Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Internet Community Catches a Car Thief

Posted by kdawson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:47 PM
from the crowdsourcing-justice dept.
The Internet News
COredneck sends us a NYTimes story (registration may be required) about an Internet community solving a crime in less than 48 hours. An auto dealer in Calgary lends a car for a test drive — a 1991 Nissan Skyline GT-R. The test driver and another person don't return the car. The dealer then files a police report, but also posts a message about the stolen car on Beyond.ca, an automotive fan board. Many people who read the board keep their eyes out and find the car. They also use Facebook to find the suspect and his high school; and they use Google Maps to pinpoint the thief's location. They film the collar and post the video on Beyond.ca. The dealer says, "This guy has worldwide recognition for being a car thief for the rest of his life. The Internet is not going away."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: It Takes a Cyber Village to Catch an Auto Thief by COredneck (598733)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Internet Community Catches a Car Thief 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • This just in! (Score:5, Funny)

    by kcbanner (929309) * on Saturday April 12 2008, @12:57PM (#23047866) Homepage Journal
    The internet is *not*, I repeat *not* going away! Film at 11.

  • Yeah for this example at least (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:01PM (#23047906)
    The only reason this worked as well as it did was because of the type of car. You don't see Skyline GT-R's driving around all over the place and it's very well recognized by car enthusiasts (especially the sport compact/drifting crowd).

    If it was something like a Honda Accord then they never would have found it this way.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hardburn (141468)

      Not to mention that any skyline that old in the US is right hand drive and had a lot of effort put into it just to get it over here. Which leads to the question of why a dealership would lend out such a car to a high school kid.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bmajik (96670)
        beyond.ca == canada, where all of this took place.

        It's reasonably easy to import cars into canada once they are 15 years old. That's why this was an R32 and not the newer R34 which has been the star of a few famous western movies :)

        In the US the rule is 25 years.

  • Good that the guy was caught... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darundal (891860) on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:04PM (#23047938) Journal
    ...but Vigilantism shouldn't be encouraged. While a few cases of internet Vigilantism have made news, overall, it is still a bad idea. If stuff like this continues, we are going to end up with mob rule. And who is to say that the mob has the right guy?
    • Why do you hate democracy?

    • Re:Good that the guy was caught... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:23PM (#23048056)

      And who is to say that the mob has the right guy?
      The police.

      The term "vigilante" has been misused a few times in this thread, so either bunches of people haven't RTFA, or people aren't clear on the definition of vigilantism. This isn't a case of vigilantism as per the dictionary definition because it was the police that arrested the guy and the government who will try and (maybe) punish him.

      Vigilantism is when "a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement" -New Oxford American Dictionary

      All the Beyond.ca guys did was identify the thief. The actual police have done all of the enforcement, if you'd like, here's a video to confirm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T-kZ7pk1NU [youtube.com]

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by noidentity (188756)

        All the Beyond.ca guys did was identify the thief. The actual police have done all of the enforcement

        They also made claims about his guilt etc. What if they were wrong, would they compensate him for their error? THAT is the problem with this, and why it has been labeled vigilantism.

      • Re:Good that the guy was caught... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zakezuke (229119) on Saturday April 12 2008, @02:56PM (#23048610)

        All the Beyond.ca guys did was identify the thief. The actual police have done all of the enforcement, if you'd like, here's a video to confirm.
        And box in the car, twice apparently. Since it's not a person we can't call it an arrest, but I would argue that at this point they took a very active role, rather than just passive reporting and photographing.

        A group took it upon them selves, to investigate and take measures to assist in the identification and apprehension of the thief and recovery of stolen property. The action they took to me is a form of vigilantism. I wouldn't say they violated due process, though if they had boxed in the wrong car I'm sure they would have to answer for their actions in one way or another.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mike2R (721965)

          I don't agree with this - vigilantism is concerned with extra-judicial punishment, not apprehension or even arrest. You have a right to catch a criminal and hand him over to police, although yes, you have to stay within the law yourself.

          The police are not the only one's who can uphold the law - rather they're a government agency set up to assist in doing so; the law in many countries still makes explicit provision for a citizen's arrest [wikipedia.org].

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by mike2R (721965)
              Well maybe - but if you're a shopkeeper you have the right to pursue a thief, and shout out to your neighbors to join in the hunt. No-ones going to complain in that situation if the thief gets rugby tackled and restrained. Reading through the thread [beyond.ca] that's pretty much how I see it.

              The thing is that "the authorities response" is always going to be inadequate from the point of view of someone who has just seen thousands of their own money getting nicked; the police can't and won't drop everything to get you

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jroysdon (201893)
          That's like saying someone who stops a guy who snags someone's person and hold him for the police is a vigilante.

