[johnhess]

"the law" is the fulcrum this turns on.

if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though.

here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state

This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges.

Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to prosecute should be more banal.

[ghurtado]

> it’s stealing their stuff.

Then I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft

Literally said I think they’re charging this wrong.

[metalman]

cant be theft, as it he copyed from one format to another...different video standards/resolutions...and if he gave a copy, of the copy away and the third party(cnn) has not been charged, even though they published the footage, and profited by that, then yes him getting criminaly charged for what is an indiscression at best is unusual. what would be of interest is if the same organisation that "owned" the cameras and footage has ever demanded that employies share footage taken on there phones, or requires employies to carry a personal phone for work, as that would further muddy any notion of personal/private ....all to cover up what is egregious behavior on the part of military pilots in civilian airspace....but realy part of an attempt to intimidate the public into not documenting military and police crime.

[soraminazuki]

Stealing? Theft? Is there a god-given right for corporate or government interests to withhold lethal air crash footage from the public?

[uoaei]

"stuff" being technically, legally, IP

[hluska]

That’s unclear.

Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to a trespass charge. He was represented by an attorney with some prosecutorial experience so I think we can assume he received qualified legal advice based upon the facts of the matter. Under terms of his no contest plea, if he stays out of trouble for a year he can have his record expunged.

It sure looks like a plea bargain, in which case we’ll likely never know the actual charges the prosecution was prepared to proceed with. But there’s a clue in the article - when the report was provided to the Intercept, the locations of the security cameras were redacted. When CNN aired the clip, they apparently aired information that identified where that camera was located.

We’ll most likely never know the original charge the prosecution was prepared to proceed with, but the US takes airport security very seriously (as every country should). If taking a no contest on a trespass was considered an out, I wonder if the other charge started with a vowel like ‘e’.

[uoaei]

What's unclear, exactly? Whether video documentation obtained privately belongs to the person who owns the camera and storage media? Because I think it's about as clear as it gets.

[hluska]

I’m Canadian so I’m trying really hard to avoid saying anything that could be perceived as anti-American. I like Americans a lot as half my family hid out in the United States after getting kicked out of Canada, so I’ve struggled with a reply to this for a few days.

The part that is unclear is that this is a Black man named Mohamed who exfiltrated footage that could be used to plan an attack against an airplane. I trust you can draw that out on your own.

[Daviey]

Different but comparable example. Some jobs, if you mess up you just get fired. Other jobs you could end up in prison, for doing the same/similar thing.

A prison officer has a sexual relationship with a prisoner, should they simply be fired or also have a jury heard criminal court process then a record?

.. Not that it should be relevant, but now factor in the prison officer is female, newly qualified and the training college wrote to the prison to warn that the prison officer is not suitable to be a prison officer because they are not robust enough. The prisoner is also highly manipulative and has a documented history of romance with vulnerable females.

[ndriscoll]

Why would it lead to more than them getting fired? What would be the crime? If the idea is that they've coerced/raped a prisoner, presumably that prisoner is making that allegation, and it's the rape allegation that gets investigated/tried, as with any other serious allegation of a crime. If it's consensual, that sounds like they're just not trustworthy to do their job and should be let go.

[Daviey]

No, the prisoner did not make an allegation.

But this is the point I am making, if I have a relationship with someone at work, particularly when one person is subordinate or position of authority, then we'd simply be fired... but a prison officer will face a criminal prosecution of Misconduct in Public Office, and possibly face prison time themselves. Seems somewhat unfair for a low paying job.

[burnished]

It is in no way close to theft because theft involves depriving the victim of some good or asset.

[anileated]

There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.

Theft of private data deprives the owner of privacy. Theft of corporate secrets deprives the company of competitive advantage (and if not prosecuted, economy at large of incentives to innovate). IP theft deprives IP holder of ownership claim (and if not prosecuted, arts at large of incentives to create). Identity theft deprives the identity holder of whatever access to their identity provided to them. This can be continued infinitely.

These scenarios are not the same, and using “theft” for all of them is not precise. However, it is 2025 and in developed countries this sort of crime happens more often than basic theft of physical property, and the detriment from it is often much, much more severe than from basic theft of physical property. (I am sure I don’t need to explain how depriving IP owner of ownership claim can cost the original creator much more than depriving them of some single physical asset, both literally financially and in terms of psychological damage.) It’s therefore important to have a short, mainstream, easy to understand and non-legalese term for these scenarios.

Without any suitable mainstream term the word “theft” is a good enough intuitive approximation—if anything, it’s a bit too mild of a term.

[Fluorescence]

> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.

