into the bathroom.

3. Some of these people were naked in front of the camera when it was recording.

Without assuming anything... here's what I can say:

1. If you are never naked in front of your computer, then you will never have naked pictures taken of you on your computer without your knowledge by someone who has installed something on your computer to do that.

2. If you aren't sure whether you have a web cam, or if it is on, or if you are the kind of person who forgets such things easily... then you should probably be careful when and where you become naked.

I think it is safe to say that the old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" applies here. Every one of these victims could have spent less than 10 minutes familiarizing themselves with their computer as far as the web cam goes... and less than a minute to determine if the camera was on and to make sure it was off or obscured before being naked around it.

It's not about paranoia... it's common sense. Like all these people who keep taking pictures of themselves (see the recent Anthony Weiner story) and then sending them to someone... then not understanding why those pictures go viral and people you didn't want to know are privy suddenly to your privates.

Don't take the pictures, then no one can have them.

Don't be naked in front of your computer with a web cam + internet connection, and no one can take pictures using your computer.

There are enough perverts who actually will plant hidden cameras while in your home for some reason... and those you wouldn't have any reason to suspect were there! So please don't help the perv out by allowing him to use the camera you should know about against you!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> So, they could familiarize themselves with the manual, and which light means the web cam is on, but a year later having not used the webcam, unless they've memorized it, how would they remember??
> 
> The only way to satisfy your definition of "familiarize", is to indeed memorize, lest they get chastised by you for forgetting.
> 
> Even though, as I've said before, and you keep failing to address, we have no proof that anyone even saw the light on on their laptop while it was being used. *No proof at all that anyone of these people did anything that even you or I might not have done*, but yet you still feel the need to criticize them. That's a YOU problem.


A normal, healthy human brain is remarkable. It has the ability to "process" and "retain" information faster and longer then a computer. Short of being underdeveloped, damaged, or ravaged by disease the human brain will continue to "process" and "retain" information through it's lifecycle. Given this your posts on this thread's topic are absurd to say the least and causes one to wonder if your brain is underdeveloped, damaged, or ravaged by disease.


----------



## Lucavex (Apr 26, 2011)

Boy, so much vigor in this thread! I suppose I may weigh in.

I'll even play both sides here.

First, yeah the guy is a scumbag and he deserves everything he gets.

Second, SOME of the blame has GOT to go to these people who paraded around in front of their webcams naked. As someone in the thread previously stated, it takes two to tango.

Now, to address many parts of Stewart's analogies. You claim to know how to "operate" a car. But, if you talk to a racecar driver, you knowledge of driving and vehicle maintenance will seem infantile and laughable. Are you familiar with the specifics of downforce? Do you know how to hit the apex of a turn? Do you know what Thrust-to-Weight ratio is, and why it's important? Even if YOU do, 90% of average drivers do not. However, someone familiar with those things would consider them to basics of owning any vehicle. Hell, most drivers don't know why their tachometer's number markings turn red after a specific number. Yet, I consider knowing the redline of my vehicle to be a basic of car ownership. Not knowing doesn't make another person stupid, or even ignorant. They can operate the car to their satisfaction, be generally safe and accident free, and that's enough for them.

Or, let's take your microwave analogy. I don't know what the various settings of my "defrost" ability does. Hell, There are so many settings on that thing for defrost that I'd given up trying to understand it. I can repair any computer blind-folded, I know my way around Linux, I can even program. But darned if that defrost menu isn't a mystical tome in another language. What do all the power settings do? What's the difference between fish, poultry, and meat? It's so confusing I just press "meat" "high" and then pick a time. Is that the proper use of my microwave? Probably not. Does it do what I WANT it to do? Heck yeah. Am I ignorant or stupid for not pouring over my microwave's manual and learning what all those freakin' settings are for? That's up for you to decide.


----------



## mystic7 (Dec 9, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> This is about the same as the fast food store employees that were conned into pulling the fire alarms and discharging the fire suppression systems by some voice at the other end of a phone call claiming to be higher management. Seriously, if you don't have the presence of mind to verify who you're talking to before doing something like that, you don't need to be out in public alone.
> 
> Guess we posted the tape idea at the same time.


Didn't they get that employee to also smash all of the windows? As dumb as that was, the one that takes the cake is the one where "HQ" calls this assistant manager at a McDonalds and gets them to bring in a teenage female employee and force her to strip naked to check for theft, and not only does the guy do it, but the girl acquiesces. How stupid do you have to be to strip naked just because your "boss" tells you to? And it was all caught on security camera. This goes beyond someone not knowing about computer scams. This is just common sense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> There are enough perverts who actually will plant hidden cameras while in your home for some reason... and those you wouldn't have any reason to suspect were there! So please don't help the perv out by allowing him to use the camera you should know about against you!


 Yes we all know that. Now we just have to get the message on to those who are not savvy. and watch out for the things we don't understand.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

mystic7 said:


> Didn't they get that employee to also smash all of the windows? As dumb as that was, the one that takes the cake is the one where "HQ" calls this assistant manager at a McDonalds and gets them to bring in a teenage female employee and force her to strip naked to check for theft, and not only does the guy do it, but the girl acquiesces. How stupid do you have to be to strip naked just because your "boss" tells you to? And it was all caught on security camera. This goes beyond someone not knowing about computer scams. This is just common sense.


Least we forget there are those on this thread who do not believe common sense should be part of the equation.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

To those suggesting that fault lies with the victims for not reading their manuals....

Have you ever seen a manual that says "*Warning, your web cam can be remotely turned on*"? I haven't. I'd bet that at least some of these victims DID read the manual, knew they had a webcam, and maybe even knew how to use it. But they didn't think that someone who they had trusted to come into their home and fix their computer could do something like this.

Familiarizing yourself with your computer and becoming familiar with every bad thing that could be done using it are two different things. In my mind, this situation falls outside the usual common sense scenarios when it comes to computers. This isn't a spyware program they got from opening the wrong attachment. This didn't happen because they were careless with their passwords, or used password that were easy to guess. They got scammed by someone who they trusted as a "professional", and I refuse to lay the blame at their feet for that one.


----------



## Lucavex (Apr 26, 2011)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> To those suggesting that fault lies with the victims for not reading their manuals....
> 
> Have you ever seen a manual that says "*Warning, your web cam can be remotely turned on*"? I haven't. I'd bet that at least some of these victims DID read the manual, knew they had a webcam, and maybe even knew how to use it. But they didn't think that someone who they had trusted to come into their home and fix their computer could do something like this.
> 
> Familiarizing yourself with your computer and becoming familiar with every bad thing that could be done using it are two different things. In my mind, this situation falls outside the usual common sense scenarios when it comes to computers. This isn't a spyware program they got from opening the wrong attachment. This didn't happen because they were careless with their passwords, or used password that were easy to guess. They got scammed by someone who they trusted as a "professional", and I refuse to lay the blame at their feet for that one.