          As someone else pointed out, a vigilante [wikipedia.org] is someone who ENFORCES their own JUSTICE. Just holding someone (or clearly stolen property) for the police to handle isn't vigilantism.

          Batman is a vigilante because he doesn't just catch the crooks, he dishes out his own punishment, without following due process of the law.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Korveck (1145695)
      Reminds me a few cases I saw. People made up stories of someone unfairly treated in some ways, posted them on popular interactive sites. Some of the people who believed the story quickly found contact info of the target and bombarded them with phone calls and e-mails. These cases ended without serious damages, but eventually this practice will ruin life of an innocent person.
    • It's not vigilantism when the crime is reported to the police and the police make the arrest. That's what happened in this case.

      Vigilantism would be if upon finding out where the car is, an angry mob descended, beat the crap out of the guy, and then took the car back.

      There's quite a difference between vigilantism and what happened in this case.
    • The same thing was said about Joe Horn in Houston. The fact is that if the cops can't help you keep your stuff and the "Internet Mob" can, who do you turn to? The cops have been crippled by PC garbage, so people go after criminals directly. And if your car gets stolen, I bet you post it to your forums, tell your friends, and look for it yourself. My girlfriend did, and we found her stolen truck. Then we called the police and told them that they could stop "looking" for it now.
    • Under the common law it was legal to perform a citizen's arrest on someone committing a felony.

      Unfortunately I do not know how much of the common law remains intact in Canada.

      Yes I know the beyond.ca guys didn't arrest the guy, but merely identified him. I'm just saying...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by geekboy642 (799087)
        I like your way of thinking.
        Steal a car = death penalty

        Perhaps being stupid online should carry, not the death penalty perhaps(it is a lesser crime), but perhaps the penalty of having your index fingers severed so you can't spew your mental diarrhea for everyone else to deal with?

        Of course, being a minor, oh Anonymous Troll that you are, you'd be spared that penalty.

  • headline in 5 years: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by globaljustin (574257) <jeffersonhuxley@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:04PM (#23047940)
    "Internet vigilante group charged with 5 counts of murder"

    I'm glad these thieves were caught. Law enforcement could take a few notes.

    What troubles me is the implications of internet vigilantism. Look at Perverted Justice to see a prime example of how it can go wrong. When the NYtimes is reporting on this, it's just a matter of time before we see internet vigilante groups doing all kinds of suspect activity.

    There is nothing wrong with helping the police catch thieves, but when vigilantism gets so much play in the media without a counterbalance, you will undoubtedly see citizens setting people up for the thrill of it. Perverted Justice is a perfect example. PWNing n00bs in World Of Warcraft gets old, so they try something with higher stakes...'hunting' bad guys in the real world via the net. It's the perfect escalation of a video game, and it WILL get out of control (more than it already has).

    • Re:headline in 5 years: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JustShootMe (122551) * <rmiller@duskglow.com> on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:12PM (#23047994) Homepage Journal
      This wasn't vigilantism. Other than blocking the car in, they did not engage the guy directly, nor did they try for mob justice. They blocked him in so he couldn't get away, and then they called the cops and waited for them to show up.

      I see nothing at all wrong with this. The cops can then determine if a crime was committed, and guess what? If not, they can arrest the "vigilantes" for filing a false report.

      (Now if they d actually tried to hold the person *himself* then I'd have a problem with that. That's when you get into the realm of false imprisonment and civil rights violations.

      • This wasn't vigilantism

        didn't say it was...my issue with this was the implications if unchecked...in case you missed it in my first post:

        There is nothing wrong with helping the police catch thieves, but when vigilantism gets so much play in the media without a counterbalance, you will undoubtedly see citizens setting people up for the thrill of it. Perverted Justice is a perfect example.

        now, you said:

        they can arrest the "vigilantes" for filing a false report.

        if you look at particular cases you will

      • Re:headline in 5 years: (Score:5, Interesting)

        by penguin king (673171) on Saturday April 12 2008, @03:17PM (#23048756)
        It's kinda scary even if you don't think it's vigilantism. In this case an actual wrong was committed (I think we can safely say this). However what proof did the dealer provide of his ownership? Lets think of a situation where some guy has really pissed me off. I go onto a forum, identify him with a characteristic that can't be mistaken, the car he will be driving that I "own" (actually in this example his car, but you don't know that) which luckily for me is a very distinguishable car (or bicycle, whatever) claim he stole it and sit back waiting for him to be harrassed by forum members trying to find my stuff.

        The thing about this kind of investigation is that the police have policy and procedure for a reason. Whilst they might ask a few questions, when it becomes evident that you're using them as a tool for harrassment, it's gonna bite you in the ass (arse).

