Protection of private data / data theft?

[alloydog]

I'm sure a lot of people are now familiar with the ebay revenge story posted on the (in)famous B3TA.COM.

It was picked up by the Daily Mail:
Revenge of the eBay customer sold 'faulty' laptop

and then by the BBC:
Police investigate 'hate' website

Whatever your views about whether the guy deserved it or not, technically, the p!ssed-off buyer should have taken his case, first to ebay, then if that wasn't resolved, then to the small claims court.

This Amir guy is claiming he has been libelled - although I was under the impression that libel was when you made unsubstantiated claims about someone (in print). Here it seems that the buyer has simply published the contents of the laptop's harddrive.

Now my question is: what legal protection is there about data stored on a PC harddrive, or any personal information stored in something that you then sell?
Say you sold a stack of old family photo albums, but the buyer then found some rather 'private' pictures of you - does the new owner of the photoalbums have the right to publish the photos without your (as the origianl owner) consent?
So, you sell your PC, but forget to clean the harddrive - what legal protection do you have over the data stored there?

A personal aside: If you sell a working PC with harddrive and do not take precautions to clean the drive, I think you're, at best, niave, and at worst, pretty damned stupid.
But, if you sell a non-working PC (whilst claiming it does work) and haven't bother to clear the harddrive because you don't think it will ever be used again, then you really are a f'ing idiot and you're just begging for trouble!

[jjmac]

How would that relate to data being accessed from a drive while in for repair i wonder. I would expect that would be theft. But then, as if a company would be bothered. But then, thats not a reson to assume security. I figure ... if you sell something and it's not tied up with some agreement then you would probably forfiet your rights in that respect. As for the photos (grin). You may have rights in terms of how they were used. If it could be proved that they were being used with some malicouse intent ... you might have some grounds. It all sounds like a hell of a lot of mucking about, and expensive. Best bet would be to keep special tabs on your ummm, photo shoots, i think


jm
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed !

[Hello]

I think anyone could of worked out it would be a good idea to delete all the rubbish from the drive or find a more knoledgeable friend to do it for you.

I think there was nothing wrong with what he did because he left the data on the drive and with the sale all rights should of been handed over with it (I think)

I would totally object to it if he hadnt done anything wring to the buyer however I am not sure if it is right or not but it did make a good read

[MartyBartfast]

Well the copyright on the pictures resides with the photographer, so Amir should be able to get the guy who's posted them online for breach of copyright. However to do so would mean admitting that he took the photos, which he seems to be denying (at least for some of them). The same would apply in the case of selling a stack of family albums, the buyer would not have the rights to reproduce the pictures, so they could take them down the pub and show the originals around, but they would be in breach of copyright if they tried to copy/reproduce/publish them in any way.

[nelz]

How would that relate to data being accessed from a drive while in for repair i wonder.

Like when Gary Glitter sent a computer to PC World for repair, containing obscene photos? He got done, PC World didn't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/517604.stm

[towy71]

as did Pete Townsend and Chris Langham (allegedly)

[nelz]

This Amir guy is claiming he has been libelled - although I was under the impression that libel was when you made unsubstantiated claims about someone (in print). Here it seems that the buyer has simply published the contents of the laptop's harddrive.

The buyer claimed the published material was from the hard drive. If that claim is false, it could be libel.

[GMorgan]

I can just imagine what will happen when everyones running a palladium box in a few years.

As to the article, we don't know if the guy sold a dodgy laptop. If he didn't then the guy running the website should be dealt with, if he did then it becomes a funny area, there were better ways to deal with this but this at least has the benefit of irony.

In all likelyhood its just a scam and the half a million hits have translated into advertising money for them both.

[jjmac]

I wrote:
>>
jjmac wrote:
How would that relate to data being accessed from a drive while in for repair i wonder.
>>

nelz wrote:
>>
Like when Gary Glitter sent a computer to PC World for repair, containing obscene photos? He got done, PC World didn't
>>

It is an interesting thing. On the one hand, IP is considered as being possessionable. But then, it needs to be so stated before hand. It looks like, as is the case with much of the impact from the rise of the electronic media ... it is largely still very untested ground.

hmmmmm, sounds like there must be a few Barrister types loitering around the halls and clubs somewhere, with gleeful expectation on the possibilities.


jm