This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience".
YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels or on a large dolly as necessary, and towed away.
Their people wear body cams, like cops, their cranes have cameras, and sometimes they use a DJI drone. (They bring out the drone when someone drives off an embankment and they need to plan a difficult lift.) The main purpose of all the video is to settle arguments with insurance companies over the cost of recovery.
But they started a YouTube channel for PR purposes.
Almost all this video is taken on public property on LA county roads and freeways, with the cooperation of the cops, CALTRANS, local fire departments, and other organizations that clean up other people's messes. These are very public activities, with traffic streaming by and sometimes news helicopters hovering overhead.
Totally First Amendment protected. Not a violation of YouTube's stated policies.
So what's the YouTube censorship about? Preventing corporate embarrassment. Their older videos have clear pictures of truck doors with ownership info. Container markings. License plates. Pictures of damaged goods. Now. out of fear of being cancelled by YouTube, they're blurring everything identifiable. Recently someone rolled over a semitrailer full of melons, and they blurred out not just the trucking company info, but the labels on the melons. Which the people from Pepe's say is silly, but they don't want to fight with YouTube.
Trading one "private sector" state surveillance and narrative control platform for another isn't much of an improvement.
That said, I hate to break it to you, but there is no real question of 'when', or even 'if'. The general public simply does not care, no matter how much abuse they are subjected to by mainstream platform operators.
There will always be a minority who care enough to embrace decentralization, open source, good e2ee, but they are the exception to the vast majority, at least inside the US, who simply do not care enough to change their behavior.
What percentage of Americans do you think would voluntarily, permanently relinquish their own fourth amendment rights for $5000? Scary thought experiment when you recall studies that have found only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech.
> ... "only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech."
Mere decades ago, not knowing this kinda stuff would get you failed in grade-school Civics class, and again in junior high, and yet again in high-school (at least where I grew up, here in the "Great NorthWest" Rocky Mountains area USA).
Used to be that knowing the basics about how your government worked and what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen was considered "required knowledge" (right alongside basic history, math, reading, etc) to help prepare you for "life in the real world".
Note that CNN isn’t in trouble for reporting this, the person who exfiltrated the footage is.
Stealing security camera footage and giving (or possibly selling) it is a problem. This article tries to make a case that the law applied wasn’t correct on somewhat pedantic terms, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if they have a point or not.
I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though.
here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.
> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state
This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges.
Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to prosecute should be more banal.
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’.
This is interesting, I definitely use "theft" colloquially for all these things.
For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)
Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.
I think the above things are commonly considered theft. Totally fair to contend that the definition is wrong (and IMO that's a reasonable-minded contention), but I don't it's particularly double-think to bucket these digital "thefts" in the same category as physical thefts, either.
“A. It is unlawful for any person, with malicious intent, or through intentionally deceptive means and without authority, to:”
And Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to this charge, so he did not admit guilt but agreed to be punished as if he was guilty. He had an attorney with prosecutorial experience retained for his criminal proceeding so we can assume he entered that plea upon receiving qualified legal advice. Under terms of his plea, if he keeps his nose clean for a year, he can apply to have the charge expunged from his record.
So, this looks like a plea bargain. But since he plead no contest, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.
> I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
If I were to copy the files on my work device and distribute them, I would be in violation of NDAs which could be pursued as civil offenses. If I didn’t have those NDAs, my employer could try and pursue something in court, along with firing me, but it wouldn’t be a straightforward suit.
None of these are (or at least, should be) criminal situations.
What's the charge for the arrest? I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property." If it actually was a trade secret, it might make more sense.
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.
Sure but the difference in value is also obvious. Stevie Wonder has a business interest in controlling the release of his music, as do other parties like a production company and a publisher. And an early release may do harm to the value of such a recording. But I don't expect most organizations that put up security cameras have a business interest in monetizing the footage.
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.