        I for one think it's lovely that people will go out of their way to do this kinda thing, but I can see it going really wrong. Don't stop running after the guy you just saw mugging the old lady, or taking photos of the hit and run (FA) that you just saw, but next time you read "X stole my Y, he looks like Z keep an eye out", perhaps investigate the truth of the story before you investigate X when you see him in his/the Y looking like Z

    • Re:headline in 5 years: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jarjarthejedi (996957) <bookreader13.cox@net> on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:48PM (#23048202) Journal
      Slippery Slope fallacy. This isn't even remotely close to what you're proposing it will lead to. While there may someday (and already have been) cases of vigilantism gone wrong there are just as many case of it gone right. So long as the correct sort of vigilantism (the 'get some info and call the police', not the 'go batman on them') is portrait as a good thing I highly doubt the other one will become seriously popular.

      • While there may someday (and already have been) cases of vigilantism gone wrong there are just as many case of it gone right

        I gave you a specific, relevant, ongoing example of how internet vigilantism IS going wrong right now:

        What troubles me is the implications of internet vigilantism. Look at Perverted Justice to see a prime example of how it can go wrong.

        You did not counter that example in your argument at all. Dxplain how my example of cyber-vigilantism does not apply. Perverted Justice started o

  • poor dealer practice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by v1 (525388) on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:21PM (#23048038) Homepage Journal
    First off as a dealer you should not allow anyone to test drive without proof of insurance and license. Your dealer lot insurance may cover an uninsured/unlicensed driver's accident, (I've been hit by someone that way before) but your insurance co is not going to like you after the fact. That license has your name and picture on it. You should at least record their name. Better would be a photocopy of both before you give them the keys.

    Second, why are they letting someone go for a test drive unaccompanied by someone from the dealership, someone they don't personally know?

    This should not have happened in the first place. I can't say I would have felt sorry for them had it not gone this well. It does not set a good example to show how you can be stupid and get away with it due to the marvels of modern technology.

    I personally hope their lot insurance rates go through the roof for a year over this. Roundabouts, it's people doing stupid things like this and NOT getting lucky that result in MY rates going up to spread the loss coverage.
    • The kid brought forged ID documents.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by topham (32406)
      Proof of what insurance? You need a vehicle to have car insurance. While this individual may have a car in his name, that doesn't make it a requirement for purchasing a car.

      As for driving without being accompanied by someone from the dealership; it's actually pretty typical in Canada, at least everywhere I've been.
      Sure, if your young and trying to test drive a fancy car they might insist on accompanying you, but they typically only do that if they think you can't be trusted for 5 seconds to not do something
      • The difference is, that it's easier for the cops to track down a stolen car, then track down a stolen DVD.
      • Odd. When I went shopping every single dealer wanted to ride shotgun. They did say that I could refuse, but it was more 'You can if you want, but...' type things than making it clear.
        • It depends on the car and the dealer. If you arrived in a decent car they have that as collateral, along with a copy of your driver's license. It sounds like the dealer didn't follow any of the rules.

  • I watched this in real time... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thompo (1271946) on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:24PM (#23048062)
    ...from the initial post about the car being stolen, to posts from various members sighting the car, to the eventual arrest video and hilarious photochops to go along with it all. At one point, there were 400 members and 5000 guests viewing the thread. Every refresh would bring up 5-10 more posts instantly. This wasn't so much a case of internet vigilantism. The thief had literally been spotted driving like an idiot by multiple members of that board - before the post was even made. At that point people started chiming in with "holy hell, i saw that guy too, he was driving 90 down a residential street near ". All of these sightings eventually led to a sighting right outside the guy's own home... case closed. I highly suggest logging into beyond.ca and reading the thread, there is some serious photoshop comedy gold in there.
  • Doesn't this just show how easy it is to stalk someone using the internet?
  • Let's see 'em: ytmnd, *chan, worth1000, etc. Let the people laugh!
  • New Agent: All right, people, I'm in charge now and we will find the terrorists. Jarvis, I want you to check for any terrorist chatter on AOL. Marley and Greggs, try searching for nuclear devices on askjeeves.com.
    Kyle: Ask Jeeves? Nobody uses Ask Jeeves! Just Google-search it!
    New Agent: Are you tellin' me how to do my job?
    Kyle: Yes. There's a Russian guy named Vladimir Stolfsky who's got search engine hits all over this thing.
    New Agent: Chase, search the name Stolfsky on YouTube and cross-re

  • What about the rest of us? If somebody posts my car's pictures online and asks people to help them find me, the same tricks will work. It will be even quicker, because I will not even be expecting any sort of pursuit...

    When police try to use these methods, we are full of "big brother" gloom. When "the mob" does it, we are cheering...

