Who's right and wrong in this lost camera matter?

February 20, 2006 7:42 AM

I recently found this story in my feeds and was shocked and awed that such a thing could happen. Who's right or wrong?

Discussing with many people on the matter we've come with even more questions than answers, many of us believe it is wrongdoing for the mother to have let the kid even use the camera, on the other side, they at least gave her the pictures (which most surely she didn't even dreamed of getting back) and they spent money on the camera stuff they bought .
What are the moral / ethical ramifications on this matter, who's right, who's wrong? Are there any legal possibilities of getting the camera back (it is after all a matter between two individuals in different countries (Canada/USA), what does international law says on such matters? What is the next thing to do now for her?
What do you all think of this? If anybody has any internet resources on this, please post them.

I've always been fascinated with cases such as this one that could possibly become a case studie for many different subjects, ethic, moral, international law and such.

I have no intention of generating more traffic to that blog by promoting her here, I don't even know her, but I surely don't want to post the whole story here without giving her and her blog the whole credit by linking to it. She got her camera lost and stolen, bad enough with that.

posted by bergan to Human Relations (29 answers total)

It sound like a scam to me.
posted by brujita at 7:47 AM on February 20, 2006

Sounds
posted by brujita at 7:47 AM on February 20, 2006

I think someone in Canada is about to learn about the awesome power of the Internet and angry mob justice.
posted by camworld at 7:48 AM on February 20, 2006

I know what you mean Brujita - she doesn't sound *angry* enough for it to be true. She just seems to lie back and accept the fact that she's been hosed. And then, it's just occured to me, she sets up a blog to whine about it. Strange.
posted by Jofus at 7:52 AM on February 20, 2006

Is this a double or not?
posted by edd at 7:53 AM on February 20, 2006

For what it's worth, Matt says this is true. Also, these things are already being discussed over on the blue.
posted by Uncle Glendinning at 7:55 AM on February 20, 2006

It's been discussed on the main site too, with responses from the author of the blog:

i'm still pursuing this through legal and official channels, not shrugging and being a pushover. between this site, my blog, gizmodo, digg, somethingawful, monkeyfilter, and the various other internet forums and blogs discussing this story (all of which surprises me immensely, but i guess it's a slow news day) there are over a thousand people clamoring for the names and addresses.

despite feeling like i'm clearly in the right here, there are two sides to every story and if someone i cared about or someone you cared about was on the other side of this story, would you want a thousand people on the internet knowing their personal contact information? i wouldn't.
posted by gi_wrighty at 7:56 AM on February 20, 2006

The person who found the camera could be sued for the tort of conversion (interference with property, not theft), but for some reason, the plaintiff decided to accept only the memory cards and $50 back. At that point, they effectively lost all claim to the camera (from a practical perspective) and can now only beg for the cards back, as the value will be below the threshold of any small claims court. I don't think there's a criminal offense involved. The cross-border nature of the incident complicates matters somewhat too. Resolving this situation will require guile and trickery rather than legal acumen. I would call, every day, at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, demanding the camera or value back. Never stop. Flood email accounts, call at work, send letter mail. Make it worth their while to get of you instead of keeping the camera.
posted by loquax at 8:00 AM on February 20, 2006

I could believe it was made up too, but that aside - on an ethical level, it's perfectly clear who's "right or wrong", but the excuse here is basically, well, I could have been even more unethical, so you can't punish me for having revealed my name etc to you. The implicit argument there is that that will just encourage future thiefs not to be nice enough to send back the lost images. But this is essentially bribery. The thiefs are morally wrong, even if they additionally commit a generous or friendly act.

