[CapitalistCartr]

Think about it. Why do we put far more money into law enforcement than the cost of the crime? Because it's not just about that one laptop. If we don't get the point across to the criminal, he'll do far more damage to all of us. Most burglary is the result of a small number of people. Because few police departments treat that crime seriously, a single burglar gets away with hundreds of crimes before getting caught.

As for his privacy, he surrendered that voluntarily when he stole the laptop; the government didn't impose that sentence on him.

[jcfrei]

I don't think he surrendered his privacy voluntarily. exposing his picture and info has nothing to do with law enforcement - that's just self-administered justice. a well functioning state of law / rule of law (I dunno how you call it in english) works by sentencing criminals to prison according to the scale of their crime. not by punishing them overtly and excessively as a warning to other criminals (that's just barbaric).

[CapitalistCartr]

All that happened is that the World knows that he is a criminal. His right to privacy doesn't mean the right to conceal his misdeeds from the rest of us, nor the right for us to keep silent about it.

[jcfrei]

No, just because you become a criminal doesn't mean you lose your right to privacy. Whether the act itself was unlawful or not doesn't really matter (to a certain extent).

[polymatter]

To compound matters, a person not convicted of a crime by a court of law is a suspect who may or may not know the laptop they are using is stolen goods. I think its wrong to treat suspects as though they are convicted criminals. Presumed innocent before guilty and all that.