Wife's nude pics on lost phone end up online

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I have the right to keep whatever I want on my phone. Even if I leave it laying somewhere that doesn't give you the right to publish what's in it. Pretty clear cut in my mind.

I guess you could argue that there was contributory negligence on the part of the man who owned the phone (if the claim was that McDonalds was negligent in not taking actions to stop this from happening, doesn't work if you're claiming that McDonalds DID it) but to me even that doesn't seem like a compelling argument and in any case McDonalds had the "last clear chance" to stop it from occuring.

You can keep whatever you want on your phone, but if you leave your phone in a fast food restaurant, you're a fool if you assume your private photos will remain private.

So what precautions do you want to depend on? Not having compromising photos on your phone? Locking the images on your phone? Keeping up with your own damn phone? Or leaving it just as it is and hoping that the McDonald's employees will handle things for you?

Some of these seem like better options than others to me if the end goal is not being embarrassed by the photos on your phone.

But making McDonald's pay is our legal answer. yay!

ETA: I guess I should add that I've got little problem making the actual posters of the photos pay.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But making McDonald's pay is our legal answer. yay!

ETA: I guess I should add that I've got little problem making the actual posters of the photos pay.

... but these guys only got to the position they were in (i.e. they only had access to the phone) via their employment for McDonald's, while acting as agents of McDonald's. If it were simply customers that had done this, then it would be completely different - this isn't some technicality, in my mind.

[Tinia2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

... but these guys only got to the position they were in (i.e. they only had access to the phone) via their employment for McDonald's, while acting as agents of McDonald's. If it were simply customers that had done this, then it would be completely different - this isn't some technicality, in my mind.

All the information we have seems to be based solely on a civil complainant.
Who seems to be focusing everything on one target.
The one which is best known and has the deepest pockets. And is the easiest target.
Which is rather normal in civil cases. It is that approach or a full bore shot-gun in which you name everyone and everything and let the court sort it all out.

Nothing I have seen, so far, proves that it was the agents/servants of McDonald that caused this. Before or after the stated phone call.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456804,00.html
"I would strongly caution anyone from jumping to conclusions without having all the facts. I believe this act was perpetrated by individuals who do not represent my organization," Bill Mathews, the McDonald's franchisee, said."

This story will most likely go on for months if not years.

And now the flip side of story:
Tina Sherman Nude Photos Story Likely A Hoax, Naked Pictures Don't Exist
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/or...12188416.shtml

Nude Photos on iPhone a Wakeup Call:
Companies can learn a few lessons from alleged smartphone incident.
"Whether the Arkansas incident bears out -- there have been some online reports it's a hoax -- companies can learn several lessons, Cross said. "
http://www.internetnews.com/security...akeup+Call.htm

Well, let see what snope.com and other fact check sites come up with now.
As well as the court system.