I think making all reasonable attempts, including creating a webpage, to identify that person is well within his rights.
As I acknowledged elsewhere, this is an excellent point, thank you.
I think making all reasonable attempts, including creating a webpage, to identify that person is well within his rights.
Ah, now this is another matter. It looks like the author of this blog has this other person's GPS location and Google credentials. I am not an expert, but I am also not sure that publishing these pictures in this context is solely a question of identifying the person.
So even if he is careful to avoid a blatant accusation, I still don't like the implication and I don't think that identification is the purpose. If it was, it would be easy enough to get in touch with this person without explaining what this has to do with a laptop.
Also, from the photo's it is only clear that he has the guys email address, and even if he did have his password I'm not sure what he could do with it without committing a fairly serious offense.
I really have no idea how you would go about contacting this person without putting yourself in a compromised position. I realize that you do not want people to jump to conclusions as to this guys guilt, however, at the very least he would be a leading suspect in the theft of this laptop, and that is not the sort of person I'd meet for a coffee and to talk about him maybe giving back my laptop.
Also, if you emailed the guy and politely asked him to return the laptop how long do you think it would take for him to get rid of it on craigslist or ebay?
Therefore, attempting to get more information on who this person is in order to build evidence that the police might be interested in looking at seems quite reasonable.
This same location method is used by iPads and iPod Touches, which also don't usually have any better way of locating themselves. The WiFi technique is even used for iPhones, in the rare event that they can't use GPS or cell tower triangulation at a given point in time.
What if it turned out this guy did not steal it but bought it from someone? He, his house and a sleeping woman are now on the internet.
You should read the post here on HN about scanners at airports where we all are suspects. Everybody would scream about the privacy issues...
1.) He doesn't care whether the guy is the thief. He is publishing the photos in an act of non-vengeful vigilantism, with the hopes that someone will see or recognize the guy and contact the OP.
2.) He is assuming the guy is the thief. And, he is publishing the photos to harass/humiliate that person.
Personally I am comfortable with #1 but certainly not #2, for the reasons you cited. In #1, the guy's innocence (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the OP's motivations.
At least he contacted the police first, who wouldn't act on the evidence and only then did he try to garner public support for his case by showing the world the evidence he had. He even did this without accusing the man in the pictures of anything other than possessing his laptop, which is a fact arising from the evidence, even if it hasn't been considered by a court. This case wouldn't even reach a courtroom if it weren't for the fact that this website eventually got the attention of the police.
Ideally the police should have just taken the evidence and investigated the case, but instead the justice system failed. What options did this guy have, other than drawing attention to the fact that the police didn't do their job? Grabbing his pitchfork and willfully instigating a real lynch mob? Letting his computer go?
There's a whole "presumption of innocence" thing going on in my head. I feel like people are telling me that it only applies when they haven't been shown what looks at first glance like compelling evidence.