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

111–120 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#111

Post by sideshowb »

djrobstep wrote: post #42
kunle wrote: post #24

"I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. It was a sign of my privilege, and of my naive faith in the system." > Systems are designed first, to benefit their creators, and subsequently their controllers, and then everyone else. Unless you designed the system, you should assume it's not designed to benefit you by default.

As always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

Try using that excuse next time sometime finds a bug in your code

Re: People Staring at Computers

#112

Post by ehnto »

ryandrake wrote: post #8

> "I'm not really a computer security person, so I don't understand how that law applies here. Did Apple just call you up and say 'we want you to check this guy out'?" > "Something like that." > "Can anyone do that? Can I call you up?" > The agent who had been taking notes chimed in: "I suppose so, if you just open up the Yellow Pages we're right there, on the inside cover." Raise your hand if you've had trouble gett…

I don't disagree that it's a sad state of affairs, but there's really no connection between the Secret Service and local police departments. Even neighboring local police departments are entirely separate entities.

I bet if you had a legitimate case that the secret service were interested in, calling that line may actually get it looked at. Whereas calling a local PD about a problem that should be relevant to them doesn't always get it looked at.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#113

Post by ben_w »

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…

Thanks for explicitly pointing out the odd photo-specific reaction. I’ve seen it a few times, but I didn’t make a conscious connection that it might be something low-level visceral.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#114

Post by sharken »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #105
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 permanent. It seems like my pic is always taken on days I wish I never woke up, or I am Shrek? There is a glimer of hope data about us online might be found, and deleted, one day. I can't stand my picture being taken, especially by strangers. I have given up to DMV, but not Costco. My know it all father retired, and was bored. He decided to buy a camera, and take pictures of the homeless on Market Street…

Good story and a great attitude towards your father, i must admit i don't really understand the need to revel in other people's misery, even though sometimes it's difficult not to.

I also don't understand why he did not listen to the advice, but i guess some people can only learn from making a mistake.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#115

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

It's magical thinking.

People don't understand how technology works. More than that - because it's not really about computers. Most people don't understand how reality works. What is information. How reasoning works. What can you infer from observations.

They feel (and sometimes, in some places, really think) that a picture is like a piece of their soul. But it isn't. It's just a hash of their phenotype, useful mostly to check if it matches to a person (or another picture of them). It's mostly irrelevant.

The soul - that leaks out in all the rest of your digital footprint. The sites you visit, the articles you read, the things you look at when scrolling. The ads you click, the ads you ignore, the products you buy, the products you only check out but don't add to your cart. The messages you send. The posts you comment on. Where you comment on them from, and on what device. How long did you own it, how many other devices do you own, how do your habits differ between those devices. Who you "befriend" or follow on-line, who follows you. Etc.

All these things add up to who you are. Taken together, they give a comprehensive look at both your personality and your life circumstances. Photos? Photos just show the shell that you won in the genetic lottery.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#117

Post by jrowen »

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…

It doesn't seem fair to say that he has no intention of not doing it again.

"I'm not sure I would make this piece today, anyway. I'm increasingly critical of artwork that attempts to engage with the theme of surveillance by replicating systems of surveillance. How fruitful can a conversation be about consent and privacy, when an artist does not seek their subject's consent?"

I also don't think it's as bad as you're making it sound. I feel it's akin to gray-hat security research. Maybe he crossed the line into "you shouldn't do that" but ultimately had a harmless intent and didn't cause any real damage. Not exactly whistleblower status but more like a comedian being granted the liberty to push some boundaries and spark potentially valuable conversations.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#118

Post by tomduncalf »

dannyw wrote: post #4

This is such an interesting case. People can come to many reasonable opinions about it, but I'm glad that it ended without a fuss.

Was going to say the same thing! I can understand the wide range of reactions and I’m not 100% sure how it makes me feel, but I think that’s perhaps the nature of art like this.

Definitely an interesting project and I did like the montage of all the faces aligned in the video. Not so sure about the privacy invasion of it.

Kind of a crazy story, but I don’t actually think it was unreasonable for Apple to get the secret service involved - they didn’t know the details of the project and it might have looked like someone had hacked their internal network, for example. And I’m sure even without that, you could argue this was legally sketchy.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#119

Post by Aeolun »

sellyme wrote: post #29
LegitShady wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he definitely wasn't honest about the extent of what he did - that isn't 'some level of permission' it's lying to an apple employee.

Is there a statement from one of the involved employees that wasn't covered in the blog or is this pure speculation?

Extrapolation from the way the article skirts making this explicit?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#120

Post by Aeolun »

sellyme wrote: post #80
technologia wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No store manager in their right mind would approve this though.
Post reply on HN