This is complicated by the theft being indirect, though - the idea that something lost can become "neutral" and thus "finders, keepers" becomes the law. But, this must only be the case for completely generic property, and even then it is questionable. If someone lost cash, and you found it, you probably wouldn't put an ad up on craig's list to try to locate the original loser. The reason, though, is pragmatic, not ethical; i.e., all the fraudulent claims for this money would be indistinguishable from the any sincere claim. But found property which can easily be traced back to an original owner belongs to that owner. It is morally neutral to see it and do nothing about it. It is unethical to steal it. It is a beneficient act to help get it back to the person who lost it.
posted by mdn at 8:01 AM on February 20, 2006

I'm amazed that anyone can question whether or not this is "right or wrong" -- it is WRONG, no matter how you slice it. The near-thief is clearly in the wrong, and should be ashamed.
posted by davidmsc at 8:04 AM on February 20, 2006

Bergan, can you clarify your question a little? I'm not seeing how the actions of the thieves could be seen as anything but wrong. How does spending money on the camera make it any less wrong? That's like jacking a car and then saying, "well, I'd give it back but I already filled up the tank with premium gas".
posted by Justinian at 8:08 AM on February 20, 2006

Definitely wrong. Not illegal, but very wrong, and the lesson being taught to the kid who allegedly found the camera is not a good one.
posted by solid-one-love at 8:08 AM on February 20, 2006

Reading the other thread, this is not really theft. Criminal theft requires dishonest actions on the part of the defendant to separate the plaintiff and their property. This is almost certainly an exclusively civil matter. Contacting the police would likely not be productive, and I cannot imagine that there would be a prosecutor alive that would decide to bring charges. A UK discussion of "finders keepers" law.
posted by loquax at 8:08 AM on February 20, 2006

loquax, she didn't get the memory card or the $50 though, she got some cds.
posted by tiamat at 8:12 AM on February 20, 2006

Response by poster: I'm aware there is another thread which is more focused on the idea of getting the name and address of the people who has the camera now but I wanted to discuss more in the line of the the moral, ethical and legal implications many of the answers I've received are in this line thankfully.

Justinian, many people believe in the "finders keepers" thing, many people don't consider it wrong, not good also, more so in a gray neutral zone, that's what also amaze me.
posted by bergan at 8:16 AM on February 20, 2006

I know, so she has an outstanding claim against the other party for the memory cards and $50 (or maybe that breach of contract on the part of the finder invalidates the agreement and allows the loser to make a new claim against the full value of the camera). Either way, it's tough to see what legal avenues, criminal or civil could help this person out.
posted by loquax at 8:17 AM on February 20, 2006

Adults who present children's motivations as excuses for their actions are irresponsible and indulgent. Foisting responsibility off on the poor sick kid is manipulative and evil.

This woman is basically patting herself on the back for returning the photos. In her mind, most people would just keep the lot, and she went to extra trouble to help out the person who lost it. I guess it's better than nothing, but the bald-faced "I'm keeping your shit" attitude takes way more gall than just keeping it anonymously.

There are some shameless, amoral people walking around.
posted by scarabic at 8:18 AM on February 20, 2006

I know Georgia has a "theft of lost or mislaid property" law that applies to people who don't make reasonable efforts to return lost property to its owner. (OCGA 16-8-6)
posted by reverendX at 8:37 AM on February 20, 2006

...this is not really theft.... Contacting the police would likely not be productive, and I cannot imagine that there would be a prosecutor alive that would decide to bring charges.... Either way, it's tough to see what legal avenues, criminal or civil could help this person out.

All of these assumptions are flat wrong. UK law has no bearing on an act that happened in the United States. According to Hawaii law, Section 708-830(3), the camera-finder committed a Class C felony theft.
posted by naomi at 8:53 AM on February 20, 2006

In the Netherlands, we recently had a case were someone was fined 130 Euro's because she found a wallet and took the money that was in it (other people saw that she did it, waited until she drove away, and called the police with her license plate number).
posted by davar at 8:56 AM on February 20, 2006

loquax - Are you a law student? Just wondering.

By the way, your course of action ("I would call, every day, at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, demanding the camera or value back. Never stop. Flood email accounts, call at work, send letter mail. Make it worth their while to get of you instead of keeping the camera.") could easily be deemed as harassing (see the MPC definition), getting Judy in serious criminal trouble.
posted by MeetMegan at 9:18 AM on February 20, 2006

Also note that even if this act had taken place in Canada, the camera-finder has still committed theft as defined by Part IX, Article 322(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. So it's against the law in both countries.