People may hate me for saying this, but I really have ZERO pity for anyone who honestly believed that "The only way to fix your sensor is take your open laptop with you into the bathroom and shower with it." Seriously? For real? Man, I need a list of the ladies that fell for this. I've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska I'd love to talk to them about.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Lucavex said:


> People may hate me for saying this, but I really have ZERO pity for anyone who honestly believed that "The only way to fix your sensor is take your open laptop with you into the bathroom and shower with it." Seriously? For real? Man, I need a list of the ladies that fell for this. I've got some oceanfront property in Nebraska I'd love to talk to them about.


But that's not exactly what people did. I would agree with you if they actually took it into the shower, but that's a lot different than putting it on the bathroom counter.

False Authority Syndrome does happen.


----------



## Lucavex (Apr 26, 2011)

dpeters11 said:


> But that's not exactly what people did. I would agree with you if they actually took it into the shower, but that's a lot different than putting it on the bathroom counter.
> 
> False Authority Syndrome does happen.


Open, on the bathroom counter, or toilet seat, or whatever, facing the shower, powered on.

I mean, I can forgive the obvious problem that most people learn as children now, and that's "Electronics + Water/Steam/Vapor/Milk/Soda/Apple Juice = Bad Idea"

But who in their right mind believes that a technician, who has magical remote access to your system, REALLY needs the laptop to be in a hot steamy bathroom, open, facing the shower, and powered on?

Come on. Yeah, the dude's a perv and he'll likely go away for a long time, then get the dubious honor of telling all his neighbors what he did when he finally gets out and moves to a new place.

But these chicks have gullible written ALL over them. It takes two people to run a successful scam. The scammer, and a gullible person who will believe anything you say if you say it with enough _conviction_.

Yes, they're victims and it's awful, but they're gullible as hell to believe that crap.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Well, he never actually said that, nor did his prompt, according to the article. It said to put it near hot steam. It never said it needed to be turned on, or facing a particular way.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Well, he never actually said that, nor did his prompt, according to the article. It said to put it near hot steam. It never said it needed to be turned on, or facing a particular way.


The message also mimicked a "system message", according to the article. It did not appear to these women as a suggestion from the technician. They didn't get a popup that say "Hey, ladies, take your computer in the shower with you, pretty please". It was much less suggestive than that - the women made the jump to placing it in the bathroom while they showered.

And we don't know that the photos were "in the shower" necessarily. They could have placed it on the floor in the corner of the bathroom where there was nothing to see, and then put it on their dresser, or their desk, while they were dressing, thinking that the "sensor had been cleaned now". The article only says that he had pictures "undressed, or changing clothes".

It's a little bit of a leap to assume that they had it on their counter, in the bathroom, opened and powered on, and facing their shower. Given that many of them were college students, it's quite possible that the victims were not even the computer owners, if the computers were in fact on in the bathrooms (I know that some dorms at Biola have community bathrooms - I don't know if they all do)


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Are you saying that most people are so dumb that they couldn't remember something they read about their computer?


I'm saying they can't remember EVERYTHING. Can you? Reading a manual that might be several hundred pages and you remember everything? Doubt it. You remember what's important to you. An included webcam could very well not be important to many.



Stewart Vernon said:


> 1. The predator was in their homes to "fix" their computers, and while there he installed software that allowed him to control their computers remotely AND operate the web cam in order to send himself pictures.
> 
> 2. Some of these people took the computer into the bathroom.
> 
> 3. Some of these people were naked in front of the camera when it was recording.


1. True
2. True, as have I
3. True, I'm sure I've been in various stages of undress in front of my laptop and or desktop too. So what?



Stewart Vernon said:


> Without assuming anything... here's what I can say:
> 
> 1. If you are never naked in front of your computer, then you will never have naked pictures taken of you on your computer without your knowledge by someone who has installed something on your computer to do that.
> 
> ...


Seriously? My laptop (and desktop) is always open and always on. I'm sure there's been occasion when I've walked by it while I was getting dressed (and yes, even naked). Sometimes it's in the bedroom, sometimes it's in my office, sometimes it's on the kitchen counter. It's just another piece of furniture in my house. And I certainly don't look at it every time I walk by it to see if the camera is on. Now, I would definitely notice if it was on (by then it would be too late anyway), but I can certainly see how others might not - especially if they've never used it and aren't familiar with that light.

I guess I could live my life paranoid and never walk around in the nude and sweep my house for bugs every week, but I choose not to (as I'm sure 99% of the population does too).



MysteryMan said:


> A normal, healthy human brain is remarkable. It has the ability to "process" and "retain" information faster and longer then a computer. Short of being underdeveloped, damaged, or ravaged by disease the human brain will continue to "process" and "retain" information through it's lifecycle. Given this your posts on this thread's topic are absurd to say the least and causes one to wonder if your brain is underdeveloped, damaged, or ravaged by disease.


Any time you want to go head to head on an IQ test, just say the word. I'm also smart enough to know that not everyone processes information the same way - clearly you're not.

Nobody processes and retains everything they read. Nobody. What's important to you is not important to others. That's the big lesson you've failed to learn in your life.



Lucavex said:


> Now, to address many parts of Stewart's analogies. You claim to know how to "operate" a car. But, if you talk to a racecar driver, you knowledge of driving and vehicle maintenance will seem infantile and laughable. Are you familiar with the specifics of downforce? Do you know how to hit the apex of a turn? Do you know what Thrust-to-Weight ratio is, and why it's important? Even if YOU do, 90% of average drivers do not. However, someone familiar with those things would consider them to basics of owning any vehicle. Hell, most drivers don't know why their tachometer's number markings turn red after a specific number. Yet, I consider knowing the redline of my vehicle to be a basic of car ownership. Not knowing doesn't make another person stupid, or even ignorant. They can operate the car to their satisfaction, be generally safe and accident free, and that's enough for them.
> 
> Or, let's take your microwave analogy. I don't know what the various settings of my "defrost" ability does. Hell, There are so many settings on that thing for defrost that I'd given up trying to understand it. I can repair any computer blind-folded, I know my way around Linux, I can even program. But darned if that defrost menu isn't a mystical tome in another language. What do all the power settings do? What's the difference between fish, poultry, and meat? It's so confusing I just press "meat" "high" and then pick a time. Is that the proper use of my microwave? Probably not. Does it do what I WANT it to do? Heck yeah. Am I ignorant or stupid for not pouring over my microwave's manual and learning what all those freakin' settings are for? That's up for you to decide.


EXACTLY



Sharkie_Fan said:


> To those suggesting that fault lies with the victims for not reading their manuals....
> 
> Have you ever seen a manual that says "*Warning, your web cam can be remotely turned on*"? I haven't. I'd bet that at least some of these victims DID read the manual, knew they had a webcam, and maybe even knew how to use it. But they didn't think that someone who they had trusted to come into their home and fix their computer could do something like this.
> 
> Familiarizing yourself with your computer and becoming familiar with every bad thing that could be done using it are two different things. In my mind, this situation falls outside the usual common sense scenarios when it comes to computers. This isn't a spyware program they got from opening the wrong attachment. This didn't happen because they were careless with their passwords, or used password that were easy to guess. They got scammed by someone who they trusted as a "professional", and I refuse to lay the blame at their feet for that one.


EXACTLY AGAIN



Sharkie_Fan said:


> The message also mimicked a "system message", according to the article. It did not appear to these women as a suggestion from the technician. They didn't get a popup that say "Hey, ladies, take your computer in the shower with you, pretty please". It was much less suggestive than that - the women made the jump to placing it in the bathroom while they showered.
> 
> And we don't know that the photos were "in the shower" necessarily. They could have placed it on the floor in the corner of the bathroom where there was nothing to see, and then put it on their dresser, or their desk, while they were dressing, thinking that the "sensor had been cleaned now". The article only says that he had pictures "undressed, or changing clothes".
> 
> It's a little bit of a leap to assume that they had it on their counter, in the bathroom, opened and powered on, and facing their shower. Given that many of them were college students, it's quite possible that the victims were not even the computer owners, if the computers were in fact on in the bathrooms (I know that some dorms at Biola have community bathrooms - I don't know if they all do)


EXACTLY A THIRD TIME.

Nice to see some are actually using logic and not jumping to their own pre-formed conclusions. Obviously, since some can't see past their own lifestyles and behaviors, this discussion has proved futile. It's unfortunate that they can't see past the fact that not everyone is a geek and cherishes the same things they do. Oh well, just one of the many things wrong with this world, and since I (nor anyone else) won't change that, I'll bow out now. Have fun bashing those that don't place importance on the same things.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I consider myself pretty tech-savvy but...

I cannot operate my wife's clock radio and she cannot operate mine except for turning the darn things off and on.

I have a lot of trouble setting pre-sets on rental car radios since they generally aren't the same as on my six-year-old SUV.

I have no idea what the 16 settings on the round dial of my Canon camera do other than the "Auto" setting.

I could not figure out why my TV set in a Florida hotel room turned itself on at 6 am the third morning of a five-day stay. Neither could the hotel tech who came up and looked at it.

The only way I could stop the alarm from sounding early in the morning on a clock radio in our hotel room in Ecuador was to pull the plug on the unit.

I could fix my first car, a 1939 Chevrolet, myself. About all I can do myself now with my SUV is check the oil and water level.

I agree with the comment about the microwave. I pretty much use the clock timer and occasionally the power level feature but ignore the presets for meat and vegetables.

I have a web-cam on my laptop computer. I turned it on to see how it worked once and haven't used that feature since. I do not ever take the laptop into the bathroom.

I've got an iPod Touch 4th generation and I really like it, but I'm sure I haven't explored all the possibilities of its use. It came with a tiny four-page pamphlet but I did download the extensive user manual available free from Apple. I don't take this device into the bathroom either.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lucavex said:


> Second, SOME of the blame has GOT to go to these people who paraded around in front of their webcams naked. As someone in the thread previously stated, it takes two to tango.


Exactly what some of us have been saying... You owe it to yourself to guard against being taken advantage of.

Like those phishing emails... the people sending them are unscrupulous and likely breaking various laws, especially if they use information you give them... but YOU can avoid the whole thing by not falling for the scam in the first place.



Lucavex said:


> Now, to address many parts of Stewart's analogies. You claim to know how to "operate" a car. But, if you talk to a racecar driver, you knowledge of driving and vehicle maintenance will seem infantile and laughable. Are you familiar with the specifics of downforce? Do you know how to hit the apex of a turn? Do you know what Thrust-to-Weight ratio is, and why it's important?


I'm not sure why people keep trying to associate advanced understanding of everything with basics.

I never said they had to know advanced computer or electronics theory!

I said, simply... they need to know how to tell when their computer and web cam is on or off... how to turn the web cam on or off... or at least where the cam is located so they can cover it IF they are unable to turn it off.

How is that considered the same as being a computer expert?

When did knowing how to turn things on and off become expert advanced knowledge?

I do not know all things about cars... I never said I did. What I said was basic understanding.

The average person doesn't need to know the same things a race car professional does... neither does the average person need to be a computer engineer to surf the web... but seriously, you need to at least know how to identify when your computer and components are on and how to turn them off!



spartanstew said:


> I'm saying they can't remember EVERYTHING. Can you? Reading a manual that might be several hundred pages and you remember everything? Doubt it. You remember what's important to you.


*Sigh*... when has anyone every said people should learn and remember everything?

Again... How about they learn how to turn their computer and web cam on and off... how to tell when the web cam is on... and where the cam is located so they can cover it IF they can't turn it off for some reason.

Why are you equating that with being a genius computer expert? Is it seriously that difficult to turn things on and off and know when they are on?



spartanstew said:


> I guess I could live my life paranoid and never walk around in the nude and sweep my house for bugs every week, but I choose not to (as I'm sure 99% of the population does too).


Again... who said anything about living paranoid or never being nude in your home or sweeping for bugs.

How about some common sense... How about if you have a computer in your house that is on and connected to a live internet connection and that computer has a web cam built-in... how about you be sure it isn't on and sending images of you to places you don't want them to go?

Do you have kids? If so, would you feel the same about having that computer in your kids' room where a different perv might be watching your kids? We had this thread before... and most agreed that it was a bad idea to have a web cam in a child's room where the kid could potentially be observed without the kid's knowledge.

So... why would you argue the opposite for the computer in the adult's room or living room?

It seriously takes less than a minute to verify your cam isn't on OR just make a habit of covering it up when you are not intending to use it. Heck, think of it like a lens cap to protect your web cam... keep it covered all the time by habit and then these kinds of things can't happen.

Are you paranoid if you lock your windows and doors? Are you paranoid if you install an alarm system? Those are designed to keep people out... are people always trying to break in to your home? OR are you using the "ounce of prevention..." theory to take a little time now to prevent a big headache later?

Do you advertise to everyone when you will be gone for a week? Or do you keep that info private? Is it because you are paranoid? Or is it just common sense?

Again... not asking for people to be expert mensa genius engineer doctors... just asking them to know how to lock their doors and windows and turn off their web cams. When did that level of common sense become considered being a genius and unfair burden to expect?



spartanstew said:


> Nobody processes and retains everything they read. Nobody.


True... but you seem to be saying that the average person can't retain even simple things... like how to turn something on and off.

It is truly a sad world we live in when expectations are so low of people that we can't expect them to comprehend the simplest of things like being able to turn something on and off.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm not sure why people keep trying to associate advanced understanding of everything with basics.
> 
> I never said they had to know advanced computer or electronics theory!
> 
> ...


I won't go so far as to suggest that you want them to be experts in computer theory.... HOWEVER. I *DO* think it's a bit much to suggest that they should be checking their webcam at every turn to see if it's on or not.

I don't think mine has a light - if it does, I missed it sitting a foot away from the screen on the couple of occasions that I used it to video chat with the family while I was away from home. If I can't see it from that distance, I sure as heck won't see it from across the room.

And frankly, aside from those couple of times I actually used it, I haven't given my webcam a second thought. It was a throw in, basically, when I bought the system. I didn't ask for it, it just came with it. I never look at the damn thing, even when the laptop is sitting on my lap and I'm surfing the web. And I'm sure as heck not checking it to see if someone remotely turned it on. I wouldn't have thought of that in a million years if not for this article.

I said it before - this scenario falls outside of the "normal" common sense problems with the internet, IMO. This isn't "I was doing a web session for my boyfriend and accidentally posted to facebook", and it's not "I opened an attachment I shouldn't have" or "I gave out my password" or.... the list goes on and on. It is something that I guess people should look out for now, but it's not something I was on the lookout for prior to reading this article.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> *Sigh*... when has anyone every said people should learn and remember everything?
> 
> Again... How about they learn how to turn their computer and web cam on and off... how to tell when the web cam is on... and where the cam is located so they can cover it IF they can't turn it off for some reason.
> 
> Why are you equating that with being a genius computer expert? Is it seriously that difficult to turn things on and off and know when they are on?


I know I said I was done, but just can't let this go. It seems so obvious to me, but you're failing to grasp it.

Yes, that's ONE thing. An arbitrary ONE thing that you decided. You want them to learn and remember that ONE thing. Why that ONE thing? There's thousands of things to know about a computer. If they don't know that ONE thing, they're apparently and IDIOT. Maybe there's another ONE thing you think they should now (whether they use it or not). Maybe Mystery Man has another ONE thing. Add all those ONE things up and what do you get? EVERYTHING. Maybe they knew every single things about their computer except that ONE thing? In your mind they're still an IDIOT because they didn't know that ONE thing, right?

To you a webcam is BASIC, but to many people it's not. They don't care about it, so they're not going to learn about your ONE thing.

The point is simple, they may not have known about that ONE thing. Many people don't. People don't really need to, because this is a very isolated instance and case.

Today it's this ONE thing you claim everyone should know. Tomorrow it will probably be another ONE thing. People should have the right to use a computer without knowing EVERYTHING about it. They should be able to be naked in their own home without walking around and turning all the computers off. They should be able to leave their laptop in the bathroom if they want. They should not be called IDIOTS or STUPID because they do any of those things.

Those things are perfectly NORMAL.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

It's a pity all those pieces of little know-it-all's are in someone's stool instead of his cranium. Shows us where his logic comes from.  The "big lesson" I learned in life is never confuse academic achievement with intelligence.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

...nor intelligence with common sense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It is truly a sad world we live in when expectations are so low of people that we can't expect them to comprehend the simplest of things like being able to turn something on and off.


It is not that simple. We're not talking about something that is overwhelmingly obvious that it is on or off (like the PC itself, in most cases). We're talking about one feature that was overlooked.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> Yes, that's ONE thing. An arbitrary ONE thing that you decided. You want them to learn and remember that ONE thing. Why that ONE thing?


Hmm... perhaps because learning that ONE thing would have prevented the perv from being able to take naked pictures of the people!

Just knowing that one thing would have prevented all the embarrassment and headache those people have had to deal with since the guy hacked their web cams.

It isn't an arbitrary thing at all.

You could just as well say "why do I have to use the rear view mirror in my car... I don't need it... I won't learn about it... why should I? I don't care about stuff that is behind me anyway... it's just one arbitrary thing to learn on my car, so I won't bother with it. I rarely ever look behind me when I'm driving forward... so what's the point? I bought a car, not a rear-view mirror... it came with the car." 



spartanstew said:


> There's thousands of things to know about a computer. If they don't know that ONE thing, they're apparently and IDIOT.


No... I said they were stupid for having a computer that they weren't familiar enough with to prevent it from sending naked pictures of them. There are lots of solutions to this problem:

1. Learn how to turn the web cam off.
2. Cover it up.
3. Cover yourself up.
4. Don't own a computer with a web cam.

Any of these 4 simple concepts would have prevented the invasion of privacy that these people suffered. In fact, I guarantee you that IF you ask any of the victims, each would say they have learned a lesson and will in fact do one of the four things I suggested above in the future so that it doesn't happen again.



spartanstew said:


> Maybe there's another ONE thing you think they should now (whether they use it or not). Maybe Mystery Man has another ONE thing. Add all those ONE things up and what do you get? EVERYTHING.


This thread isn't about everything... It is about one thing. I'm not sure why you think this thread is about everything.



spartanstew said:


> Maybe they knew every single things about their computer except that ONE thing? In your mind they're still an IDIOT because they didn't know that ONE thing, right?


That is such an absurd statement that I don't know how to respond. You really think it likely that the person knew everything except that one thing?

And I feel I have to say it again... No one here has said they should know everything... just a grasp of the basics like how to turn things on and off and what components they have on their computer.

There's a reason why we don't let young kids play with fire or sharp objects... because they aren't capable of appreciating the danger... A computer is a tool just like fire or a knife... and just like those things, there are ways you can mis-use the computer that can harm you or others unintentionally... so I say you have no business owning one if you don't intend on learning how to use it properly.



spartanstew said:


> To you a webcam is BASIC, but to many people it's not. They don't care about it, so they're not going to learn about your ONE thing.


Then don't walk around naked in front of it... OR if you do, and someone takes pictures of you... don't complain like you couldn't have done anything to prevent it from happening.



spartanstew said:


> People should have the right to use a computer without knowing EVERYTHING about it.


Only in so much as their misuse of it doesn't cause problems for others... You could forward spam emails enough that your ISP will shut you out of the internet for violating policy... and all the claims of "I didn't know" won't help you there.

I can own knives... but not if I randomly throw them at people.



spartanstew said:


> They should be able to be naked in their own home without walking around and turning all the computers off.


They should... and as noted, there are many ways to do this... Turn off the Web cam, turn off the computer, disconnect your computer from the internet, cover up the web cam, or put your computer in a room where you aren't naked.

I have a right to be naked in my home... but if I open the curtains and stand in front of the window naked, I can't complain if a neighbor sees me can I?



spartanstew said:


> They should be able to leave their laptop in the bathroom if they want.


Although I can't imagine why anyone would want to... I agree they should be able to do this if they want.



spartanstew said:


> They should not be called IDIOTS or STUPID because they do any of those things.


IF someone uses their computer to take pictures of them while naked and they are embarrassed and want to not take some of the blame... then yes, I think maybe their intelligence should be questioned a bit.



spartanstew said:


> Those things are perfectly NORMAL.


Some of the things are... but certainly not in all possible combinations.

I am just amazed at the low bar here for people using their computers.



James Long said:


> It is not that simple. We're not talking about something that is overwhelmingly obvious that it is on or off (like the PC itself, in most cases). We're talking about one feature that was overlooked.


