egafd.com

Meatus wrote:


>
> I always thought this very strange to. And i've often wondered
> if the staff or any PC repair man is supposed to have a nose
> around anyway?

As I recall, his laptop wasn't working, he took it in and told them not to look at a certain folder which contained all his private business and financial details. So being nosey, that's exactly what they did.

I doubt if an 'official' nosey would be sanctioned. Wouldn't that be an illegal search, if done without a warrant?

When Gary Glitter was in court for the charges of downloading child porn images, it was stated that the technician working on his computer had to check a folder or two "in order to see if he was successful" in correcting the fault. PC World denied any suggestion that they had been told not to look at a certain folder. They also denied a story that the images reported to the police were deleted files which had been recovered by them. When Gary Glitter had taken the computer in he had apparently asked if all his data was safe, as it included business and banking details, and he was told that it was, since it was "against policy" for PC World staff to snoop into the private data of customers. Hence the explanation given in court that the technician had to check on whether his repair had been successful.

Does this mean, if the guy had just checked 2 other random folders to see if the repairs had worked Glitter would have got away with it?

I think it must just be like that, People just chancing their luck in the hope that someone shares their warped perversion or if not the worst they will do is tell you to fuck off.

I think thats exactly what happened with those 3 sick fucks where one of the 3 a woman was abusing children in her care at a Nursery. Apparantly the guy just started chatting to her and floated the subject which she agreed to.

Meatus wrote:

> Does this mean, if the guy had just checked 2 other random
> folders to see if the repairs had worked Glitter would have got
> away with it?

Quite likely. The one with the porn in it was entitled "The Gang" or "My Gang" I forget which. It has no passwords, no folders within folders - no attempt to hide anything.

Yes you are correct Essex Lad, the folder was called "My Gang".

I'm not too sure about the explanation given for looking in that folder. Of course someone who's carried out a computer repair is entitled to check to see if everything's working, but I feel he may have been curious about the "My Gang" folder.

I don't know if the PC World employee has reiterated that it was looked at just at random or given another reason?

Perhaps his curiosity was piqued by the fact Glitter was famous and the folder "My Gang" perhaps he thought it contained photos of Glitter with other famous people he wanted to get a look at. Not realising at all at the content which he was going to find?

Meatus wrote:

> I don't know if the PC World employee has reiterated that it
> was looked at just at random or given another reason?
>
> Perhaps his curiosity was piqued by the fact Glitter was famous
> and the folder "My Gang" perhaps he thought it contained photos
> of Glitter with other famous people he wanted to get a look at.
> Not realising at all at the content which he was going to find?


More than likely just a nosey bastard. I have a friend who worked for the Brittania Building Society in Stoke. The number of people who have been disciplined for trying to access Robbie Williams account (this was the first era of Take That) is ridiculous.

When one of the many NHS computer system cock-ups went live for internal testing, David Beckham had something like 700 hits in the first hour.

Just nosey bastards.

Without condoning Garry Glitters "carryings on", I believe information gleaned as a result of some nosey cunt perusing a person files at his leisure, should be inadmissible in a court.

For example, does this mean if you were to drop your car in for a service and had left your briefcase in the boot, a mechanic could if he wished, open the briefcase rummage around inside and if he were to find some unpaid parking fines, contact the authority and announce, "I have found the person that owes you alot of money, would you like us to take the amount from his credit card?"

I can't really see the difference between my analogy and what in fact happened to Glitter. The same happened to me about 10 years ago with a PC that was faulty, the nosey techie wanker opened my files to do with TVX and the pics for different series I had made and when I went to pick up the PC, he said, "Wey, hey, hey, you got a nice bunch of totty in that TVX folder!"

Funnily enough, I said nothing and just thought I will NEVER take a computer for servicing again and I will look into all this stuff about Apple computers that don"t fuck up all the time and I've never looked back since!

Re Jim - "Without condoning Garry Glitters "carryings on", I believe information gleaned as a result of some nosey cunt perusing a person files at his leisure, should be inadmissible in a court.

For example, does this mean if you were to drop your car in for a service and had left your briefcase in the boot, a mechanic could if he wished, open the briefcase rummage around inside and if he were to find some unpaid parking fines, contact the authority and announce, "I have found the person that owes you alot of money, would you like us to take the amount from his credit card?"


While your theory does make sense Jim and the techies should not be noseying around peoples files i think in cases where child pornography is found it is a lot different, just supposing you were working as a techie at a computer shop and you found child porn on a customers laptop, what a dilemma it would put you in, i think you would have no choice but to tell of what you had seen, or what are you going to do? not say anything and have it on your concience forever, or maybe not child porn, maybe a filming of a murder on file, whatever found by a techie on the laptop if it involves a child or person getting exploited/hurt then the best thing is to go straight to the authorities.