How is this legal? Hunter Biden's alleged laptop data posted online

DaisyDay said:

Extensive Hunter Biden laptop archive with nearly 10,000 photos published on new website

An extensive archive of photos from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were published on a new website as he faces ongoing investigations into his overseas business affairs and potential tax and gun c…

nypost.com

If this is, in fact, his data, how is it legal to post a private citizen's private info online for any and all to peruse?

Click to expand...

that is now in the public domain since he abandoned the laptop...

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

that is now in the public domain since he abandoned the laptop...

Click to expand...

Not sure it works that way.
The repairmen can claim a forfeited physical laptop, but not sure the personal data becomes his to do as he pleases.

This is where having a consistent standard on whether or not people have a right to privacy (and what forms of privacy) would've been nice to have to remove the ambiguity.

However, in the realm of politics, people on both sides have opted for spending 30 years picking and choosing whether or not they do or don't want there to be a right to privacy instead of taking the good with the bad and picking a position and sticking to it.

At various points, there have been people on both sides who've both praised and condemned leakers and/or whistleblowers for releasing things that were never intended to be public.

As well as people going back and forth on whether or not it's good/bad for private conversations, etc... to be disclosed (based on whether or not they like the target)


What that means is that a person can't cheer/boo the leaking of embarrassing content/tax returns/private text messages & contents of email servers/scotus notes/etc... but then do a complete 180 when it it's someone from the other team.


Admittedly, it'd be tough balancing act to craft something that would find a happy medium between preserving certain aspects of personal privacy, and not kneecapping investigative journalism as we know it today.

DaisyDay said:

Extensive Hunter Biden laptop archive with nearly 10,000 photos published on new website

An extensive archive of photos from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were published on a new website as he faces ongoing investigations into his overseas business affairs and potential tax and gun c…

nypost.com

If this is, in fact, his data, how is it legal to post a private citizen's private info online for any and all to peruse?

Click to expand...

You throw away trash....you have the right to essentially abandon property.

Hunter's laptop is abandoned property. As such, anyone who acquires it can do whatever they wish with it.

That would be the short legal explanation.

Say it aint so said:

Not sure it works that way.
The repairmen can claim a forfeited physical laptop, but not sure the personal data becomes his to do as he pleases.

Click to expand...

Why not? He could sell it if he wanted to...

I thought the FBI had this so called computer.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

I thought the FBI had this so called computer.

Click to expand...

It mentions the archive and not the physical laptop itself.

And it sounds like they did redactions of things that would be information that would open someone up to the risk of identity theft (I assume to cover their bases legally)
"Among the redacted pictures are those that display private information, such as Social Security, banking, and credit card numbers."

Who knows where the physical computer is at the moment.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

that is now in the public domain since he abandoned the laptop...

Click to expand...

No its not. Personal data belongs to the creator. If anything he has copywrite on the photos.

USincognito said:

No its not. Personal data belongs to the creator. If anything he has copywrite on the photos.

Click to expand...

I think that's in a legal grey area and would make for a very tough case to try (especially if the laptop was, indeed, abandoned)

Point of reference, as someone who does some photography on the side as a hobby, I've had images that I've posted as samples on places like my own website as well as Flickr, that explicitly have my watermark on them. And with tools like Pixsy and other similar ones, found where some were being used on various websites unbeknownst to me. Wanna take a crack at how many takedown requests have been successful? (Hint: it's between 0 and 0) The answer I've always been given is that if it's not being used explicitly for direct commercial purposes, trying to get it taken down is a non-starter.


It'd be the equivalent of if I decided to leave prints of some of my photos laying on a park bench, and someone else picked them up and decided to show them to other people.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Why not? He could sell it if he wanted to...

Click to expand...

I hate to say so....but it would depend upon who he is selling it to. For example, you could build something like a bomb....abandon it....and I could find it, mistake it for something else, and get it a lot of trouble.

This situation is more akin to putting out the trash. The implicit knowledge of what is in the trash bin and why it is set out makes it fair game for anyone to rummage through in search of valuables or food or whatever. You can certainly claim that you are being robbed and call the police....but any police worth their salt will inform you upon arrival that the moment you set it out, it was abandoned property, and the man rummaging through it is breaking no law. To that point, it's not a bad idea to consider shredding any personal information, banking information, financial statements, etc....which you might normally just throw in the trash.

ThatRobGuy said:

I think that's in a legal grey area and would make for a very tough case to try (especially if the laptop was, indeed, abandoned)

Point of reference, as someone who does some photography on the side as a hobby, I've had images that I've posted as samples on places like my own website as well as Flickr, that explicitly have my watermark on them. And with tools like Pixsy and other similar ones, found where some were being used on various websites unbeknownst to me. Wanna take a crack at how many takedown requests have been successful? (Hint: it's between 0 and 0) The answer I've always been given is that if it's not being used explicitly for direct commercial purposes, trying to get it taken down is a non-starter.