It might not be ABC & 123 simple... but it should be something less than 10 minutes of reading in the manual would cover... and less than 1 minute to determine if the cam and computer are on... and less than 1 minute to turn one or both off OR put something over the cam lens so that it isn't filming you unawares.

I'm not saying these people deserved to be taken advantage of... I'm saying they could have prevented it with just a few minutes of their time.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I have a right to be naked in my home... but if I open the curtains and stand in front of the window naked, I can't complain if a neighbor sees me can I?


If my neighbor opened the curtains without me knowing it, you're damn straight I can complain about it. Or if my neighbor is peeking through a gap in the curtains....

Since you started the curtain analogy: I close my curtains nightly. However, my neighbor - while he was over for the football game, pokes a hole in one of my curtains. Large enough that he can see through, but small enough, and in an unobtrusive enough place, that I don't notice him watching my wife get ready for bed each evening. Am I at fault?

Because that's really what you're suggesting. That something so small, and unobtrusive - something that most people don't give a second thought to - should have been so obvious to these people that they never should have been caught.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Hmm... perhaps because learning that ONE thing would have prevented the perv from being able to take naked pictures of the people!
> 
> Just knowing that one thing would have prevented all the embarrassment and headache those people have had to deal with since the guy hacked their web cams.
> 
> It isn't an arbitrary thing at all.


It amazes me we're really having this conversation. It IS an arbitrary thing. Of course, in hindsight they realize what could happen, but they would have had no reason to think someone might hack into their computer and use their web cam against them ahead of time.

Did you ever have a tape recorder? Did you check it all the time to see if it was on before speaking, in case someone had hacked it and was remotely recording all of your conversations? Of course not. Because the odds of that happening are so remote it's not even worth thinking about.

That's what we're talking about here. Not review mirrors that people use every day. Not locking doors that people do every day.

You honestly cannot be that obtuse. You really think it's the same thing as those?

The repairman might have put a keystroke program on their laptops too. Should everyone be looking for that all the time? Should they have run some kind of diagnostic each time they logged in (I'm sure you would know how), and if they didn't would they be facing ridicule over that ONE thing? Of course they would, from you.

Because it's not about one thing. Don't know how I can make it any clearer. It's about this particular thing which many people don't care about and have no reason to care about - with the exception of some fluke pervert.

Most people don't lead their lives anticipating the fluke things. Apparently you do.

As to your solutions:

1. You don't know that they didn't turn it off (he operated it remotely, remember).
2. Great idea. Everyone in America should drape towels over their webcams when not in use on the off chance that someone might be remotely accessing it. Do you read these things before typing them?
3. Another great idea. Everyone in America should remain fully clothed at all times whenever in the presence of a computer just in case. Brilliant.
4. You're 4 for 4. Don't buy a computer with a webcam on the off chance that someone might hack it.

You go ahead an lead your life by constantly checking your computers webcams every time you walk by them. By turning them off and covering them up whenever you're not fully dressed. Have at it. I don't think I need to tell you how abnormal and laughable that is - but you're right, nobody will ever get a nude shot of you, congratulations.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Just for giggles.... I turned on my laptop this evening and turned on the webcam to see if there's a light.... My Dell has a bluish-white light that's so small I practically need a loupe to see it when it's sitting on my lap. There's no way I could see that light from across the room.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Just for giggles.... I turned on my laptop this evening and turned on the webcam to see if there's a light.... My Dell has a bluish-white light that's so small I practically need a loupe to see it when it's sitting on my lap. There's no way I could see that light from across the room.


Then you'll need to keep a towel draped over your laptop at all times.

Better check your builit-in microphone too. Someone might have hacked it and they're listening in. Every time you're within range of it, you'll want to be sure the microphone is deactivated or else place a piece of duct tape over it to ensure your conversations are secure.

Probably a one in a billion chance, but you can never be to paranoid.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> ...but you can never be to paranoid.


My thoughts exactly!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It's worth noting that everyone posting in this thread that thinks it is ok to not know how their computers work... has already spent far more time in this thread than it would take to learn how to work that web cam.

It's paranoid to check to see if your web cam is on but not paranoid to lock your doors? Did you see someone waiting to break in? OR are you jut exercising basic common sense in protecting yourself and the things in your home?

I've spent far more time in this thread and unfortunately it hasn't educated anyone in a meaningful way that will prevent a breach of security in the future... so I think it hasn't been time well spent.

I hope the predator gets what he deserves... I hope the victims learned a valuable lesson that helps them in the future... and I hope others will learn from the cautionary tale, despite those who seem to think no one should learn anything and should just continue to be ignorant of the world and dangers around them


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

spartanstew said:


> Then you'll need to keep a towel draped over your laptop at all times.
> 
> Better check your builit-in microphone too. Someone might have hacked it and they're listening in. Every time you're within range of it, you'll want to be sure the microphone is deactivated or else place a piece of duct tape over it to ensure your conversations are secure.
> 
> Probably a one in a billion chance, but you can never be to paranoid.


You might want to heed your own advice. Today's Yahoo News has a interesting article about Senate computers being hacked by Lulz Security. You remember Lulz Security? They're the ones who hacked Sony and Public Broadcasting System. If governments and corporations can be hacked with all their imense security precautions it's a safe bet individules can be hacked with little effort. Earlier you posted your wife takes her Nook and phone into the bathroom (even when taking a shower). If I were you I'd put down your copy of "Matching Wits with American Mensa", stop gloating on how your name is on the first page and start sifting through your stool with all those little pieces of know-it-all's to see if there are any compromising photos of your wife floating around the internet. In your words, "one can never be too paranoid"!


----------



## Lucavex (Apr 26, 2011)

MysteryMan said:


> You might want to heed your own advice. Today's Yahoo News has a interesting article about Senate computers being hacked by Lulz Security. You remember Lulz Security? They're the ones who hacked Sony and Public Broadcasting System. If governments and corporations can be hacked with all their imense security precautions it's a safe bet individules can be hacked with little effort. Earlier you posted your wife takes her Nook and phone into the bathroom (even when taking a shower). If I were you I'd put down your copy of "Matching Wits with American Mensa", stop gloating on how your name is on the first page and start sifting through your stool with all those little pieces of know-it-all's to see if there are any compromising photos of your wife floating around the internet. In your words, "one can never be too paranoid"!


The difference between a consumer like Spartanstew and a huge corporation like Sony is that LulzSec has a REASON to hack into Sony, and PBS, be it for financial gain or a political statement, or simply "foar teh lulz" as they would put it.

The only reason you would need to start fearing your system being hacked is if you either anger a known hacker (in which case you may never know who you made mad, so it's probably a good idea to be generally kind on the internet, you never know what people are capable of, and who you're talking to) or if you advertise that you've got sensitive information on your system.