Interesting. Do you have an example of where copying data like this (something with almost no commercial value, but done without authorization, whose harm is basically the disclosure of the facts of the camera's location/positioning) was charged as theft? Because it seems like in a legal sense, copying isn't theft, but the consequences of the copy becoming generally available (say a commercial interest in the data, in the Stevie Wonder example from the sibling thread) may make the damage of the copy and subsequent release obvious. I'm also curious what has recently been enacted to cover this scenario if you have a ready example?
I believe you and heed your warning. I think it's good to understand these things too though.
I worked in surveillance cameras for a long time and started my own company in the field. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diminish the value of location/bearing.
Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera.
With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, someone got into the wheel well of a plane at O’Hare in Chicago so taxiway security is not a solved problem. Leaking camera locations and bearings is dangerous.
But the footage isn't "real property" as I understand it. The only thing the theft does is deprive the company from the opportunity to sell the footage themselves, and it's not exactly like selling security camera footage is the business model of many/any(?) company.
If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.
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.
I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property.
However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.
The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.
I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if
the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and
the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”
Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.
I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :)
I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.
> thanks in part to CNN’s initial failure to redact some CCTV text that described the location of the camera
This is the most important bit. That journalist had one fucking job. Technically, their job was handed to them in a platter. Now their incompetence is going to cost someone else's livelihood and possibly, life. What a sad state of affairs.
Many states have super vague computer abuse statutes. Illinois' law specifically states it is a crime to violate the ToS of a network (e.g. a web site).
Also, if the defendant here is literally innocent (i.e. the statutory wording does not apply to his actions) and his lawyer still advised him to plead no contest, then he might have grounds for the conviction to be overturned. I remember that Subway Jared had some of his charges reversed because he was technically innocent of them, but his lawyer stated that he didn't check any of the evidence before recommending a guilty plea.
And, in a further ridiculous twist of justice, if the defendant pleads to something that isn't even a crime (e.g. the state simply made the statute up, or adjusted the wording so it wasn't what the law said), then you can't get that reversed if you knowingly plead to it. I remember cases where defendants pled guilty to non-crimes, but you're cooked at that point because you agreed to it.
I'd say leaking an employer's internal data when not whistleblowing is definitely cause for termination, in the "no future employer should trust you" way, but yeah, calling this a CFAA case is a stretch.
This encourages self-censorship, or what's called "anticipatory obedience".
YouTube has become much worse about censorship. Pepe's Towing, LA's main towing company for major truck accidents, complains that YouTube took down some of their videos. Their videos are simply detailed coverage of the complex but effective process by which large vehicles that had accidents are lifted, rotated upright, placed on their wheels or on a large dolly as necessary, and towed away. Their people wear body cams, like cops, their cranes have cameras, and sometimes they use a DJI drone. (They bring out the drone when someone drives off an embankment and they need to plan a difficult lift.) The main purpose of all the video is to settle arguments with insurance companies over the cost of recovery. But they started a YouTube channel for PR purposes.
Almost all this video is taken on public property on LA county roads and freeways, with the cooperation of the cops, CALTRANS, local fire departments, and other organizations that clean up other people's messes. These are very public activities, with traffic streaming by and sometimes news helicopters hovering overhead. Totally First Amendment protected. Not a violation of YouTube's stated policies.
So what's the YouTube censorship about? Preventing corporate embarrassment. Their older videos have clear pictures of truck doors with ownership info. Container markings. License plates. Pictures of damaged goods. Now. out of fear of being cancelled by YouTube, they're blurring everything identifiable. Recently someone rolled over a semitrailer full of melons, and they blurred out not just the trucking company info, but the labels on the melons. Which the people from Pepe's say is silly, but they don't want to fight with YouTube.
I wonder when people in the west will start flocking to Telegram groups (or equivalent) to get the real information the way they do elsewhere.
Outside the US, WhatsApp already fills that role, but like Telegram, "real information" is an optimistic descriptor.
Trading one "private sector" state surveillance and narrative control platform for another isn't much of an improvement.
That said, I hate to break it to you, but there is no real question of 'when', or even 'if'. The general public simply does not care, no matter how much abuse they are subjected to by mainstream platform operators.
