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

71–80 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#71

Post by clort »

throwawayboise wrote: post #55
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.

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.

To be clear, everybody who had the opportunity back in the day "installed software" on computers in public stores:

  10 PRINT "Hello"
  20 GOTO 10

Re: People Staring at Computers

#72

Post by hulitu »

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.

Well, google does it also and i think they wouldn't do anything illegal (like stealing user data in blatant violation of GDPR for example).

Re: People Staring at Computers

#73

Post by yupper32 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #52
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…

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.

If you come to my house, you'll get recorded on my Nest cam. Perfectly legal situation.

If you come to my house and secretly installed a Nest cam to record me and my guests, that would be illegal. More to the point, if you come to my house and installed spyware on my computer to take pictures of me, that would be illegal.

The author is in the second situation. Kroger is in the first. Do you understand the gigantic difference here?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#74

Post by loosescrews »

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…

> At least now we can wear masks.

I sure hope this remains socially acceptable, but the way things are going, I don't think this will last in the US. I am aware that the first SARS outbreak left a mask wearing culture in parts of Asia, but American culture is pretty different. I was optimistic mask wearing would remain in American culture, but the last month or so has changed my mind. Mask usage in my area has been rapidly dropping and the trend appears to be accelerating.

The one things that may keep mask wearing alive (at least in my area) are the wild fires.

I have really enjoyed the relative privacy and not worrying about getting sick that mask wearing has provided me. I think this may be the only 1.5 year long stretch of time I haven't gotten sick. It has also really helped with my allergies.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#75

Post by SirSourdough »

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.

I don't see a major functional difference between installing the spyware and taking the pictures with an open browser tab, a Facetime call to yourself, or a long lens from outside the store.

It's hard for me to see those things as rising to the level of criminality on a publicly accessible computer in a public space, so it's hard for me to be offended just because installed software was used to achieve the same ends. Maybe if the intention was malicious it would be more offensive to me.

The legal(?) surveillance both in stores and throughout our lives used for manipulative purposes by Apple et al. that the project was at least partially intended to highlight is significantly more offensive and wrong to me than the project itself.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#76

Post by technologia »

sellyme wrote: post #66
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…

> 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?

These aren’t franchises where some employee can make that decision, the artist would have had to reach out to Apple’s legal team to get consent to do this at one of their stores. Yea that might be cumbersome and make the work impossible to do but if you were in the employee’s shoes would you really want the onus of all of this on your head?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#77

Post by hulitu »

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?

> >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?

So being a public place means that laws do not apply ?

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

Of course not. Laws are for (poor) persons. When you are a corporation or have some money in your pocket, you can settle.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#78

Post by quenix »

yupper32 wrote: post #46

They installed spyware on someone else's computers. Of course that's illegal, regardless of whether or not the AG decided to go after them. Are people serious here? There's nothing ethical or legal going on with the blog post here. The fact that they got off is just luck. There's no whistleblowing or any other protection granted, and there shouldn't be. Period. And the worst part in my opinion is the author has no in…

Wow. I found a video of this exhibition on YouTube, and it looks like what this guy installed is less pure spyware and more a remote administration tool (RAT).

After he took the photos he wanted, he remotely uploaded them to every computer and forced them to be shown on-screen while people were browsing around the demo.

Freaky stuff. How is installing RATs on other peoples’ computers even remotely ethical?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#79

Post by SirSourdough »

throwawayboise wrote: post #55
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.

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.

The ease with which he was able to install the spyware on an entire store worth of computers is significantly more troubling to me than the fact that he did. I'm sure a shocking number of people input login credentials on those computers. More malicious code could do far more harm than just take a picture of your face.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#80

Post by sellyme »

technologia wrote: post #76
sellyme wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

These aren’t franchises where some employee can make that decision, the artist would have had to reach out to Apple’s legal team to get consent to do this at one of their stores. Yea that might be cumbersome and make the work impossible to do but if you were in the employee’s shoes would you really want the onus of all of this on your head?

> the artist would have had to reach out to Apple’s legal team to get consent to do this at one of their stores

Oh that's the smarter thing to do for sure, but you're still going to be contacting one employee (who then potentially contacts other employees). I just found the emphasis on the quantity of employees in the GP comment unusual.

> but if you were in the employee’s shoes would you really want the onus of all of this on your head?

I would assume that if there was any doubt in their mind they could pretty easily go "I'll have to get my manager". If anyone with experience working at an Apple store can chime in that would be fantastic, but I suspect that a store manager in 2011 would have been able to approve installing software on a demo computer without having to go through legal. Presumably that changed pretty quickly after this stunt though.

Post reply on HN