A consumer typically doesn't have a reason to fear being actively hacked. Generally, the only thing they need to be wary of is that they don't get any malware on their machines, and become part of a botnet.

So nah, I don't think covering your microphone with duct-tape is necessary, no reason to throw a towel over your webcam unless you start getting odd messages about it needing to be near hot steam.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Lucavex said:


> The difference between a consumer like Spartanstew and a huge corporation like Sony is that LulzSec has a REASON to hack into Sony, and PBS, be it for financial gain or a political statement, or simply "foar teh lulz" as they would put it.
> 
> The only reason you would need to start fearing your system being hacked is if you either anger a known hacker (in which case you may never know who you made mad, so it's probably a good idea to be generally kind on the internet, you never know what people are capable of, and who you're talking to) or if you advertise that you've got sensitive information on your system.
> 
> ...


Trevor Harwell's victims are typical consumers and probably didn't have a reason to fear being hacked. But look what happened. With your line of thinking perhaps the charges against Travor Harwell should be dismissed and his victims told to only be wary of malware. Being paranoid is one thing. Being cautious is common sense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That is such an absurd statement that I don't know how to respond.


I'm sure you'll find a hundred words. Perhaps two. Some of them insulting. Seems to be the nature of this thread to 'win' by speaking more. 

This isn't fire, sticks, knives, guns, rocket launchers or even the rear view mirror of a car. The camera is a minor feature that many don't think about.

In a car I'd compare it to a back seat power outlet. One is required to take a test to get a license to drive a car ... and if they had driver's ed they were specifically shown the rear view mirrors and instructed and tested on their use. No one taught me about the back seat power outlet. Nor did they warn me that leaving a device plugged in would drain my battery and prevent the car from starting, leaving me stranded. (My current car prevents that by disabling the outlets when the ignition is turned to off.)

There is no test for computer ownership. Perhaps there should be - but it seems that would only serve the elitist attitude.



> It might not be ABC & 123 simple... but it should be something less than 10 minutes of reading in the manual would cover... and less than 1 minute to determine if the cam and computer are on... and less than 1 minute to turn one or both off OR put something over the cam lens so that it isn't filming you unawares.


Don't ever make any mistakes, Stewart. And when you do, please post them so we can ridicule you.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

How come today's Dilbert comic strip reminds me of this thread?


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

On anothe tack--I was watching an April 3 podcast of TWIT last night on my TiVo Premiere, and Leo LaPorte and friends were discussing the fact that Apple has the capability to turn the mic on your iPhone on and record the content. In particular, they were talking about an app called "Color". I don't pretend to understand all the conversation that went on. For more information, you can search for "Twit 295" on YouTube.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> Don't ever make any mistakes, Stewart. And when you do, please post them so we can ridicule you.


Smart people can do stupid things... and every once in a while a stupid person can do something smart.

I have done all manner of stupid things in my life... but I can say that when *I* do something stupid... something that causes harm to me... something that *I* should have known better or something *I* could have avoided... I am the first person to say, "That was stupid of me... I will not do that again."

And it teaches me to avoid similar pitfalls in other areas.

I'll give some examples...

As a young kid... probably pre-school age, but close to school-age... I had a magnifying glass that someone had shown me how to start fires with. One time, playing in the yard by myself... I accidentally set fire to a shirt I was wearing at the time.

That was a very stupid thing. In hindsight, I was not mature or educated enough to have had such a device unsupervised because I wasn't qualified to use it... but honestly, I should have known better to be more careful.

A little older, but still elementary school aged... I had a soldering iron... not a gun, but an iron... it had no off switch... plug it in = hot, unplug = cooling off... It didn't get hot enough to change the color of the metal... and a lot more than just the tip was hot.

Once, while soldering... making little things like a simple fan or connecting lights... I accidentally grabbed the soldering iron while it was hot... gripped it pretty good... and got a good burn/blistering on my hand.

Again... it turns out I was not mature enough or skilled enough to have been using such a device relatively unsupervised (my parents were in the room but I was using the iron by myself)... at the same time, I knew it was hot and should have known better than to grab it like I did.

So in both examples, I demonstrated that I was not qualified to be using the tools I was allowed to have... and the result was me doing something stupid. I did learn from those mistakes, and I didn't blame anyone else for either of them... and no permanent damage was done (except to that burnt shirt)... but I didn't blame others, and both situations could have been completely avoided by not having access to things I wasn't yet ready to have.

So let me ask this on another level... since we had a thread on this before... Given the possibility of a hacker gaining access like this... IF you have young children, would you buy your child a computer that has a web cam and put that computer in your child's room unsupervised?

If not, why not? and why wouldn't you apply the same level of sensibility to your own computer in the living room?

If you would, why would you given what we know in the context of this very thread?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stewart said:


> So let me ask this on another level... since we had a thread on this before... Given the possibility of a hacker gaining access like this... IF you have young children, would you buy your child a computer that has a web cam and put that computer in your child's room unsupervised?
> 
> If not, why not? and why wouldn't you apply the same level of sensibility to your own computer in the living room?
> 
> If you would, why would you given what we know in the context of this very thread?


other than the fact that you've used the words web and cam, I don't see the correlation, but I'll play.

First, my kids will never have a computer or tv in their room, so lets say it's in the game room. No, they won't have a web can until there much older, but not because I think someone will hack it or spy on them without their knowledge. It's because they'll figure out how to use it. Totally different.

We did have video cameras in their rooms when they were younger that were tied into the tv in the living room and I imagine someone could have hacked into those, but I'm not going to spend my time worrying about those one in a billion chances.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

What the hell happened in here?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Yeah, I'm really sorry I started this thread.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Smart people can do stupid things.


One of those stupid things smart people do is to ridicule people with less experience for not getting it "right".

It is good to see that you make mistakes - but the more you ridicule others the more it is good for them to see you make mistakes.

Personally I don't want people rooting for me to fail so I get knocked off my high horse. I'd rather not climb up on one in the first place.

But to each their own.

I'm sorry that the VICTIMS had their cameras hacked and that they were taken advantage of. I'm not going to ridicule them.


----------



## afulkerson (Jan 14, 2007)

Maybe it's time to close this thread.....


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

afulkerson said:


> Maybe it's time to close this thread.....


Nah, this thread hasn't gone nuclear. The Hitler/Nazi bomb hasn't been dropped...yet. :lol:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

"RobertE" said:


> Nah, this thread hasn't gone nuclear. The Hitler/Nazi bomb hasn't been dropped...yet. :lol:


We have multiple dictionary references though, it's percolating here. Tick tock.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RobertE said:


> Nah, this thread hasn't gone nuclear. The Hitler/Nazi bomb hasn't been dropped...yet. :lol:


Thanks for invoking Godwin's law.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

RobertE said:


> Nah, this thread hasn't gone nuclear. The Hitler/Nazi bomb hasn't been dropped...yet. :lol:





tcusta00 said:


> We have multiple dictionary references though, it's percolating here. Tick tock.


