[gohrt]

That is an extraordinary claim that requires some evidence.

[gte910h]

http://blog.internetcases.com/2011/08/29/using-lojack-to-fin...

Apparently, it's federal, not state based.

[gohrt]

Thanks for the link. That is sad news.

The key point seems to be:

> the court was saying that Absolute went too far in collecting the contents of the communications being made on the stolen computer.

So location tracking and snapping photos of the user is acceptable, but intercepting the users communication content is not. Unfortunate, and poorly decided, but not complete failure.

As usual, the government reserves rights for itself to perform specific acts that it considers criminal when private citizens engage. (And of course, the government offers no replacement for citizens who are prohibited for taking defensive actions on their own behalf.)

[gte910h]

I think snooping on sexual episodes was quite rightly decided to be an invasion of privacy. I think a tort would have likely been more appropriate than criminal charges for it.

[gohrt]

Thanks for the link. That is sad news.

The key point seems to be:

> the court was saying that Absolute went too far in collecting the contents of the communications being made on the stolen computer.

So location tracking and snapping photos of the user is acceptable, but intercepting the users communication content is not. Unfortunate, and poorly decided, but not complete failure.

As usual, the government reserves rights for itself to perform specific acts that it considers criminal when private citizens engage.