Of course there is. It's origin is the crime of taking of tangible property owned by someone else without consent. It did not apply to intangible property because it predates any concept of legally protected intellectual property that can be duplicated without loss.

Now, there was also the metaphorical use of theft for non-criminal / non-tangible things but poetic use of language shouldn't be confused with primary meanings. For example, "plagiarism" comes from the Latin for "kidnapping" coined playfully by a comic. It was never a crime or ever resembled actual kidnapping. If you call your poem "my baby" because of how precious it is to you, it doesn't become one. Badly editing your poem is not murder either yet you might complain in such dramatic terms.

You might want to argue something about metaphors and secondary meanings but we shouldn't consider the crime of kidnapping to mean reciting other's verses any more than a summer's day should mean temperate people. If we start taking metaphorical uses literally then you also have to start claiming silly things like most kidnapping being legal.

Only in later industrial society did the metaphor become less metaphorical in written law for criminal acts that emerged post-printing-press that were being called fraud, deception, infringement and piracy.

> deprives the owner of privacy

It's pretty metaphorical to describe such things as property that can be stolen.

With this latitude you can frame every injury as theft e.g. stabbing is the theft of good health, murder is theft of life, perjury is theft of a fair trial etc. You might choose to use such language because it's how we roll, but we also know that, as offences, they are not theft.

When an item cannot be traded or restored to the owner, is it property that can be owned and stolen or are concepts of injury, damage and destruction more legitimate?

When it comes to intellectual property, it's closer to contract law where citizens are compelled to abide by contracts the state issues and enforces. The movement of intangible theft from metaphor into law for breaching such a contract was popularised by the beneficiaries to rhetorically inflate an illusion of loss and justify severe sanctions for acts not considered unlawful for most of human history.

[anileated]

> It's pretty metaphorical to describe such things as property that can be stolen.

Stealing is a pretty wide term meaning deprivation of a good, asset, property, service, etc. If it means deprivation only of physical goods at some point in time, sure; this is 2025 outside now. Theft of physical goods is so first millenium.

[hdgvhicv]

Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

The word has become overloaded in recent decades to mean other things as well, but for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently

[anileated]

> Theft (from Old English þeofð, cognate to thief) is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

> for over a thousand years theft has mean taking something from someone permanently

Nothing in your comment is in contradiction to mine, or suggests that the word has been “overloaded”. That’s what theft is. Intellectual property is property, trade secrets are property.

[hdgvhicv]

> with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

You denied that deprivation was ever part of the term

Your statement was

> There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.

Where it’s literally there in dozens of definitions across the English language.

“Intellectual property” is a new legal construct, at most 500 years old, compared with physical ownership which dates back millennia. The term itself is a mere 200 years old, but mainly ignored in the US until just a few decades ago.

[gameman144]

Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner:

Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)

[ipaddr]

Those are labels. Identity theft is more identity fraud. Theft of digital assets is copyright infringement.

[gameman144]

This is interesting, I definitely use "theft" colloquially for all these things.

For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)

Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.

[margalabargala]

Identity theft is someone else stealing money from the bank, and the bank telling you that's your problem now.

[exe34]

these are deliberate attempts to shift the overton window.

[IshKebab]

Identity theft in particular is a poor term because it shifts the blame from the verifier (the one who actually got things wrong) to the victim.

[ndriscoll]

Actually it attempts to shift liability from the victim (the bank, who was defrauded) to an unrelated party who may or may not be affiliated with the bank at all.

[ghurtado]

"lots of theft is not theft. Like for instance, all these things that are not theft"

... Lots of murder doesn't have a victim...

.... Lots of arson doesn't involve a fire...

... Lots of trespass involves not taking a single step from your work desk ..

... War is peace, peace is war...

[gameman144]

I think the above things are commonly considered theft. Totally fair to contend that the definition is wrong (and IMO that's a reasonable-minded contention), but I don't it's particularly double-think to bucket these digital "thefts" in the same category as physical thefts, either.

[opello]

And it seems like that law requires malicious intent. I wonder how that would be proven here?

[hluska]

Section A of 18.2-152.4 reads:

“A. It is unlawful for any person, with malicious intent, or through intentionally deceptive means and without authority, to:”

And Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to this charge, so he did not admit guilt but agreed to be punished as if he was guilty. He had an attorney with prosecutorial experience retained for his criminal proceeding so we can assume he entered that plea upon receiving qualified legal advice. Under terms of his plea, if he keeps his nose clean for a year, he can apply to have the charge expunged from his record.

So, this looks like a plea bargain. But since he plead no contest, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.