There will always be a minority who care enough to embrace decentralization, open source, good e2ee, but they are the exception to the vast majority, at least inside the US, who simply do not care enough to change their behavior.
What percentage of Americans do you think would voluntarily, permanently relinquish their own fourth amendment rights for $5000? Scary thought experiment when you recall studies that have found only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech.
https://studyfinds.org/constitution-americans-rights/
> ... "only two thirds of Americans can name all three branches of government, or that fewer than one in four can name any right secured by the first amendment other than freedom of speech."
Mere decades ago, not knowing this kinda stuff would get you failed in grade-school Civics class, and again in junior high, and yet again in high-school (at least where I grew up, here in the "Great NorthWest" Rocky Mountains area USA).
Used to be that knowing the basics about how your government worked and what your rights and responsibilities are as a citizen was considered "required knowledge" (right alongside basic history, math, reading, etc) to help prepare you for "life in the real world".
Note that CNN isn’t in trouble for reporting this, the person who exfiltrated the footage is.
Stealing security camera footage and giving (or possibly selling) it is a problem. This article tries to make a case that the law applied wasn’t correct on somewhat pedantic terms, but I don’t know enough about the law to know if they have a point or not.
I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
"the law" is the fulcrum this turns on.
if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state. you may well deserve to lose that job though.
here, wronging your employer is considered a criminal act.
> if you wrong your employer, for example by failing to do your job well, you are not a criminal to be prosecuted by the state
This is going out of one’s way to abuse the employer’s trust. Moreover, it’s stealing their stuff. If I take cash out of a till, my employer should have the option of pressing charges.
Where I agree with you is that this isn’t computer fraud and abuse. It’s closer to theft. The law used to prosecute should be more banal.
> it’s stealing their stuff.
Then I'm sure your have a great explanation as to why they were charged with trespass and not theft.
> 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.
"stuff" being technically, legally, IP
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’.
It is in no way close to theft because theft involves depriving the victim of some good or asset.
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)
Those are labels. Identity theft is more identity fraud. Theft of digital assets is copyright infringement.
This is interesting, I definitely use "theft" colloquially for all these things.
For the digital assets, I mentally bucket copyright infringement and theft differently. For instance, if I copy someone's photography and sell it, that's copyright infringement (not theft). However, if I hacked into someones Google photos and sold the contents, I'd consider that theft (since there was no intent for the material to be available)
Granted, it's fair to disagree here, so I'm not adamantly against the definition that requires removing access or anything.
Identity theft is someone else stealing money from the bank, and the bank telling you that's your problem now.
these are deliberate attempts to shift the overton window.
"lots of theft is not theft. Like for instance, all these things that are not theft"
... Lots of murder doesn't have a victim...
.... Lots of arson doesn't involve a fire...
... Lots of trespass involves not taking a single step from your work desk ..
... War is peace, peace is war...
I think the above things are commonly considered theft. Totally fair to contend that the definition is wrong (and IMO that's a reasonable-minded contention), but I don't it's particularly double-think to bucket these digital "thefts" in the same category as physical thefts, either.
And it seems like that law requires malicious intent. I wonder how that would be proven here?
Section A of 18.2-152.4 reads:
“A. It is unlawful for any person, with malicious intent, or through intentionally deceptive means and without authority, to:”
And Mr. Mbengue plead no contest to this charge, so he did not admit guilt but agreed to be punished as if he was guilty. He had an attorney with prosecutorial experience retained for his criminal proceeding so we can assume he entered that plea upon receiving qualified legal advice. Under terms of his plea, if he keeps his nose clean for a year, he can apply to have the charge expunged from his record.
So, this looks like a plea bargain. But since he plead no contest, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.
[flagged]
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Edit out swipes.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> I do know, however, that if you take private data from your employer and leak it (or sell it) you’re not going to be on the right side of the law. I have a hard time buying this article’s point that it was just “violating company policy”
If I were to copy the files on my work device and distribute them, I would be in violation of NDAs which could be pursued as civil offenses. If I didn’t have those NDAs, my employer could try and pursue something in court, along with firing me, but it wouldn’t be a straightforward suit.
