Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People Staring at Computers

kylemcdonald.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#31

Post by judge2020 »

sellyme wrote: post #19
paranoidrobot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this story is definitely burying the lede. The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission. That software took photos of visitors to the apple store, and transmitted it to the author. Definitely shady activity, and when the information about how the author got the photos - is entirely unsurprising that they were raided.

> The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission They had at least some level of permission: > I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. [...] > We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video, and I triggered the slideshow

> I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee.

This "permission" he gets is _extremely_ vague. For all we know he could have asked "hey can I take pictures in the store" and a part-time associate said yes because that's the general policy.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#32

Post by zeckalpha »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #7

“I continue to work with faces” is incredible in the context of installing spyware on Apple Store computers that secretly photographs customers.

To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures. This was to draw attention to that fact. Perhaps the computers for public use should not take photos?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#33

Post by sellyme »

judge2020 wrote: post #31
sellyme wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission They had at least some level of permission: > I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. [...] > We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video, and I triggered the slideshow

> I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. This "permission" he gets is _extremely_ vague. For all we know he could have asked "hey can I take pictures in the store" and a part-time associate said yes because that's the general policy.

Hence the "at least some level". Although the fact that he was on-site for the demonstration and was allowed to walk out without even a "hey, what the hell?" would seem to indicate that the employees had at least some understanding of what was going on.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#34

Post by titzer »

angry_octet wrote: post #21

The fact that a number of posters feel offended that he would 'install software that takes their picture without consent' simply highlights how necessary such art is -- most people have simply no idea how many times they are photographed each day without their consent. An artist taking a few pictures, in an incredibly public place, should barely stir a ripple in comparison. Consider if software had not been 'installe…

This is like shitting on someone's car to point out the fact that...birds shit on cars.

Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. The fact this software took pictures of unaware people directly right in their face is gobsmacking. But it was an "art project".

At first I was pretty miffed right along with the author that the SS raided them. But with that detail, I am kinda glad they did it! Epicly stupid decision.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#35

Post by Rebelgecko »

zeckalpha wrote: post #32
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #7

“I continue to work with faces” is incredible in the context of installing spyware on Apple Store computers that secretly photographs customers.

To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures. This was to draw attention to that fact. Perhaps the computers for public use should not take photos?

>To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures

How so?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#36

Post by tueirueiru »

titzer wrote: post #34
angry_octet wrote: post #21

The fact that a number of posters feel offended that he would 'install software that takes their picture without consent' simply highlights how necessary such art is -- most people have simply no idea how many times they are photographed each day without their consent. An artist taking a few pictures, in an incredibly public place, should barely stir a ripple in comparison. Consider if software had not been 'installe…

This is like shitting on someone's car to point out the fact that...birds shit on cars. Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. The fact this software took pictures of unaware people directly right in their face is gobsmacking. But it was an "art project". At first I was pretty miffed right along with th…

The Secret Service is abbreviated USSS, not SS as that is associated with the Nazi Schutzstaffel.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#37

Post by titzer »

tueirueiru wrote: post #36
titzer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like shitting on someone's car to point out the fact that...birds shit on cars. Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. The fact this software took pictures of unaware people directly right in their face is gobsmacking. But it was an "art project". At first I was pretty miffed right along with th…

The Secret Service is abbreviated USSS, not SS as that is associated with the Nazi Schutzstaffel.

How do you know my mistake wasn't intentional? :)

Re: People Staring at Computers

#38

Post by judge2020 »

sellyme wrote: post #33
judge2020 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. This "permission" he gets is _extremely_ vague. For all we know he could have asked "hey can I take pictures in the store" and a part-time associate said yes because that's the general policy.

Hence the "at least some level". Although the fact that he was on-site for the demonstration and was allowed to walk out without even a "hey, what the hell?" would seem to indicate that the employees had at least some understanding of what was going on.

The details are vague, maybe on part of it happening so long ago. From just the text it sounds like they didn't get explicit permission from the store manager, and it didn't exactly sound like they made it known that they were the ones doing it. It all depends on who and how he gave that 'can i shoot video' question and if they knew the extent. It's also not like floor staff are constantly watching those machines - if people could just hit escape to get out of the slideshow, they might have just thought they accidentally opened the camera/photos app and wouldn't have immediately alerted an employee to the weirdness.

I think it's clear that it was done with a sense of "it's legal so i'm going to do it" even if that wasn't verified nor approved by anyone.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#39

Post by neolog »

> And because it's the internet, there were the inevitable flames against me

It's not "because it's the internet", it's because publishing images of nonconsenting people is widely disliked.

Post reply on HN