  • Vigilantism can be a dangerous thing, but I think in this case they did it as correctly as they could have. At no point did they actually confront the perp, and basically left all confrontations to the police. All they did was help track him down and then let the proper official channels handle him from there. At the very worst, they might have been called out for harassing the guy by hiding outside his house etc. But then again, if the perp really was innocent, he could have called the police himself f
  • I still consider the ultimate classic 'P-P-P-Powerbook' [zug.com] to be the prime example of creative internet community vigilantisim. Allways a funny read indeed.
  • The best I saw was someone solving a burglary in something like 2 hours on the internet. The stolen goods were recovered in something like 4 hours or so.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dow^ (7718)
      Even though they got a picture of him driving the car the next day? And the description the car dealer gave was that the guy was missing a few fingers, and lo, the guy they caught was a regular Dr Zoidberg too? Did I miss something?

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Dude officer, I bought this car from my friend.

          Yes... it did come with the screwdriver in the ignition, why do you ask?

        • Re:Wrong guy... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Sepiraph (1162995) on Saturday April 12 2008, @02:06PM (#23048314)
          I am not sure how you can be mod insightful, I could've mod you down but I would rather reply to your rather insightless comments. They very definitely did catch the right guy, I read the forum on beyond.ca and the people involved in catching the thief were not some retard retards, but rather some good guys helping out a fellow enthusiast.

          They decide to post pictures because in the original description, the owner of the right-hand drive GTR (a very rare car in Canada) said that one of the thieft hand had two of its fingers cut off. So what happened was that one of the members, when spotted a similar GTR, flashed the 'rocker' hand-sign and the thief did the same, showing his hand which completely matched the owner's description.

          And actually they did contact the police from the beginning, but the police only did show up in time the 2nd time and they BOX in the car.

        • Re:Wrong guy... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12 2008, @02:10PM (#23048338)
          Nope it was the guy.

          1. The person who let him "test drive" it remembered the guy was missing fingers. And after the arrest, he was identified as the person who went on the test drive. He even had a fake id that they let them photocopy.

          2. The person photoed driving the car the day after it was stolen was missing fingers.

          3. The person who photoed him told him he knew that he stole the car. And instead of talking to him about it, he recklessly takes off in a blaze of glory eluding them.

          4. The night before he was arrested, he sprayed mud all over the back of the car, so that the license plate (dealer plate) would not be easily recognized.

          This is an open and shut case. It's not even close to "mistaken identity".

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MrNaz (730548) *
          I agree fully. Internet vigilantism basically amounts to a "guilty until proven innocent" result, with the punishment irrevocably carried out before the suspect has a chance to say "hey I bought the car from someone else!".

          In this case it may be the case that the guy they caught was guilty, but as you rightly point out, there are a number of things that can happen hat could cause these internet schmucks to get the wrong guy under many circumstances.

          The false positive rate would be high. It is often said tha
    • And, just to get my quota of smartassism in for the day, here is another nice smartass comment...

      I prefer to put my pr0n on a DD drive. Just seems more fitting somehow.

    • Re:Poor guy (Score:5, Funny)

      by MicktheMech (697533) on Saturday April 12 2008, @01:19PM (#23048030) Homepage

      So basically his life is ruined, even if he honestly tries to redeem myself afterwards...

      So, now we know his slashdot UID too!

    • Re:Poor guy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by value_added (719364) on Saturday April 12 2008, @02:35PM (#23048490)
      So basically his life is ruined, even if he honestly tries to redeem myself afterwards, because he'll be forever known as the infamous first criminal to be caught thanks to the almighty Internet.

      I don't think the above issue (in general) can be understated. There isn't a person alive who hasn't once done something that is embarrasing, in bad form, wrong, or even illegal, or otherwise said or wrote something that wasn't poorly worded, taken out of context, intended as an off-colour joke, or simply a case of temporary stupidity.

      Why is this a big deal? Now the average person is subjected to the same level of scrutiny given to, for example, a candidate running for political office. Dunno about you, but my family and friends tend to be forgiving of my failings and shortcomings, but I sure don't want a million random strangers participating in the dissemination of information that is then recursively subjected to the judgment or actions of another million random strangers, with a prospective employer or someone similar thrown in for added fun. And that's assuming we're talking about disinterested parties and not angry ex-girlfriends, wives, schoolmates you teased, or hookers you didn't sufficiently tip.

      When talking about "folks on the internet", we're mostly talking about mobs and mob mentality. In this case it seems the mob was right, so we're free to cheer for its leaders and the outcome.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151)
      "So basically his life is ruined, even if he honestly tries to redeem myself afterwards, because he'll be forever known as the infamous first criminal to be caught thanks to the almighty Internet."

      Alternative interpretation:

      "So this person who has proven that he does not care about the property rights of others (at a minimum!) is identified so it will be more difficult for him to rip off more people in the future."

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bhtooefr (649901)
      Hardly the first - about a year ago, someone on Beyond.ca got pics of some kid that did a hit and run, and said kid got caught because of it.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.