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

121–130 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#121

Post by yupper32 »

jrowen wrote: post #117
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 m…

> more like a comedian being granted the liberty to push some boundaries

No. Not at all. Freedom of speech is extremely strong in the US, and for good reason. Freedom to install software onto other people's computers is not.

It's extremely troubling that people are defending this person.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#122

Post by kristiandupont »

sellyme wrote: post #65
rantwasp wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Installing spyware on store computers isn't something you "just double check" about. To me that implies that he did not make it clear to the employee what he intended to do. In addition to which, I doubt some random store worker would have the authority to allow this.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#123

Post by Aeolun »

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 think this form of art is possible without some level of ‘doing things without anyone knowing’, but I also kind of agree that I would be unamused if it happened to me.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#124

Post by yupper32 »

simion314 wrote: post #98
yupper32 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I allow you into my home, are you allowed to install a secret camera?

If I allow you into my coffee shop, are you allowed to install a secret camera?

No. Always no.

Am I "incompetent" because my home or coffee shop didn't have sufficient security to stop you? No. But also, that doesn't matter.

There's no password to walk into my coffee shop. That doesn't give you the right to install a camera.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#125

Post by Aeolun »

yupper32 wrote: post #84
SirSourdough wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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. That's troubling. How would you react if I installed spyware on one of your devices that constantly took pictures of you, but only when you were out in public? Do you think I should face any sort of punishment? If you're not on…

I think you misunderstand OP? They agree that taking pictures of people without their permission is bad, it’s the ‘installing software’ to do it that’s irrelevant.

It would be just as bad if you did it with a telelens from outside the store.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#126

Post by yupper32 »

Aeolun wrote: post #123
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.

I don’t think this form of art is possible without some level of ‘doing things without anyone knowing’, but I also kind of agree that I would be unamused if it happened to me.

Then you shouldn't do this kind of art!

It's official, people have gone absolutely wild in this thread.

You can't just do whatever you want in the name of "art". How you got that idea, I have no clue.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#127

Post by yupper32 »

Aeolun wrote: post #125
yupper32 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's troubling. How would you react if I installed spyware on one of your devices that constantly took pictures of you, but only when you were out in public? Do you think I should face any sort of punishment? If you're not on…

I think you misunderstand OP? They agree that taking pictures of people without their permission is bad, it’s the ‘installing software’ to do it that’s irrelevant. It would be just as bad if you did it with a telelens from outside the store.

> it’s the ‘installing software’ to do it that’s irrelevant

No it's not! That's actually the main thing that's really really bad!

What are you all not understanding? You're intentionally installing spyware on someone else's computer! And then remotely controlling that computer later!

Re: People Staring at Computers

#128

Post by simion314 »

yupper32 wrote: post #124
simion314 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I allow you into my home, are you allowed to install a secret camera? If I allow you into my coffee shop, are you allowed to install a secret camera? No. Always no. Am I "incompetent" because my home or coffee shop didn't have sufficient security to stop you? No. But also, that doesn't matter. There's no password to walk into my coffee shop. That doesn't give you the right to install a camera.

I think your comparison is flawed, if I install a whiteboard on a public place and say to everyone, "please have a test" then can you complain if someone draw something you don't like on it? You did not made the person sign some contract on what he is allowed to draw or write.

In this case Apple said , please come and test this machine, do whatever you want, use the browser, click around, and did not made the guy sign that "I shell not change the wallpaper to a cat or I shell not open this webpage and then allow it to access the camera etc..." You see Apple asked you to do whatever, if they did not want that they should have tell you or use those permissions things to not allow you to do it.

Btw I am not convinced that this is completly legal but I am sure is not so clear as if it were the case someone hacked a private computer with bad intent and produced damaged.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#129

Post by yupper32 »

simion314 wrote: post #96
jonas21 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah yes. When I let someone borrow my phone or computer I totally think they should be allowed to install whatever spyware they want.

It's my fault I didn't have them accept a TOS.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#130

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

yupper32 wrote: post #86
quenix wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For real. People here are treating them with whistleblower gloves. There's nothing of that sort going on here. Just unethical, horrible stuff.

All kinds of unethical horrible stuff doesn't get a Secret Service raid.

The whole point of the unethical horrible stuff was to get people to think about what they were doing, think about what was happening with tech and surveillance, think at all.

An artist got their home raided, Cambridge Analytica - which was manipulation on an industrial scale - barely got a slapped wrist. Ad tech uses mass surveillance to build personal profiles and hardly anyone notices - because the surveillance and behaviour mod happen under the surface.

Who is more unethical? Which response was proportionate?

Post reply on HN