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

61–70 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#61

Post by sellyme »

yupper32 wrote: post #56
sellyme wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There was no consent to install software onto their computers.

Higher up in the article when the author first introduces the software, they say this line:

> I just had to double check with an employee.

Very vague, yes. It's entirely plausible that the author deliberately hid details in that discussion, or just unintentionally communicated it poorly. But in the absence of any evidence towards that, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the author is telling the truth.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#62

Post by rantwasp »

shkkmo wrote: post #60
rantwasp wrote: post #14

yeah 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.

nah. it's the difference between your phone being intercepted when the police have a warrant and mass surveillance.

In no world, no matter how poorly trained this hypothetical apple employee that allegedly gave them permission is, they would have not agreed to this.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#63

Post by simion314 »

yupper32 wrote: post #53
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…

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.

>That's illegal!

Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras?

Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#64

Post by rantwasp »

sellyme wrote: post #20
rantwasp wrote: post #14

yeah 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 wasn't illegal, hence why no charges were ever filed.

IANAL but this sounds pretty illegal to me. It's illegal even if you do this to one computer. Doing it to all computers in the store without asking?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#65

Post by sellyme »

rantwasp wrote: post #64
sellyme wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't illegal, hence why no charges were ever filed.

IANAL but this sounds pretty illegal to me. It's illegal even if you do this to one computer. Doing it to all computers in the store without asking?

The author seems to have asked:

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

Re: People Staring at Computers

#66

Post by sellyme »

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…

> Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property.

I wouldn't have thought that the number of employees asked would be too important here (in comparison to e.g., seniority) - what's your minimum bar of different workers consulted before you'd no longer consider it a violation of Apple's property?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#67

Post by yupper32 »

sellyme wrote: post #61
yupper32 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There was no consent to install software onto their computers. Higher up in the article when the author first introduces the software, they say this line: > I just had to double check with an employee. Very vague, yes. It's entirely plausible that the author deliberately hid details in that discussion, or just unintentionally communicated it poorly. But in the absence of any evidence towards that, I don't think it'…

> Very vague, yes. It's entirely plausible that the author deliberately hid details in that discussion, or just unintentionally communicated it poorly. But in the absence of any evidence towards that, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the author is telling the truth.

The author wrote a 9,401 word blog post and you think it's possible they were vague with that one aspect of the story for anything other than concealing the truth? Yeah, hard no.

That, and without explicit information about this situation, it is not reasonable to think asking an apple store employee "can I install software on your computers" would get a yes.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#68

Post by yupper32 »

simion314 wrote: post #63
yupper32 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>That's illegal! Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras? Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case?

The law absolutely applies. They just decided it wasn't worth their time.

Can you imagine a world where the law didn't apply here? I could just go into an Apple store and install whatever software I want on their computers without the law applying at all?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#69

Post by sellyme »

yupper32 wrote: post #67
sellyme wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no consent to install software onto their computers. Higher up in the article when the author first introduces the software, they say this line: > I just had to double check with an employee. Very vague, yes. It's entirely plausible that the author deliberately hid details in that discussion, or just unintentionally communicated it poorly. But in the absence of any evidence towards that, I don't think it'…

> Very vague, yes. It's entirely plausible that the author deliberately hid details in that discussion, or just unintentionally communicated it poorly. But in the absence of any evidence towards that, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the author is telling the truth. The author wrote a 9,401 word blog post and you think it's possible they were vague with that one aspect of the story for anything other th…

> The author wrote a 9,401 word blog post and you think it's possible they were vague with that one aspect of the story for anything other than concealing the truth?

Yes. For starters, it's referencing a conversation that occurred a decade prior. Maybe your memory is better than mine, but I definitely can't remember anything except the absolute vaguest of details from conversations I had in 2011.

> That, and [...] it is not reasonable to think asking an apple store employee "can I install software on your computers" would get a yes.

I have personal experience from that era in getting distributed computing clients set up on dozens or hundreds of computers in various institutes (schools, universities, gaming cafes, etc), and it was usually a fairly frictionless process. Times have definitely changed, and I suspect it would be way harder to do that now (and outright impossible at an Apple store), but that concept isn't at all unbelievable to me.

Post reply on HN