Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet News

Internet Community Catches a Car Thief 169

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Community Catches a Car Thief

Comments Filter:
  • Wrong guy... (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12, 2008 @01:59PM (#23047894)
    The only problem is that the guy they blamed turned out to be innocent. Of course, the Internet heroes won't ever mention that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:01PM (#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.
  • by Darundal ( 891860 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:04PM (#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?
  • by JustShootMe ( 122551 ) * <rmiller@duskglow.com> on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:12PM (#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.
  • Re:Wrong guy... (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:17PM (#23048016)
    He could've been driving the car for a number of reasons. Perhaps he bought the car and wasn't aware that it was stolen, or perhaps he borrowed it from a "friend." Most of the reasons I can think of off the top of my head definitely assert that he's an idiot, but he's not necessarily a criminal. This type of thing should be left to the police and not random retards on some car enthusiast forum. If they merely found the car and reported its location to the police it would be fine. Unfortunately, they decided to post videos and pictures condemning the guy all over the Internet and went out of their way to spread it to "news" sites.
  • by v1 ( 525388 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:21PM (#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.
  • by gblackwo ( 1087063 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:24PM (#23048064) Homepage
    Doesn't this just show how easy it is to stalk someone using the internet?
  • by hardburn ( 141468 ) <hardburn@wumpus-ca[ ]net ['ve.' in gap]> on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:30PM (#23048100)

    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.

  • by Jarjarthejedi ( 996957 ) <christianpinch@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:48PM (#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.
  • by j0nb0y ( 107699 ) <jonboy300NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Saturday April 12, 2008 @02:51PM (#23048228) Homepage
    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.
  • 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...

  • by geekboy642 ( 799087 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @03:08PM (#23048328) Journal
    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.
  • Re:Poor guy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by value_added ( 719364 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @03:35PM (#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:Poor guy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @03:46PM (#23048540)
    "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."

  • by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @03:56PM (#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.

  • by jroysdon ( 201893 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @05:21PM (#23049174)
    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.
  • by mike2R ( 721965 ) on Saturday April 12, 2008 @06:07PM (#23049532)
    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 your livelihood back. And believe me, when some fucking chav steals from you it becomes personal. As I see the law (I'm British, but it seems pretty much the same in most places) you have the right to defend yourself - you have to obey the law while doing so, but there is no requirement to wait on the police.

    That said it is normally prudent to do so - this case could have become a tragedy if the thief had pulled a gun.
  • Re:Wrong guy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrNaz ( 730548 ) * on Saturday April 12, 2008 @10:11PM (#23050910) Homepage
    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 that 100 free guilty men is better than 1 incarcerated innocent man. With this system of "mob sourced" justice, you'd likely end up with 1 condemned innocent for every 10 guilty parties. Using vigilantism to social problems is like using a backhoe to remove a brain tumour; it's just not clean or accurate enough.

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Working...