None of these are (or at least, should be) criminal situations.
As a DLP professional: please don’t tell people this. You can absolutely be arrested and prosecuted for this.
What's the charge for the arrest? I thought legally intellectual property wasn't "real property." If it actually was a trade secret, it might make more sense.
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.
Sure but the difference in value is also obvious. Stevie Wonder has a business interest in controlling the release of his music, as do other parties like a production company and a publisher. And an early release may do harm to the value of such a recording. But I don't expect most organizations that put up security cameras have a business interest in monetizing the footage.
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.
Interesting. Do you have an example of where copying data like this (something with almost no commercial value, but done without authorization, whose harm is basically the disclosure of the facts of the camera's location/positioning) was charged as theft? Because it seems like in a legal sense, copying isn't theft, but the consequences of the copy becoming generally available (say a commercial interest in the data, in the Stevie Wonder example from the sibling thread) may make the damage of the copy and subsequent release obvious. I'm also curious what has recently been enacted to cover this scenario if you have a ready example?
I believe you and heed your warning. I think it's good to understand these things too though.
I worked in surveillance cameras for a long time and started my own company in the field. So, I wouldn’t be so quick to diminish the value of location/bearing.
Armed with those details, a sufficiently motivated person with an easy to obtain skill set could avoid a camera.
With airports, leaking a location for a major component of active perimeter and taxiway monitoring is a serious issue. A month before the crash, someone got into the wheel well of a plane at O’Hare in Chicago so taxiway security is not a solved problem. Leaking camera locations and bearings is dangerous.
I mean in the first case you're literally stealing from your employer. If that doesn't make you a criminal for theft I don't know what does
But the footage isn't "real property" as I understand it. The only thing the theft does is deprive the company from the opportunity to sell the footage themselves, and it's not exactly like selling security camera footage is the business model of many/any(?) company.
If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.
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.
I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property.
However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.
I am an attorney but this is not legal advice.
The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.
I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”
Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.
I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :)
I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.
Really … copying video footage is theft suddenly? Jail?
> thanks in part to CNN’s initial failure to redact some CCTV text that described the location of the camera
This is the most important bit. That journalist had one fucking job. Technically, their job was handed to them in a platter. Now their incompetence is going to cost someone else's livelihood and possibly, life. What a sad state of affairs.
Ehhh. It was from a fixed position CCTV camera. It was going to be found
Many states have super vague computer abuse statutes. Illinois' law specifically states it is a crime to violate the ToS of a network (e.g. a web site).
Also, if the defendant here is literally innocent (i.e. the statutory wording does not apply to his actions) and his lawyer still advised him to plead no contest, then he might have grounds for the conviction to be overturned. I remember that Subway Jared had some of his charges reversed because he was technically innocent of them, but his lawyer stated that he didn't check any of the evidence before recommending a guilty plea.
And, in a further ridiculous twist of justice, if the defendant pleads to something that isn't even a crime (e.g. the state simply made the statute up, or adjusted the wording so it wasn't what the law said), then you can't get that reversed if you knowingly plead to it. I remember cases where defendants pled guilty to non-crimes, but you're cooked at that point because you agreed to it.
Has anyone involved been within 10 feet of a computer in the last 15 years?
The CFAA applies!
It’s like postal or wire fraud. You’re going to do it somehow in just about any possible crime. They’ll get you.
It wasn’t/shouldn’t have been a crime? They’ll get you anyway, if they want.
Did you read the actual statute? It hardly applies.
Overreach for sure, but I don't buy at all that rubbernecking is "obviously of public interest"; hardly the Pentagon Papers we're looking at here.
I'd say leaking an employer's internal data when not whistleblowing is definitely cause for termination, in the "no future employer should trust you" way, but yeah, calling this a CFAA case is a stretch.
Agreed, he could be fired and even sued by his former employer for damages.
But calling using your cell phone to video record a security monitor "computer fraud" and "trespass" is clearly ridiculous.