really interesting...I mean, they work at the same mall but there's probably something much more nefarious afoot...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Woman Sues T-Mobile after Employees Allegedly Snoop on Racy Private Video
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
So you didn't read the article, she was friends of a female employee of the store and that is the common acquaintance.
The thing is she has no proof of them actually watching the files, specially if the surveillance video shows nothing.
Her phone had a broken screen & broken mic, she had just unlocked it and didn't wait to go outside and browse the new colors for iPhone XR so maybe, just maybe, they were going to start the testing of the phone and that is why they didn't react, because they hadn't done nothing wrong.
This all happened around Thanksgiving in November so good luck getting any proof of anything by this point in time.
The thing is she has no proof of them actually watching the files, specially if the surveillance video shows nothing.
Her phone had a broken screen & broken mic, she had just unlocked it and didn't wait to go outside and browse the new colors for iPhone XR so maybe, just maybe, they were going to start the testing of the phone and that is why they didn't react, because they hadn't done nothing wrong.
This all happened around Thanksgiving in November so good luck getting any proof of anything by this point in time.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
She still never said how she knew, if she is saying she heard the video audio, she is changing her story, as she said she heard a distinct sound of someone looking through the camera roll the first time, she had another statement that this changed again and now the filing is saying something different again. It can also not be matched to the in store video, as they were in the store where everyone could see doing the transfer. She also claimed when she headed back to them that they must have seen her coming back and closed the video before she took the phone back, again, also not seen in the video from the store according to other sources.
Nothing changed, it's the same story.
She handed her phone in to exchange it, she had a clip of her masturbating for her fiancé (yeah, the article doesn't spell this out directly for you, but it only takes about 5 seconds of thinking about the facts given), they thumbnail showed her spread eagle in camera roll (again, not directly stated, but pretty obvious conclusion if you've used a smartphone in the past two decades unless you're giving it your all to deliberately not understand how someone would have gone straight to the clip), and then that obvious sound would not be a click or a pop or whatever other kind of implausible thing you want to straw man into her claim--pretty obvious it would be her moaning or groaning or *obvious* tell that her porn clip intended for her fiancé was being watched and replayed into her ears.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Assumption, assumption, assumption. No thanks, I will wait for facts before I decide if the men did something wrong. Sorry I wont just to conclusions because this is the internet age of rage before facts.
yeah "assumption" built off common sense
guess you'd much rather prattle off in here about how ridiculous it is that there was some unique sound of the photo roll opening completely ignoring the obvious, blatant sound that would occur if someone started playing your home-brew porn
hilarious. the news article didn't spell out all the sordid details for you to drool over or whatever, but the court document with the facts is "changing the story."
guess you'd much rather prattle off in here about how ridiculous it is that there was some unique sound of the photo roll opening completely ignoring the obvious, blatant sound that would occur if someone started playing your home-brew porn
hilarious. the news article didn't spell out all the sordid details for you to drool over or whatever, but the court document with the facts is "changing the story."
The article makes that very clear, her current phone was broke. The screen was broken and the microphone didn't work so she had to use her air bubs to use the phone as well a phone. So she has them in at all times. She unlocked the phone, gave it to the guys then walked away. So her air buds were just still in her ears as she had not taken them out.
air pods are just cordless head phones. you would hear any sound that you would hear without air pods. The problem is being that they are trying to be careful with the choice of words they are not explaining what exactly she supposedly heard. They could have simply said that she heard the audio of a video and that could have been anything. It could have been her talking, it could have been the sound of a train in the background, anything at all. But instead by being vague it could have been anything that she heard.
They aren't trying to change the story, although I will say that the article and the court case don't sound like they are matching perfectly. They are just doing a shit job of trying to explain everything in the article it seems. They have always been trying to make this as if the "sound" she heard was audio from the video. So her moaning or some porn music playing, who knows what. But something that was supposed to be a dead give away that this one video was being played. The problem, like I said above here, is that they could have worded this so much better from the start and caused as much confusion. Personally having looked at a map of this mall the store looks like your typical small phone store so I would be surprised if she could have been more than 20 feet from them. So the amount of time for him to find the video, start watching it, call another employee over them both watch it together and the her finally get over there to take the phone away from them seems a little far fetched. The article makes is sound like the video was closed while the court document makes it sound like they were actively watching the video when she took the phone away and it was still playing so who knows what the actual truth is.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
I am actually not talking about the one linked in the OP, but others from a while back. It is indeed a small phone store. She had stated before that she heard a photo roll sound, she also stated that she stepped aside to look at the colors of the phone she was getting. So you are right she could not have been very far, he then according to some in this thread, opens the video and starts watching it, at which point the audio would have started....However SHE never claims this, he then would as you said, have to call someone else over to watch it, all while the audio is playing and she only then after the second person comes over decides to freak out? They are also making the claim that they might have sent the video to other people, again, time frame does NOT match up for me. She then steps back over and grabs the phone from them and goes back through her camera roll reopening each file for some reason. I am looking for the link I read a while back that talks about the in store video which they said does not match her story, which could be T-mobile lying, don't know yet as it's not been released as far as I know.
However there are time line issues with what she is saying, her main worry was not them seeing the video but her parents learning that she made the video....So of course the natural action is to tell everyone and make it a public court case....Now, they very well might have looked at the video, it would not be the first and for sure not the last time, there is just to much missing and odd information right now to go either way. But people in here are ready to convict them already based on her statement alone. Proof is no longer needed today, only emotional response.
