Question about a warrant

[quincy]

Whether there will be additional charges, or any charge for that matter, will be up to the prosecutor.

Certainly your friend’s employer would not have seen the photo(s) if the photo(s) had not been transferred by the former boyfriend to his company-owned phone.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Not to get too deep into this, but how could it be obvious to anyone who isn't familiar with your friend's breasts (which I assume is virtually nobody)? Also, how is it that you know about this happening?

I was wondering this as well, but maybe she has very distinctive tattoos.

 

[Just Blue]

I was wondering this as well, but maybe she has very distinctive tattoos.

I was thinking that or an unusual birthmark.

 

[quincy]

I think a tattoo or a birthmark/mole are both reasonable possibilities. And there are other possibilities. But just knowing that there had been a relationship between the former employee and isis297’s friend might make identifying the subject of the photo on the former employee’s phone easier, too.

 

[AlmostThere]

Our company doesn't always fight to get company belongings back. The phone couldn't be located after he was fired so a new phone was purchased. These are just tracfones... nothing high tech or very expensive. A new manager took over and was cleaning out everything in the office, reorganizing, etc and he found the phone stuffed in the back of a drawer. He is a friend as well and he knew it was the phone the guy had because you could hear him in some of the videos. This friend also knew them as a couple. He's the one who told her he found it. She feels violated not knowing if others saw it and just didn't say anything. A screenshot of the background of the phone was taken within 2 months of the ex being fired so somebody opened the phone at least once but we don't know if they saw anything or if there was anybody else. People knew they were a couple though so she is just feeling very violated right now both because of how many might have seen it that she works with and that she didn't realize the picture had been taken in the first place.

While the penal code is in regards to taking unconsented pictures or video for personal gratification, we were just wondering if the fact it was copied to a work phone adds to the severity of the crime, like disbursement.

This is really common. MDM is frequently used to wipe any corporate data off the phone, remove access and tokens to corporate systems, etc.

Some companies may not even request the return of a laptop unless it is really new. They manage the device remotely, and the next time the laptop shows up online, the system will remotely wipe it. And don't think you can just put your own system on it and use it, or sell it, because as soon as the item shows up as online, even after you format and install a new OS, the former employer will be notified. It frequently costs more to package and ship back keyboards, mice, cables, monitors, and docks than they are worth as used devices.

IMO, I prefer to ship computers back to the former employer and let them deal with disposal.

 

[zddoodah]

While the penal code is in regards to taking unconsented pictures or video for personal gratification, we were just wondering if the fact it was copied to a work phone adds to the severity of the crime, like disbursement.

I'm not sure you know what "disbursement" means, but the answer to the highlighted portion is no.

 

[quincy]

The words “disburse” (to expend, pay out, distribute) and “disperse” (to scatter, strew, distribute) are frequently confused because they both involve distribution.

Transferring a photo from one device to another can make the photo available for viewing to a wider audience - not necessarily a large audience, but a wider audience. The employer would not have seen the photo had it remained on the employee’s own personal phone.

“Publication” in law, of a photo or a message, requires distribution to the public, with “public” being a third person, only one person other than the person in the photo or about whom the message refers.

The greater the audience or the wider the distribution or dispersal or scattering of legally questionable material often means the greater the harm (and potentially the greater the amount of damages awarded in a lawsuit).

 

[isis297]

I meant distribution. I'm sorry. Thank you for all of your help.

 

[quincy]

We all appreciate the thanks, isis297, so thank you.

 

[isis297]

We all appreciate the thanks, isis297, so thank you.

It is the least I can do for the help several of you have given me for different reasons over the years. There are some senior members, such as yourself, that I especially value when I see a reply from you. Truly... I appreciate what you do.

 

[quincy]

Thank you again, isis297. It is nice to know that what the members do here is appreciated.


(To zahedisara96: Please do not post your spam on this forum. Your post was reported to the moderator)