Does a post from the Soup Nazi count?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

James Long said:


> Thanks for invoking Godwin's law.


If people followed Wheaton's Law, we wouldn't need Godwin's law.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> other than the fact that you've used the words web and cam, I don't see the correlation, but I'll play.


You don't see the correlation with kids having computers and web cams vs adults having computers and web cams?

It's about people (of any age) having technology that they may or may not be familiar with that could be misused... and how you decide who gets to have access to that technology.



spartanstew said:


> First, my kids will never have a computer or tv in their room, so lets say it's in the game room.


Let's stop there... Why "never"? Frankly I agree with you here, but I'm curious as to how, for example, taking a laptop into the bathroom is considered "normal" for an adult BUT a child having a computer in his own room is forbidden?



spartanstew said:


> No, they won't have a web can until there much older, but not because I think someone will hack it or spy on them without their knowledge. It's because they'll figure out how to use it. Totally different.


So... your kids will figure out how to use the web cam... but an adult can't? How are you expecting these kids to know "everything" about computers so easily, since you have said how difficult it is to learn how to use your computer? 



spartanstew said:


> We did have video cameras in their rooms when they were younger that were tied into the tv in the living room and I imagine someone could have hacked into those, but I'm not going to spend my time worrying about those one in a billion chances.


To be fair... I think this has happened... I know people have picked up those baby monitor audio on cordless phones or "police" scanners... IF the cameras work on WiFI or over the network... then it could be possible.

Honestly, and this isn't an attack on you so don't take it that way... but I wouldn't put up any kind of WIFI or networked security/camera setup in my home unless I could be sure that it was secured from outside reception. It defeats the purpose if people can use your own security measures against you.



James Long said:


> One of those stupid things smart people do is to ridicule people with less experience for not getting it "right".


Maybe it is semantics... but I'm pretty sure none of the victims are in this thread... so technically speaking, I haven't been ridiculing them but rather people who seem to think it is ok to not know things.

This is the same logic kids in school say about things like math... that "we never use it so why learn it"... and then one day many of them wish they had paid more attention.

And actually, to be more accurate still... it's not about ridiculing people for not being able to use their computer... but people unable to use their computer to the extent that someone else is able to turn it against them and cause them personal problems.



James Long said:


> It is good to see that you make mistakes - but the more you ridicule others the more it is good for them to see you make mistakes.


People are strange... somehow when you point out their faults or offer advice, they respond by saying "nobody's perfect" and then root for you to fail at something... I never claimed to be perfect, and gave but a couple of examples of how I'm not 

I said once before, and nobody commented... but I bet you that IF you asked any of the victims, they would all express that they had learned something and would not be violated in that particular way again. None of them would go on about how they shouldn't have had to learn more about their computer... I suspect all of them would express regret that they hadn't learned sooner and prevented the violation.

This is like when there is a flu outbreak and people on tv tell people to wash their hands and cover their mouths when they sneeze and so forth... You don't have to wash your hands or cover your mouth... and not everyone around you will get sick if you don't... but it's so simple to do these things and it will prevent some spread of the germs... so it's just a good idea.

I don't remember anyone arguing that people shouldn't have to cover their mouth or wash their hands... that it was too difficult or advanced... or that the risk was low so why bother... and I bet if you saw someone who sneezed and didn't cover their mouth OR used their hands and then didn't wash them... you wouldn't just run over there and grab their hand... because it's such a basic thing to protect yourself against possible sources of danger.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RobertE said:


> If people followed Wheaton's Law, we wouldn't need Godwin's law.


Wow. I did actually learn something from this thread. Two useful newly coined "laws" I apparently missed during the last two decades.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> It's about people (of any age) having technology that they may or may not be familiar with that could be misused... and how you decide who gets to have access to that technology.


So are you suggesting a test to see if people are smart enough to own a laptop? Good luck with that.



> Let's stop there... Why "never"? Frankly I agree with you here, but I'm curious as to how, for example, taking a laptop into the bathroom is considered "normal" for an adult BUT a child having a computer in his own room is forbidden?


It is all about supervision. Most adults don't need supervision --- and even when offered our society has decided that adults can do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. There are exceptions ... restrictions that exist on things that don't hurt others. But the trend is there.

We (as a society) tend to protect our children. Those that don't protect their children tend to lose them.



> Maybe it is semantics... but I'm pretty sure none of the victims are in this thread... so technically speaking, I haven't been ridiculing them but rather people who seem to think it is ok to not know things.


I've already covered that in this thread. One CANNOT know it all. Only a fool thinks they know it all.

Once you accept that fact you can start picking the things that it is ok not to know. I have decided that I don't need to know how to do surgery. If needed, I'll hire someone. I have decided that anything more than basic fluid maintenance on my car is better done by someone else. I'll hire it done.

I'm sure there is PLENTY that you don't know. Why is it OK for you to not know the things you don't know? You're laying pretty hard into others who understand that one cannot know it all yet you seem very forgiving of yourself for not knowing it all. 



> And actually, to be more accurate still... it's not about ridiculing people for not being able to use their computer... but people unable to use their computer to the extent that someone else is able to turn it against them and cause them personal problems.


How many times have you heard of someone hijacking a camera on a computer? How many times has the average computer user (not as savvy as you) heard of a camera hijack?

The much more common exploits are becoming more well known. No, a bank that you don't have an account at does not need your private information and would not legitimately request it via email. (Your bank won't make that request either - and if they do, change banks.) No, wiring thousands of dollars to Nigeria will not free up millions of dollars that some person who randomly selected you will send if you comply. (Also applies to other countries.) No, that unsolicited attachment from a complete stranger is not a good thing to open.

The world is learning. And just like when you learned they are starting with the basics and the common problems and working their way up to savvy. Give them a break.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> So are you suggesting a test to see if people are smart enough to own a laptop? Good luck with that...


Interesting thread but I think it is in danger of becoming circular.

Regarding (preemptive) testing, I have long thought there should tests for certain things. Getting married, having children, buying fireworks, or giving bunnies or chicks to the kiddies on Easter. I know these ideas aren't practical, but who knows...? Never thought we would have to be felt up or molested to get on a plane, either. My point, I suppose, is that, for whatever reason, right or wrong, some people are just plain stupid.

But, there's no law against that.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

There's also a difference between stupid and not caring enough to learn about something (interested).

Walking in front of a moving car is the former. Not knowing how to use a web cam is the later.

I don't know how to cook, for example. I'm smart enough to follow a recipe if someone gave me one and can do basic things, but I just have no interest in cooking. We all have things we're not interested in, doesn't mean someone's stupid because what they're not interested in is something someone else cares a great deal about.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

Nick said:


> Interesting thread but I think it is in danger of becoming circular.


It long ago became that. I started this fracas when I jumped on Stewart when he said some people shouldn't own computers. I know that's been discussed at least three times.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> So are you suggesting a test to see if people are smart enough to own a laptop? Good luck with that.


