Alternative perspective on messing with others’ game cams

[boneaddict]

I don’t believe.  Data as defined in the cyber crimes act Includes trail cam photos.

You don't think?

"(3) "Data" means a digital representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, data software, data programs, or instructions that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalized manner and are intended for use in a data network, data program, data services, or data system.
...
(7) "Data system" means an electronic device or collection of electronic devices, including support devices one or more of which contain data programs, input data, and output data, and that performs functions including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage and retrieval, communication, and control. This term does not include calculators that are not programmable and incapable of being used in conjunction with external files."

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.90.030

A trail cam photo is certainly a digital representation of information.  The requirement to be intended for use in a "data system" seems easily satisfied, as any computer, tablet or phone would qualify as a data system under (7).

OK lets go about this in another direction instead of arguing what the definition is of a data storage device, what data is and how this all pertains to this Act.

Find one case where  tampering with a trail camera has resulted in charges, let alone a conviction due to this RCW.

[Magnum_Willys]

(b) Wrongfully control, gain access to, or obtain money, property, or electronic data.”

Could be data, and/or property.  I wouldn't want to bet the cam owners not a ticked off lawyer or LEO just to see the pics.   Lotta risk there!

I do appreciate the discussion, I may have been inclined to look at government cam pics ( public domain right?) before reading this thread.  Not now.

[boneaddict]

on that note, I think youd be even more at risk because you are tampering with government property.

[Highhuntin]

legal or not its just not right in my book, others opinions may vary but I would not touch someone else's property.

[huntnfmly]

I seen a good example of what to do on a tv show called elk camp the guide Steve Chappell guides in Arizona and was setting up a trail cam over a whallow in area 9 there were literally 5-6 other cameras on this big scrub oak I think it was all he said was there must be some nice bulls  here with all these cameras and put his up no big deal.
If it's not yours don't touch it

[BlackBellyHumpBack]

If you take an SD card out of someone else's camera you are now in possession of someone else's property.  It is theft, if caught in that moment you can't just say as a legal defense that I was just borrowing it.  Just borrowing without permission isn't legal.  And the pictures you are just viewing you are stealing.  If a journalist or photographer leaves a camera sitting some place public like a city park, you can't just pick it up and look thru it just because they left it there.  The photos themselves have value to those who see them and you are stealing that information just by viewing it, that's why you want to view it.  Its theft under many different laws.

[frazierw]

If you take an SD card out of someone else's camera you are now in possession of someone else's property.  It is theft, if caught in that moment you can't just say as a legal defense that I was just borrowing it.  Just borrowing without permission isn't legal.  And the pictures you are just viewing you are stealing.  If a journalist or photographer leaves a camera sitting some place public like a city park, you can't just pick it up and look thru it just because they left it there.  The photos themselves have value to those who see them and you are stealing that information just by viewing it, that's why you want to view it.  Its theft under many different laws.

So by your logic, if someone leaves their phone in a public place, i cant go through it to find out who the owner is to return it to them?

[BlackBellyHumpBack]

Your intent isn't to steal information in that situation.  It truly is quite simple legally, it is theft of information.  Information that most definitely has value or so many people wouldn't be going thru suck effort to get it.  Information that is less valuable when someone else has it also, (just as a journalists photos) and thus you have taken value from the owner of the information.  This is why the electronic law talked about above has the statement about just viewing in it.  Information is valuable it is why they are taking it.

[yakimanoob]

Find one case where tampering with a trail camera has resulted in charges, let alone a conviction due to this RCW.

A fair request, but unfortunately I don't know how to look up specific cases.  Is there a searchable database showing charges that have been brought before the court in Washington? 


And just for the sake of clarity, are you saying you don't think it's illegal to check someone else's camera?  Or just that this particular RCW doesn't apply?

[boneaddict]

I dont think this RCW would apply to trailcams.     

I wouldn't touch another persons trail camera no matter how much I disagree with them.  I think that is Wrong.

[Timberstalker]

To think this ridiculous of a thread exists at all, let alone in the middle of October, blows my mind.

[yakimanoob]

To think this ridiculous of a thread exists at all, let alone in the middle of October, blows my mind.

Listen some of us have boring day jobs OKAY.  GAH.   

[Timberstalker]

To think this ridiculous of a thread exists at all, let alone in the middle of October, blows my mind.

Listen some of us have boring day jobs OKAY.  GAH.   

I'd fire you if you were my employee, just being a part of this thread.

 

[AROTTY]

Here's my .02.

If you really think a game cam is abandoned turn it in to a LEO. I can see a morally justifiable reason for that. But messing with a cam to take off your pics copy pics or whatever else is wrong.

[Highhuntin]

COME ON SATURDAY!!!!!! its been a long week/months...