Obligatory: Don't Talk to Police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Didn't seem to hurt him in this case.
People Staring at Computers
51–60 of 349 posts
Re: People Staring at Computers
#52The 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…
Yeah I can't buy a gallon of milk at Kroger now without the whole transaction being recorded on video. They don't have my consent, but they do it anyway.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#53The 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…
Not many are offended about taking pictures.
What people should be offended by is that so many people on here think it's totally acceptable to install spyware onto computers without the owner's consent.
This isn't some kind of whistleblower situation. This is someone fucking around and installing spyware. That's illegal! There's no grey area here, regardless of the lack of action by the AG.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think all crimes are prosecuted? There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time". Going 5-over in a 70mph zone is a good example.
> There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time" Yes, and not many of these involve sending the secret service for a visit anyway.
The secret service don't prosecute people. The prosecutors reviewed the evidence from their investigation, decided it was not a sure thing, and/or considered intent etc. and declined to prosecute as is their perogative.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I took your computer and installed spyware without your consent, that would be legal? Absolutely incorrect. Where do you get this idea from?
> without your consent The author mentions getting consent from Apple employees on multiple occasions. If you asked me if you could install spyware on my computer and I said "yes", then of course it would be legal.
I'm rather amazed that it's possible to install software on public computers in the Apple Store. And since it apparently is (or was), that this sort of thing was not happening daily.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I took your computer and installed spyware without your consent, that would be legal? Absolutely incorrect. Where do you get this idea from?
> without your consent The author mentions getting consent from Apple employees on multiple occasions. If you asked me if you could install spyware on my computer and I said "yes", then of course it would be legal.
Bull. Shit.
"We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video"
There was no consent to install software onto their computers. They just tried to find some consent loophole.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#57> 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.
Yeah - I had a negative reaction to this in 2011, if anything it’s only soured more in time (and the artist seems even less aware of why people hated it or why he was investigated). It’s also the low quality (imo) type of art that does a disservice to the rest. Like the blank canvas art hung in the SF MOMA, it’s the stuff you roll your eyes at and ignore. A lot of the art at RPI was like that. They should have prosec…
> maybe then his lawyers could have explained to him why what he did was wrong.
It sounds like his lawyers recognized that what he did was so obviously not illegal or with sufficient crimnal intent that they were sure the charges would be dropped. It certainly seems like a stretch to apply the CFAA to these actions, what other laws do you think applied?
Re: People Staring at Computers
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think all crimes are prosecuted? There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time". Going 5-over in a 70mph zone is a good example.
> There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time" Yes, and not many of these involve sending the secret service for a visit anyway.
There's plentt of things that cops (including Secret Service) do an initial review of and find that it is probably criminal but not a priority to do the legwork to even get a prosecutor involved, or that they do minimal legwork, and get a prosecutor involved who decides that its criminal but not a prosecutorial priority.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#59“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?
No, McDonald wrote a timelapse program that took pictures, detected faces, and uploaded them to his server.
> I started working on a modified version of the timelapse application. Instead of saving to disk, it sent images to my server. And it only saved photos containing a face.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#60yeah no. installing spyware and taking pictures of people without their consent is shady af. also the logic of “oh the apple store has glass windows” therefore i can do this illegal shit is mind boggling
It's just not the "glass windows":
> And I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee.
McDonald recieved permission to take photos, he just didn't disclose how he would take the photo or what he would use them for. If there is anything unethical here, it is how the pictures were taken and why (and lack of disclosure thereof), not the taking of photos itself.