1Nocturnal101
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 520
Very true, but illegally gaining evidence against anyone never worked out well, sure you found child porn, but the case got thrown out the window because of illegal search and seize and it is declared "poisonous fruits". Computer guys are required to make a call in that event but the why and how they found it is important if they want to use it as evidence.
It isn't sexual harassment.. Jesus people. Invasion of privacy absolutely, but I read no where in there where the employees contacted her and harassed her.
The fuck is with this generation and not understanding how to use a dictionary?
The fuck is with this generation and not understanding how to use a dictionary?
You are correct but t-mobiled is not tottaly without fault. They are still responsibles for procedures and training.
But yeah this is more like 2 idiots doing something wrong rather than the company doing something wrong
he/she ?
If we drop the moral standpoint, I wonder if the t-mobile employees actually did anything illegal. Presumably after the trade in \ upgrade process that phone and its contents were property of t-mobile at the time of the incident.
Also if their customer service was just a smidge better they would have synced the pods to her new phone before she left and gone undetected in their snooping lol.
Also if their customer service was just a smidge better they would have synced the pods to her new phone before she left and gone undetected in their snooping lol.
I thought they changed it to guilty until proven innocent, and if you have a dick guilty until you die... Agree about the parent thing. You want nobody to know so you make this fully known to the world. Would be interesting to keep up with this but give it two weeks and it will be out of the news with no updates. so much here sounds questionable with how it is being described.
keep in mind that she didn't pick the color of phone yet so they were still getting ready to copy everything so it wasn't "after" the trade / upgrade yet.
I know what Airpods are, I said I am not familiar with Apple phones so I don't know if they make a special sound or tone when performing certain actions. But the author said what he said, and it's you and others that are interpreting the meaning this way instead of taking the authors words at face value.
is what the author wrote. That same author could have expressed it as "she heard audio from a personal video that she recognized, and realized was being accessed on her phone by the employees".
It doesn't matter that it was sexual in nature and didn't need to be brought up at all, but they did it for the "wow" factor and they got their wish, we are all in "wow".
My only question to you is, are you certain that they didn't mean it the way I took it, and that your conclusion is wrong? Is it not possible that the phone is set up to play a distinctive tone when files are being accessed?
No, but it's completely irrelevant to the larger point. That's just arguing over minutiae for no reason.
Did she hear a porn video or did she hear the photo roll 'ding'?
She heard something and then took all of about 2 steps to get to her phone.
"Oh I dunno maybe she heard a ding instead of a moan therefore none of it happened..."
the logic...it hurts
my conclusion is wrong? My conclusion is that she heard a sound which could have been anything at all. a tone of files being access would be a sound, which means that my conclusion is correct. What you are saying as a possibility perfectly fits my conclusion of a sound of any time was heard and that given the lack of information we have no idea what the sound was and thus any reasonable explanation could be possible. She could have heard the app being opened, she could have heard scrolling, should could have heard a sound of the phone being connected to USB, should could have heard audio from the video playing, should could have heard many other things.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,872
She in her paperwork requested a jury trial for this. If it were to come to it, do they play the video in the room and ask the store clerk if this is what he saw? Would not more people then see it? Not sure how this would play out if it goes to court, maybe shes hoping it doesnt.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
The main issue for me isn't even the sound. It is the timeline of events, where the one guy doing the trade in watches the video, which she would have heard the audio from, and she does nothing? After that he has time to call over another worker to also watch the video, and enough time after that for her to claim that they might have sent the video to other people. None of that matches up, and then we have a statement from T-Mobile that the story could not be correlated with the in store video.
People seem to take me questioning the facts as agreeing with the mens actions. What I am saying is we don't know what their actions were, if they did indeed snoop on the phone, they should be punished, but we need to make sure before that happens.
Wait, I can't open the linked article, so I was going off the comment in the post that says she left immediately and nothing about her approaching them and grabbing her phone, I had to google and find another article on it. Still, she said "they must have seen her coming ..." which I take to mean that they closed what they were looking at before she could see for certain what they were doing.
You think I'm being nitpicky I was going by what was presented above, that there was no confirmation that they had in fact accessed the video other than to ensure that data was being backed up for phone transfer. Again, a "distinctive sound" could be moaning and slurping or it could be a tone that signifies access and may have been the innocent act of transferring her data. I can't say one way or the other which it truly is but if you have your mind made up then I'm happy for you.
I do not understand how there is a larger "point" and that guilt or innocence is not "the larger issue".
Last edited:
I asked you if perhaps your conclusion was wrong? That's what it means when someone says "Are you sure?".
I took your previous post to mean that you interpreted the meaning of the author's statement to mean she her the video itself being played, not a tone that means data is being accessed in some innocent manner. You yourself said that "they are trying to be careful with the choice of words". Was I wrong to interpret this the way I did?
Please understand, I am questioning you on your meaning and possible alternatives, not accusing you of something that you haven't said.
How dare we want things like; evidence, facts and due process.
Darunion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,872
But it is more fun to pass judgement on all parties when we have just barely above zero information. We have what a journalist said she said to them, and the court filing. Not much really to work from but dammit I WILL decide who is right and wrong!!!!
And we all know journalists are all upstanding citizens of the highest integrity that would never embellish any story for ratings. No sir, nothing but absolute unbiased facts.