Live data from Hacker News

People Staring at Computers

kylemcdonald.net

131–140 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#131
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…

If you actually show people everything that Apple, Google, Facebook keep about them including those examples you'll get a very, very different reaction. One is seen the other is not and is denied. Nobody ever agreed to it. There was never informed consent. Show someone their private stuff and they'll freak out very, very hard indeed.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> An artist got their home raided, Cambridge Analytica - which was manipulation on an industrial scale - barely got a slapped wrist.

Please tell me your post is satire.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/judge-grants-se...

I'm not saying Cambridge Analytica was sufficiently prosecuted, but using the home raid of the author as a comparison screams satire.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#133
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's far more troubling that too few people are questioning the mass surveillance he was critiquing and dramatising.

It's classic shoot-the-messenger.

Meanwhile Facebook was - and probably still is - tracking people's online behaviour even when they're not logged into Facebook, based on legalese buried in T&Cs which most users don't even know exist, never mind have read, never mind understood, never mind given explicit informed consent to.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn't, because that would be a basic misunderstanding the quote.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#135
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 most…

That last sentence is poetic (the rest is well-articulated too).

Re: People Staring at Computers

#136
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 most…

And you get this stuff from?

I'd say people understand very well the implications of a photo. If all there was to a photo is showing "the shell that you won in the genetic lottery" there would hardly be a point in photography.

I disagree with your assessment. It's part acceptance, part different priorities, and part ignorance.

Some people understand what is being gathered and simply accept that as a worthwhile exchange for free stuff. Maybe even a beneficial one (ads are more relevant).

Some people just care about different things than you do. Maybe they're very self-conscious about their image and not particularly concerned about their shopping habits being known.

And some just aren't aware of the potential for abuse that exists with modern data collection. They think we're still at the early stage, where a company is just trying to figure out which brand of beer to stock, and unaware of modern elaborate profile building and the amount of creepy targeting and manipulation they make possible.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sig…

> I install a whiteboard on a public place

You're already off. This was private property.

> and say to everyone, "please have a test" then can you complain if someone draw something you don't like on it

This would be more like bolting a camera to the whiteboard in your private place of business. And yes, sometimes comparisons fall apart.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#138
This reminds me of a random, but chilling, scene in "Minority Report". The protagonist confronts a man he thinks is responsible for killing his child.

The man decides to reassure the protagonist by explaining how kind he was to the child, and made sure the child didn't suffer when he killed him. He's presenting it as though this is a legitimate defense for such an obvious violation. The part that sticks with me is the man's seeming sincerity in believing he's making a case for himself, "yeah I did this horrible thing, but I did it in the nicest way possible so it's really kinda big of me if you think about it"

This post fills me with the same chills. The author's utter lack of culpability for such a viscerally gross violation and strange attempts to spin it as though he's kind of a good person for doing it in a slightly less terrible way than he could have otherwise done it...

To be clear, he didn't go out and do a security research project with ethical standards in place. He made it clear how laughable he considers the concept of 'consent' (an ethical way to do this might've been to take people's pictures, then ask them if they were OK with sharing it right after. He doesn't consider such a process at all)

Instead, he thought of an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent, for his own pleasure, curiosity, and amusement and decided to call it 'art'. There are more horrible ways he could have done the above, sure. But that argument to me sounds as hollow as the "but he didn't suffer" argument from the movie.

Him expressing his own sense of magnanimousness and ironic sense of victimhood at the end of it... it really is a scary glimpse into the mind of such people.

It's sad because it's very easy to misconstrue this as a "security researcher gets feds sent on him by apple" story, and I think lots of people are basically trying to frame it that way, but it's not that at all. To me, it's clearly "jackass doesn't understand consent, apple calls the feds, still a jackass, still doesn't understand".

[Note: yes I know the character in the movie is revealed as a bluff shortly after, the scene sticks with me because of the character's apparent sincerity at the moment]

[Additional Note: yes I know many of these companies also don't respect consent. Them not respecting it is not an excuse for everyone to behave the same way.]

Re: People Staring at Computers

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's far more troubling that too few people are questioning the mass surveillance he was critiquing and dramatising. It's classic shoot-the-messenger. Meanwhile Facebook was - and probably still is - tracking people's online behaviour even when they're not logged into Facebook, based on legalese buried in T&Cs which most users don't even know exist, never mind have read, never mind understood, never mind given explic…

> It's classic shoot-the-messenger.

No it's not!

I don't go around shooting people to advocate gun control laws.

I don't go around stealing people's belongings in cars to advocate that people shouldn't leave valuables in cars.

This is vigilante behavior that should never be condoned.

Post reply on HN