Actually... we may get there at some point.

In a few generations (or less) as more and more people become connected for more things more of the time... and when they have online voting (government voting) and other really important things... I wouldn't be surprised if there doesn't come a day when you have to apply for internet access like you apply for a driver's license... and perhaps will have to prove some level of proficiency to be granted certain levels of access.

I don't know if I want that to be the case... but I could see us getting there.



James Long said:


> I've already covered that in this thread. One CANNOT know it all. Only a fool thinks they know it all.


And I'm not sure know an expectation to know one thing becomes an expectation to know it all... and yes, I know people have said why one thing and not another... but that's true of all things.

Why do they test some things to get a driver's license but not all possible things? I didn't have to drive in inclement weather or at night, for example, in order to obtain my license... Rather, there was a minimum level of proficiency they determined to test on and IF you can do that and pass the eyesight test, then they give you the benefit of the doubt on everything else unless and until you start racking up moving violations.

I had a friend once who had an ATM card. He put it in his wallet on a nightstand and his roommate stole that ATM card when he moved out (it was not an amicable move)... that roommate also stole the paper with my friend's PIN that was also in his wallet right with his ATM card... and used that to withdraw the daily maximum before my friend knew it was missing!

My friend called the bank... told them about the stolen card... and also (stupidly) told them that his roommate had his PIN because of it being in his wallet. You know, when you get an ATM card it tells you not to write it down somewhere and certainly don't write it down and keep it in your wallet where conveniently both can be stolen at the same time!

So... the bank cancelled his ATM card... and gave him back the money that was stolen... BUT the bank would not re-issue him a new ATM card because he had proven he could not be trusted with basic security of keeping his PIN separate from the card.



James Long said:


> Once you accept that fact you can start picking the things that it is ok not to know. I have decided that I don't need to know how to do surgery. If needed, I'll hire someone. I have decided that anything more than basic fluid maintenance on my car is better done by someone else. I'll hire it done.


And those would be valid analogies IF I were expecting people to be able to service their own computers. I'm not. I'm expecting them to be able to operate their computers at the most basic of levels (turn it on, turn it off, know the components, recognize when they are on, cover the camera when not in use).

Comparing operating a web cam to surgery is not a fair comparison of relative skills.



James Long said:


> I'm sure there is PLENTY that you don't know. Why is it OK for you to not know the things you don't know? You're laying pretty hard into others who understand that one cannot know it all yet you seem very forgiving of yourself for not knowing it all.


I don't think I am. But let me try it another way...

What do you think a person should be able to do (at a minimum) with their computer?

If they can't plug and unplug it, they can't use it... if they can't turn it on and off, they can't use it... so I hope those are on your list. What else?



James Long said:


> How many times have you heard of someone hijacking a camera on a computer? How many times has the average computer user (not as savvy as you) heard of a camera hijack?


Let's forget the hijacking for a moment... IF the person can't tell if their web cam is on or off, or perhaps doesn't know they even have one, or just doesn't care... then they might accidentally activate that web cam themselves and enter a chat session unintended and beam their nakedness without being hijacked.

So forget whether it is likely or not to be hijacked... you need to be able to tell if YOU turned the camera on by accident yourself! Or per some earlier conversation... maybe you have kids, and they learned how to turn the web cam on but didn't turn it off... There's two more likely than being hacked scenarios that could also result in you beaming pictures somewhere you don't want.



spartanstew said:


> No, I don't see the correlation. An adult chooses not to learn about their webcam and as an adult they can make that decision (much like the rear seat outlet in a car someone referenced earlier). A child does not have those types of decision making abilities and isn't aware of the dangers IF THEY START USING IT. And adult should be aware of the dangers if they decide to use it. Not the dangers of someone hacking it, but the inherent dangers of talking to strangers via a web cam (if they choose to).


As I noted above in reply to James... forget the hacker for a minute... What if you or your kid turns on the web cam (either by accident or on purpose) and doesn't turn it off... Not knowing how to work that web cam doesn't require a hacker to cause you embarrassment.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Nick said:


> My point, I suppose, is that, for whatever reason, right or wrong, some people are just plain stupid.
> 
> But, there's no law against that.


Hmmmm. I'm sure we could get some legislator in some state legislature somewhere to introduce one.:sure:


----------



## Lucavex (Apr 26, 2011)

MysteryMan said:


> Trevor Harwell's victims are typical consumers and probably didn't have a reason to fear being hacked. But look what happened. With your line of thinking perhaps the charges against Travor Harwell should be dismissed and his victims told to only be wary of malware. Being paranoid is one thing. Being cautious is common sense.


The Hyperbole Police are here to take you to Exagerationtrazz.

First, You brought up LulzSec, which targets corporations for the most part. Using it as an excuse to be wary and cautious on the interent. LulzSec has no reason to attack a single consumer unless they're provoked to do so in some way.

Second, Trevor Harwell had motivation to do what he did. He also had the means and the access.

Third, Trevor didn't "hack" anything, he was given access to the computer to help troubleshoot an issue, and the only real "hacking" he did was throw together some scripts to give the customer a dialogue box.

Finally, why are we all at each other's throats about all this? I see so much vileness and sarcasm and open stabbing at one another. It's like some folks have a personal agenda against others in this thread. It started out as a lively discussion but in five pages it's degraded into an all-out flame war.

Can't we be civil?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> And I'm not sure know an expectation to know one thing becomes an expectation to know it all... and yes, I know people have said why one thing and not another... but that's true of all things.


Why is it that you seem to be the sole arbitrator of things that matter?

Try reading the literal THOUSANDS of words you have posted in this thread but forget for the moment that your name and avatar are next to them. Would you accept those arguments from anyone else? Or would you write thousands of words to rebuke that poster?

You like to dismiss any example that is not yours yet you seemingly refuse to accept the simple concept that one person cannot know it all. You have picked that ONE THING - buying a PC that happens to have a camera - and decided to attack anyone who wants to cut the VICTIMS any slack for not being security experts considering every possible compromise of their system.

Is there no compassion?


----------



## Lucavex (Apr 26, 2011)

James Long said:


> Why is it that you seem to be the sole arbitrator of things that matter?
> 
> Try reading the literal THOUSANDS of words you have posted in this thread but forget for the moment that your name and avatar are next to them. Would you accept those arguments from anyone else? Or would you write thousands of words to rebuke that poster?
> 
> ...


I symphatize with Stewart to an extent, surely one must be aware of the fact that they purchased something with a webcam, and it's kinda common sense to try to not be naked in front of the webcam if you can avoid it. It's like undressing in front of a window. Best to have the shades drawn!

And I'm certain he's not trying to downplay the severity of the crime or put blame on any of the victims. Rather I think he intended to display this as a cautionary tale to the dangers of not knowing about your hardware.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I couldn't care less if some guy gets blurred pictures of me in a steamy bathroom.

Anybody with me on that?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Best to stick a fork in this one and call it done ..


----------

