> I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”

If I were to copy the files on my work device and distribute them, I would be in violation of NDAs which could be pursued as civil offenses. If I didn’t have those NDAs, my employer could try and pursue something in court, along with firing me, but it wouldn’t be a straightforward suit.

None of these are (or at least, should be) criminal situations.

▲

ofjcihen 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

As a DLP professional: please don’t tell people this. You can absolutely be arrested and prosecuted for this.

▲

opello 3 days ago | parent [-]

What's the charge for the arrest? I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property." If it actually was a trade secret, it might make more sense.

▲

tuckerman 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Just because a user has privileges to access files doesn’t mean doing so is permitted for any purpose. Accessing them for this unauthorized purpose is likely computer fraud, at least under California law as I understand it.

▲

fsckboy 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property."

if you break into your boss's house and copy his latest recordings (your boss is Stevie Wonder) you are not simply guilty of violating his copyrights.

"computer fraud and abuse act", or who knows how many other laws, are focused on various aspects of "you know you are sneaking about", or even if you don't, tuff noogies.

▲

opello 3 days ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	fsckboy 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		you've missed the point entirely. it's NOT about the intellectual property which is a civil matter, "artist v. you", it's about unauthorized access and use of computers which is a criminal matter, "the people v. you"

▲

anileated 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are intangible kinds of property and assets that are more valuable than “real property”. Trade secrets is an obvious one, being a special case of intellectual property. It would be absolutely irrational for legal system to classify theft of iPhone as criminal and theft of IP as civil, when the former cost $700 and monetizing the latter could finance creator’s entire life.

▲

ofjcihen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Depending on jurisdiction it might be theft, could be something more recently ratified that’s basically made for exactly this purpose. Could also just be a plain old federal CFAA related charge since those are pretty “malleable”.

Again, take these laws seriously and don’t do this.

▲

opello 3 days ago | parent [-]

Interesting. Do you have an example of where copying data like this (something with almost no commercial value, but done without authorization, whose harm is basically the disclosure of the facts of the camera's location/positioning) was charged as theft? Because it seems like in a legal sense, copying isn't theft, but the consequences of the copy becoming generally available (say a commercial interest in the data, in the Stevie Wonder example from the sibling thread) may make the damage of the copy and subsequent release obvious. I'm also curious what has recently been enacted to cover this scenario if you have a ready example?

I believe you and heed your warning. I think it's good to understand these things too though.

▲

hluska 3 days ago | parent [-]

I worked in surveillance cameras for a long time and started my own company in the field. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diminish the value of location/bearing.

Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera.

With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, someone got into the wheel well of a plane at O’Hare in Chicago so taxiway security is not a solved problem. Leaking camera locations and bearings is dangerous.

	▲	xocnad 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure but where is the commercial value?

▲

noitpmeder 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean in the first case you're literally stealing from your employer. If that doesn't make you a criminal for theft I don't know what does

▲

opello 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

But the footage isn't "real property" as I understand it. The only thing the theft does is deprive the company from the opportunity to sell the footage themselves, and it's not exactly like selling security camera footage is the business model of many/any(?) company.

If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.

▲

otterley 3 days ago | parent [-]

It’s a common misconception that “property” relates to physical objects (chattel) or land (real property). But that’s an incorrect and limited understanding. More generally, it’s about the right to control something and exclude others from using it.

Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.

▲

opello 3 days ago | parent [-]

I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property.

However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.

▲

otterley 3 days ago | parent [-]

I am an attorney but this is not legal advice.

The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.

I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”

Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.

	▲	opello 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :) I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.

▲

bethekidyouwant 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Really … copying video footage is theft suddenly? Jail?