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

91–100 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#91

Post by yupper32 »

sellyme wrote: post #69
yupper32 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

"Hey remember that time I bugged the Apple store?"

"Haha yeah man, did you ever get permission to do that?"

"No idea! But I did get permission to film people's reactions!"

Yeah ok...

This isn't something you forget. You've had law enforcement down your neck for part of it. With a Grand Jury involved. This isn't some random conversation at a party in 2011. This is you committing a crime and having the US government follow up on that crime shortly after, with probably many conversations with lawyers, etc.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#92

Post by bagels »

gonehome wrote: post #44
neolog wrote: post #39

> 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…

There is a difference (sometimes) between what some find unpalatable and what is illegal. Malicious prosecution for non crimes is not something I find palatable.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#93

Post by alexashka »

It seems highly petty to let people install and run random software and then try to bully them with legal action when they take you up on it.

Don't they have a term for it? Entrapment?

Also, what a great legal system where if you have money, you can bully people who don't for years on end.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#94

Post by [deleted] »

egypturnash wrote: post #16

I find myself wondering how old this man was when he did this. It kinda feels like the sort of antics someone gets up to before their brain has fully developed the capacity of understanding things like "consequences". Although it got him in the NY Times and that's pretty good from the perspective of "all publicity is good publicity" I guess. He's wikinotable but neither the wikipedia page nor his website has a date o…

[deleted]

Re: People Staring at Computers

#95

Post by sellyme »

nairodd wrote: post #88

just curious: if books had a webcam built into them, would the pictures of people staring at them look different? Discuss.

> if books had a webcam built into them

Amazon is way ahead of you on this one, the Kindle Fire HD has had a camera since 2012.

> would the pictures of people staring at them look different?

I would suspect not, apart from being taken at far less flattering angles.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#96

Post by simion314 »

jonas21 wrote: post #83
simion314 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

IANAL, but they were considering prosecuting him under Title 18, U.S. Code 1030 [1]. According to the law, simply accessing a computer without authorization is not a crime. You also need to do one of several other things -- one of which is causing "damage and loss" (see section (5)(C)). It sounds like the Secret Service was saying that he caused damage and loss because Apple had to remove his software from their comp…

From my understanding those computers were opened for people to use, the guy did not bypass any security measure and he did not accept any TOS.

Those computers should (but who knows) be reset to factory settings periodically.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#97

Post by IggleSniggle »

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.

Oh you mean like adware? Or research conglomerates, like the barely regulated credit bureaus?

using a camera API on a website would have had the same effect in this scenario. Installing it as a binary does change the narrative, but that’s just our own conditioning in this case, given that all the goals of this project could have been achieved without doing that.

The spyware comes pre-installed on your computer, it’s called a web browser. And when somebody else visits a public computer, you are subject to the whims of whatever website they left running before you visited.

Edit: Obviously installing spyware is wrong, ethically and legally. What’s less clear to me is, if Apple allowed folks to install arbitrary programs to “try out” computers at the store. If that was explicitly allowed, then Apple is to blame for that one, not this dude.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#98

Post by simion314 »

yupper32 wrote: post #68
simion314 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

But the computer was opened for you, no TOS that says you can't install software or you can't open this website.

I imagine a judge asking Apple why did you not block this "installation" ? did you allowed it or are you incompetent?

This computers were setup for public use, no password or security measure so I do not see that is super obvious that the exact same laws apply here as for a private computer.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#99

Post by mjhagen »

yarcob wrote: post #89

The most curious thing about this project is how people seem to have a visceral reaction to having photos of them made without their permission; but having their activity tracked online hardly evokes the same reaction. It's weird. What harm is a random picture of my face in public going to do? But still some people worry so much about that. Whereas only very few people show the same reaction to the fact that Google s…

> Or that Apple stores a copy of every message I have sent to a loved one with my phone on their servers.

Unencrypted, for them to see?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#100

Post by dale_glass »

yarcob wrote: post #89

The most curious thing about this project is how people seem to have a visceral reaction to having photos of them made without their permission; but having their activity tracked online hardly evokes the same reaction. It's weird. What harm is a random picture of my face in public going to do? But still some people worry so much about that. Whereas only very few people show the same reaction to the fact that Google s…

A picture is a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands.

A normal picture of a person could still expose something important about them to the wrong party. Eg, "I visit the unsavory part of town", "I'm not really washing my hair", "I'm slacking off", etc. Those are mostly "real-world" concerns.

There's the paranoia angle: some stranger wants your picture specifically. What could they have in mind?

If you look at least somewhat remarkable, you might end up being part of some meme, or being photoshopped into something. You might be the next Magikarp Guy, if somebody snaps a picture at exactly the wrong moment.

With Google the concerns are quite different. While Google pries a lot, so far it's mostly invisible. Google fortunately isn't run by edgy teens looking for the maximum lulz, but by boring accountants looking for profit. So though there's still plenty things to be concerned about, the concern isn't as visceral.

Post reply on HN