Comment by Aurornis

> I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft

Literally said I think they’re charging this wrong.

cant be theft, as it he copyed from one format to another...different video standards/resolutions...and if he gave a copy, of the copy away and the third party(cnn) has not been charged, even though they published the footage, and profited by that, then yes him getting criminaly charged for what is an indiscression at best is unusual. what would be of interest is if the same organisation that "owned" the cameras and footage has ever demanded that employies share footage taken on there phones, or requires employies to carry a personal phone for work, as that would further muddy any notion of personal/private ....all to cover up what is egregious behavior on the part of military pilots in civilian airspace....but realy part of an attempt to intimidate the public into not documenting military and police crime.

Why would it lead to more than them getting fired? What would be the crime? If the idea is that they've coerced/raped a prisoner, presumably that prisoner is making that allegation, and it's the rape allegation that gets investigated/tried, as with any other serious allegation of a crime. If it's consensual, that sounds like they're just not trustworthy to do their job and should be let go.

That’s unclear.

Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to a trespass charge. He was represented by an attorney with some prosecutorial experience so I think we can assume he received qualified legal advice based upon the facts of the matter. Under terms of his no contest plea, if he stays out of trouble for a year he can have his record expunged.

It sure looks like a plea bargain, in which case we’ll likely never know the actual charges the prosecution was prepared to proceed with. But there’s a clue in the article - when the report was provided to the Intercept, the locations of the security cameras were redacted. When CNN aired the clip, they apparently aired information that identified where that camera was located.

We’ll most likely never know the original charge the prosecution was prepared to proceed with, but the US takes airport security very seriously (as every country should). If taking a no contest on a trespass was considered an out, I wonder if the other charge started with a vowel like ‘e’.

There is nothing in the word “theft” that implies depriving someone of physical property.

Theft of private data deprives the owner of privacy. Theft of corporate secrets deprives the company of competitive advantage (and if not prosecuted, economy at large of incentives to innovate). IP theft deprives IP holder of ownership claim (and if not prosecuted, arts at large of incentives to create). Identity theft deprives the identity holder of whatever access to their identity provided to them. This can be continued infinitely.

These scenarios are not the same, and using “theft” for all of them is not precise. However, it is 2025 and in developed countries this sort of crime happens more often than basic theft of physical property, and the detriment from it is often much, much more severe than from basic theft of physical property. (I am sure I don’t need to explain how depriving IP owner of ownership claim can cost the original creator much more than depriving them of some single physical asset, both literally financially and in terms of psychological damage.) It’s therefore important to have a short, mainstream, easy to understand and non-legalese term for these scenarios.

Without any suitable mainstream term the word “theft” is a good enough intuitive approximation—if anything, it’s a bit too mild of a term.

Does it? There are loads of types of theft that don't remove the good or asset from the owner:

Identity theft, IP theft, theft of private digital assets (e.g. photos, writings, music)

Just because a user has privileges to access files doesn’t mean doing so is permitted for any purpose. Accessing them for this unauthorized purpose is likely computer fraud, at least under California law as I understand it.

>I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property."

if you break into your boss's house and copy his latest recordings (your boss is Stevie Wonder) you are not simply guilty of violating his copyrights.

"computer fraud and abuse act", or who knows how many other laws, are focused on various aspects of "you know you are sneaking about", or even if you don't, tuff noogies.

There are intangible kinds of property and assets that are more valuable than “real property”. Trade secrets is an obvious one, being a special case of intellectual property. It would be absolutely irrational for legal system to classify theft of iPhone as criminal and theft of IP as civil, when the former cost $700 and monetizing the latter could finance creator’s entire life.

Depending on jurisdiction it might be theft, could be something more recently ratified that’s basically made for exactly this purpose. Could also just be a plain old federal CFAA related charge since those are pretty “malleable”.

Again, take these laws seriously and don’t do this.

It’s a common misconception that “property” relates to physical objects (chattel) or land (real property). But that’s an incorrect and limited understanding. More generally, it’s about the right to control something and exclude others from using it.

Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.