Seriously funny and unique way to get back at an Ebay Scammer (Merged)

melancholly

Moglex wrote:

It's been most amusing seeing all the people here who seem to think it's illegal to take pictures of people's legs when those legs were clearly on open public display..

i don't think it's illegal - but i do think it's seriously creepy to have such a large collection! i'm glad i don't travel on trains near barnet

Jays

melancholly wrote:

i don't think it's illegal - but i do think it's seriously creepy to have such a large collection! i'm glad i don't travel on trains near barnet

The leg photos are because he, I presume, comes from one of those cultures where their women have to be covered. I did my midwifery course up in West Yorkshire in an area with large Bangladesi and Pakistani communities, back in the days when nurses and midwifes only wore dresses. When we were visiting mothers and babies at home, the men would pretend to take photos of us holding the babies, but would be taking photos of our legs :eek:.
I presume it is a great turn-on in their eyes, I even wondered if they got sent 'back home', this was the days before digital cameras and personal computers - god, I'm sounding really, really old (I'm still in my 40s, honestly).

Jays

rdwarr

Has it occurred to anybody that the buyer is completely out of order here? None of us knows the full story - the laptop could have been fine and he's just acting maliciously.
As for photos, yes it is illegal. People are often arrested on the Underground for "voyeurism". Especially people with cameras in their shoes who stand behind women in skirts :eek:

Moglex

rdwarr wrote:

Has it occurred to anybody that the buyer is completely out of order here? None of us knows the full story - the laptop could have been fine and he's just acting maliciously.

A good point.

The BBC are describing the site as a 'hate site'.

All in all though, it would seem unlikely.

Anyway, never fear - the police are investigating

As for photos, yes it is illegal. People are often arrested on the Underground for "voyeurism". Especially people with cameras in their shoes who stand behind women in skirts :eek:

There is a big difference between taking pictures of bits of people that they do not display to the public, and taking pictures of those they do.

As I said earlier (pace any LU bylaws about taking pictures on trains in general), what would you charge the photographer with - Bad framing?

You would effectively be trying to prosecute him for not taking a picture of the head and torso the people involved.

wigginsmum

Totally agree with rdwarr - the buyer may have taken those photos himself and claimed they were on the laptop. It's also not fair on the seller's family who are being drawn into this.

Moglex

wigginsmum wrote:

Totally agree with rdwarr - the buyer may have taken those photos himself and claimed they were on the laptop. It's also not fair on the seller's family who are being drawn into this.

Well, it's an interesting point of view.

There were a (very) few similar comments on the blog.

There are two distinct questions here, though.

1) If the blog is telling the truth, is it a good way to shame a thieving scumbag into accepting his responsibilities?

I've very little sympathy for those who think it's unfair.

If true, amir thought he'd cynicaly cheated his buyer, and he had the oportunity to make the site go away from hour zero by refunding his victim.

2) If the blog is a lie - well, then there will doubtless be a court case. It's even possible that the perpetrator could be charged with criminal libel (an extremely rare offence). And needless to say, it (creating the false blog) would be wrong.

Jays

wigginsmum wrote:

Totally agree with rdwarr - the buyer may have taken those photos himself and claimed they were on the laptop. It's also not fair on the seller's family who are being drawn into this.

The police will be able to find this out when they investigate, as the timing of storing the photos will be on the hard disk.

Moglex

Jays wrote:

The police will be able to find this out when they investigate, as the timing of storing the photos will be on the hard disk.

Sadly, this is not the case. The time stamps can be altered by anyone with a sufficiently detailed knowledge of the file structure.

HugoSP

With regards to the legal status of some of the photos:

It seems likely that they were taken without the consent of the subject. That is a BIG difference between those and the ones taken of his mates, girlfriends etc.

The fact that they could be seen as Voyeuristic would not help his case, and would probably ensure that he falls foul of the sex offences legislation, as well as that that protects us against stalking etc.

If the buyer did make it all up, which I somehow doubt, then he did really well to get photos of his family etc, which, according to Amir are genuine

H

Moglex

HugoSP wrote:

It seems likely that they were taken without the consent of the subject. That is a BIG difference between those and the ones taken of his mates, girlfriends etc.

The fact that they could be seen as Voyeuristic would not help his case, and would probably ensure that he falls foul of the sex offences legislation, as well as that that protects us against stalking etc.

Under British law you do not need the consent of the subject to take a photograph (although you may need it to publish the photograph).

So he has no case to answer. So the voyeristic element is irrelevant.

Even if it were, it would still boil down to the utter absurdity of charging him with, effectively, not photographing the heads and torsos of the women in question.

There is certainly no British law than makes it an offence not to photograph anything.