mens rea is probably missing. It's pretty clear at this point that a number of people get the bright idea of turning on the webcam to some degree on the laptops they still own while sending them home with other people.
While it's always skeevy, it's worth pointing out that it probably isn't malicious. It's actually a simple manifestation of a standard form of human irrationality, the availability heuristic [1]. The people making these decisions sit there and fear what may be done to their property, and while they are sitting there imagining all the things that may be done, that ends up swamping all the other possibilities in their head. They imagine they're just going to catch two sorts of images: People normally using the laptop, and people stealing or hurting it. (And I am sure that if you asked them to guess how many images of abuse they'd catch that they would overestimate by at least two orders of magnitude.) The availability heuristic has crowded out all the other sorts of images they will capture in what is very nearly a random sampling of the full range of home life.
So the people end up as surprised as can be that they end up with what is legally child porn on their hands. I really don't think that these companies are setting out to collect that on purpose. They're just taking doing something skeevy, but seemingly safe, under the guidance of a normal human irrationality we all have, and end up bitten by it. Even if they do in fact have somewhat malicious purposes and want to catch some sort of other image they shouldn't want, they will still end up over-imagining how much of that they will catch, and not realize how much other stuff they will catch.
Your examples are not comparable, in that they all include clear intent.
And if you are really inclined to argue "But they should have known!"... well... are you so sure you're completely conversant in all possible legal issues arising in fields completely outside of your experience? I'd certainly like word to get out this is a very bad idea, but I'm not sure I'm willing to destroy lives over this mistake. That's not a standard I want to live under! It's really damned easy to tell other people they shouldn't suffer from standard human irrationalities. It's much harder to see them in yourself when they happen.
Intent is always tricky, but the answer from the company is always the same, ie, they wanted to make money. Malicious Actions and morally objectionable actions is not synonymous. Many companies has acted illegal and morally wrong (one might even say evil), but their intent is always the same. Even when they do illegal acts like Enron did, the answer would be the same: They too only wanted to earn money.
Thus there is no malicious companies, only companies who's acts are morally wrong. Thus when judging companies, intent can not be assessed in the same way as when judging people.
What would I do if I worked there? Apologize and compensate the customer for the wrongful actions that has been performed. Actions, not intent is the available defense for a company. If an company perform illegal acts and do not take responsibility for it, then the leaders of said company should face legal penalty like jail and fines.
While it's always skeevy, it's worth pointing out that it probably isn't malicious. It's actually a simple manifestation of a standard form of human irrationality, the availability heuristic [1]. The people making these decisions sit there and fear what may be done to their property, and while they are sitting there imagining all the things that may be done, that ends up swamping all the other possibilities in their head. They imagine they're just going to catch two sorts of images: People normally using the laptop, and people stealing or hurting it. (And I am sure that if you asked them to guess how many images of abuse they'd catch that they would overestimate by at least two orders of magnitude.) The availability heuristic has crowded out all the other sorts of images they will capture in what is very nearly a random sampling of the full range of home life.
So the people end up as surprised as can be that they end up with what is legally child porn on their hands. I really don't think that these companies are setting out to collect that on purpose. They're just taking doing something skeevy, but seemingly safe, under the guidance of a normal human irrationality we all have, and end up bitten by it. Even if they do in fact have somewhat malicious purposes and want to catch some sort of other image they shouldn't want, they will still end up over-imagining how much of that they will catch, and not realize how much other stuff they will catch.
Your examples are not comparable, in that they all include clear intent.
And if you are really inclined to argue "But they should have known!"... well... are you so sure you're completely conversant in all possible legal issues arising in fields completely outside of your experience? I'd certainly like word to get out this is a very bad idea, but I'm not sure I'm willing to destroy lives over this mistake. That's not a standard I want to live under! It's really damned easy to tell other people they shouldn't suffer from standard human irrationalities. It's much harder to see them in yourself when they happen.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic