This Hacker News discussion revolves around the legal and ethical implications of leaking sensitive footage, specifically crash footage, and the laws used to prosecute such actions.
The Public Interest vs. Privacy and Property Rights
A central theme is the debate over whether leaking footage, particularly of accidents or sensitive events, serves a public interest that outweighs potential harm to privacy or property rights. Some users argue that exposure to such events, even graphic ones, is beneficial for public awareness and understanding, while others find it gratuitous and exploitative.
- "Distasteful? I understand that sentiment for the family, but we should all be exposed to the horrors of these lapses. Itâs exceedingly rare that you are ever subjected to the bodily carnage, and Iâm reminded of when we ceased broadcasting footage of soldiersâ caskets coming home due to it dissuading popular opinion toward war."
- "Because it's in the public interest. The law doesn't state what's right only what's permitted."
Conversely, others express a desire to avoid gratuitous exposure to suffering:
- "bro, no one is suggesting we should keep plane crashes secret, but yeah I do find it a little distasteful to turn on the TV and see the moment hundreds of people were killed."
- "90% of what is shown on a news channel is negative. Everything is driven by fear in that industry. You can't turn on a news channel and expect to feel good."
The Nature of "Theft" and Intellectual Property
A significant portion of the discussion scrutinizes the definition of "theft," particularly concerning digital data and intellectual property (IP). Users debate whether copying non-tangible assets like video footage without authorization constitutes theft, especially when the owner's ability to use or possess the original asset is not impaired.
- "Stealing physical property deprives its original owner of it. The same can't be said of IP."
- "Property, a social construct, is always imaginary. The ship on IP, from insider trading laws to copyright, has sailed."
- "This is all very well but exactly what type of IP is CCTV footage? It's not copyrighted. It's not patented. It's not trademarked. ...trade secret?"
- "Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner: Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)"
- "if you break into your boss's house and copy his latest recordings (your boss is Stevie Wonder) you are not simply guilty of violating his copyrights. 'computer fraud and abuse act', or who knows how many other laws, are focused on various aspects of 'you know you are sneaking about', or even if you don't, tuff noogies."
- "Sure but the difference in value is also obvious. Stevie Wonder has a business interest in controlling the release of his music, as do other parties like a production company and a publisher. And an early release may do harm to the value of such a recording. But I don't expect most organizations that put up security cameras have a business interest in monetizing the footage."
Legal Overreach and Misapplication of Laws
Several users express concern that existing laws, particularly Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) or similar computer crime statutes, are being overextended or misapplied to situations that are more akin to simple trespass or breach of company policy rather than serious criminal offenses. The prosecution's choice of charges, such as trespass instead of theft, is highlighted as evidence of this potential overreach.
- "if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though. here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act."
- "This is going out of oneâs way to abuse the employerâs trust. Moreover, itâs stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges. Where I agree with you is that this isnât computer fraud and abuse. Itâs closer to theft. The law used to prosecute should be more banal."
- "But calling using your cell phone to video record a security monitor 'computer fraud' and 'trespass' is clearly ridiculous."
- "Overreach for sure, but I don't buy at all that rubbernecking is 'obviously of public interest'; hardly the Pentagon Papers we're looking at here."
- "Itâs like postal or wire fraud. Youâre going to do it somehow in just about any possible crime. Theyâll get you. It wasnât/shouldnât have been a crime? Theyâll get you anyway, if they want."
- "Many states have super vague computer abuse statutes. Illinois' law specifically states it is a crime to violate the ToS of a network (e.g. a web site)."
The Role of Media and Sensationalism
The discussion touches upon the media's role in broadcasting or distributing such footage, questioning the motivations and impact of sensationalizing events. The financial incentives for news organizations to air dramatic content are also implicitly questioned.
- "Leaking crash footage to CNN isn't clearly 'the right thing'. Except for CNN I guess, who probably got a lot of views and clicks from the footage."
- "A lot of views from general population rather than being buried."
Plea Bargains and Lack of Transparency
The case's resolution through a "no contest" plea is seen by some as a way to avoid a full legal reckoning and to keep the specifics of the charges and evidence private. This lack of transparency fuels skepticism about the fairness and accuracy of the legal process.
- "Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to a trespass charge. He was represented by an attorney with some prosecutorial experience so I think we can assume he received qualified legal advice based upon the facts of the matter. Under terms of his no contest plea, if he stays out of trouble for a year he can have his record expunged. Weâll most likely never know the original charge the prosecution was prepared to proceed with..."
- "So, this looks like a plea bargain. But since he plead no contest, the prosecution doesnât have to prove anything."