It'd be the equivalent of if I decided to leave prints of some of my photos laying on a park bench, and someone else picked them up and decided to show them to other people.

Click to expand...

I don't want to assume too much....but tech repair definitely seems like one of those businesses that will almost certainly require a waiver when you drop off your tech. Lots of false claims of not fixing the problem, making the problem worse, etc, tend to ensure these businesses will have a waiver that almost certainly includes a 60 or 90 day period after which property is considered abandoned. He's not running a storage facility after all....nor does he want to deal with accusations of theft.

Perhaps not though....and he's very new to the business and overly trusting.

Say it aint so said:

Not sure it works that way.
The repairmen can claim a forfeited physical laptop, but not sure the personal data becomes his to do as he pleases.

Click to expand...

Ever hear of doxxing? A popular activity of the new left wherein personal information about a person's life, location, employment, etc is made public so they can be harassed.

Once you've shared your personal information....it's now public information.

This is why I'm starting to like animals, like dogs, alpacas, horses, etc., more than people anymore.

...Because of how people treat other people.

ThatRobGuy said:

I think that's in a legal grey area and would make for a very tough case to try (especially if the laptop was, indeed, abandoned)

Point of reference, as someone who does some photography on the side as a hobby, I've had images that I've posted as samples on places like my own website as well as Flickr, that explicitly have my watermark on them. And with tools like Pixsy and other similar ones, found where some were being used on various websites unbeknownst to me. Wanna take a crack at how many takedown requests have been successful? (Hint: it's between 0 and 0) The answer I've always been given is that if it's not being used explicitly for direct commercial purposes, trying to get it taken down is a non-starter.


It'd be the equivalent of if I decided to leave prints of some of my photos laying on a park bench, and someone else picked them up and decided to show them to other people.

Click to expand...

>> Creators own the copyright to an image the moment they create it—and this applies to digital images just as it does printed ones. In other words, the image doesn't have to be printed or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to obtain copyright protection <<

This happens a lot. Usually it becomes an issue when someone drops off a laptop for repair and the technician inevitably finds illegal images stored, reports it to the police, and that person is arrested.

In this case, most likely the repair shop had a clause in its service agreement saying something like 'any equipment left with us becomes our property after x amount of time'.

So in my opinion it all falls on Hunter Biden. He dropped off a laptop that had material on it that should have been removed. And he failed to recover his laptop before ownership of it transferred to the repair shop.

Needless to say, aside from personal identity info, you shouldn't have anything on your device that will cause you problems when the technician inevitably uncovers it in the process of troubleshooting the device.

USincognito said:

How to copyright a photograph or image

Copyright protection gives the owner of a photo or image several exclusive legal rights over its use and distribution. Here's how to make sure you're protecting your rights.

www.legalzoom.com

>> Creators own the copyright to an image the moment they create it—and this applies to digital images just as it does printed ones. In other words, the image doesn't have to be printed or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to obtain copyright protection <<

Click to expand...

Hunter Biden can sue for copyright infringement if he wants to.

But that won't put the cat back into the bag.

Ordinary Christian said:

Biden can sue for copyright infringement if he wants to.

Click to expand...

He's already suing John Isaac for stealing and distributing his data without permission.

USincognito said:

How to copyright a photograph or image

Copyright protection gives the owner of a photo or image several exclusive legal rights over its use and distribution. Here's how to make sure you're protecting your rights.

www.legalzoom.com

>> Creators own the copyright to an image the moment they create it—and this applies to digital images just as it does printed ones. In other words, the image doesn't have to be printed or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to obtain copyright protection <<

Click to expand...

I know that's what it says, but in practical application, it's nearly impossible to enforce. (unless someone's trying to sell it)

It gets even greyer when you're talking about things that can be labelled (legitimate or otherwise) as journalism or investigative reporting.

Thus the reason the press (if they're claiming they're running a story on something) can get away with a little more in terms of copyrighted materials.

"Journalists have a right under fair use to employ as much of a copyrighted work that they need to accomplish their goals—and sometimes even to use an entire work, such as a photograph, or a critical source document."

Basically, all a person would have to say is "I'm running a story on Hunter Biden, and publishing my findings", and it becomes very murky waters as it's impossible to shut down their usage of the photos without them being able to make a legally validate claim of infringing the freedom of the press.

USincognito said:

He's already suing John Isaac for stealing and distributing his data without permission.

Click to expand...

Good. Then it eventually will become an official legal determination that will supersede armchair interpretations like mine and others. Of course that probably means Hunter Biden is going to have a bunch of questions to answer. I don't know what that will amount to, but at least his comments will be under oath and on record.