I don't know the answer to the question on international law, but Canada and the U.S. do have a mutual assistance treaty in criminal matters that may apply to this case.
posted by naomi at 9:21 AM on February 20, 2006

According to Hawaii law, Section 708-830(3), the camera-finder committed a Class C felony theft.

Subsection 3 doesn't actually indicate that an offense is committed if the property is not returned, merely that an offense is committed if the original owner is not notified.

And I don't see how the citation of the Criminal Code applies.

Further, the camera was allegedly found by a child, who cannot be charged with a crime under Canadian law anyway, making the issue of whether a crime was committed under Canadian law moot.

In my opinion, Naomi, you're incorrect. Not illegal, but the act was still very wrong (and getting more wrong).
posted by solid-one-love at 9:48 AM on February 20, 2006

I can't even believe teaching my kids that it's ok for them to find something that's obviously expensive (they looked up the price, for goodness sake!), and then letting him think because of his "luck" that it's ok for him to keep it. Whether or not it turns out to be legally theft, this is ethically stealing to me and I can't imagine WANTING to teach my kid that this is ok. If nothing else, it would've been a good teaching moment.
posted by artifarce at 9:55 AM on February 20, 2006

naomi - I know UK law has no bearing on this, I only linked to that because it was an interesting discussion of the issues involved. I was not aware of the statute in Hawaii, but I agree with solid-one-love:

(3) Appropriation of property. A person obtains, or exerts control over, the property of another that the person knows to have been lost or mislaid or to have been delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property, the identity of the recipient, or other facts, and, with the intent to deprive the owner of the property, the person fails to take reasonable measures to discover and notify the owner.

The owner in this case was notified, and effectively signed away their rights to their property when agreeing to accept the memory cards and $50 instead. The breach of that agreement is a civil matter, not a criminal one, as far as I am aware. The same goes for Canada's criminal code. There was no fraud, no deception and no intent to separate owner from property. No criminal liability, as I see it.

As for harassment, yes, maybe. Obviously one should be careful and know the law in one's jurisdiction before embarking on such a campaign. Usually, criminal harassment involves physically stalking or being in the presence of the subject and usually the harassment has to be of a threatening nature AND the harassment must usually result in the subject actually fearing for their physical safety. The laws in Ontario do allow for repetitive calls. I have no idea what they are wherever these people are. What else can one do? If you assume that there is no criminal act (and even if there were, somehow, no prosecutor will be interested in it, especially when the owner agreed to forsake their claim at one point), and if you assume that the amount of money in question is too low for small claims court and the costs of even bringing a suit forward, the only thing to do is to subtly and legally exert pressure on this person to do the right thing. (Fake) letters from lawyers would do wonders here, I bet.
posted by loquax at 10:15 AM on February 20, 2006

Essentially they're teaching their child that if he's having a hard time of things it's okay to take advantage of others, which seems like a quick shortcut to a life of self-pity, selfishness, and amorality. Ethical? no. Makes the world a worse place? yes.
posted by Tuwa at 10:17 AM on February 20, 2006

from the comments:

Benjy said...
I just sent an email to Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" show on MSNBC. They have a segment called "Worst Person in the World" and I suggested they include these people. Maybe an international shaming would help get the camera returned...

----
Best idea yet. I think that others oughta do the same thing. Maybe a few reporters crawling around the house in Canada will rattle them just enough to realize that they're jerks.
posted by drstein at 10:21 AM on February 20, 2006

Best idea yet. I think that others oughta do the same thing.

Please don't. I am still pursuing this through official channels and would hate to derail that process. I certainly never imagined that a tiny post to a virtually-unread blog would generate this amount of attention. Thanks to those of you who have offered supportive thoughts.
posted by judith at 10:31 AM on February 20, 2006

I would call, every day, at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, demanding the camera or value back. Never stop. Flood email accounts, call at work, send letter mail. Make it worth their while to get of you instead of keeping the camera. - loquax

Also known as harrassment.
posted by raedyn at 10:34 AM on February 20, 2006