Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What properties must a system have for the quote to be applicable then?
People Staring at Computers
141–150 of 349 posts
Re: People Staring at Computers
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Were charges pressed? No. Was there a court case? No. Was there a guilty verdict? No.
What was the justification for the raid?
Perhaps you need to revise your understanding of Fourth Amendment protection from fishing expeditions before dismissing a home raid which found no grounds for prosecution as "satire."
Re: People Staring at Computers
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There were crimes involved here. They just just weren't worth the federal prosecutor's time to take to court.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#144Re: People Staring at Computers
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But you are defending a home raid on someone who was not brought to trial, but was making a politcal and moral point about corporate tools and corporate behaviours.
When you think criticism - oblique, but clearly still harmless - is more of a problem than the behaviours, you are very much trying to shoot the messenger.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 exchan…
Why do we find some visual stimuli pleasing, and others repulsive?
I think that’s partly our experience, and partly our generic heritage — an ‘attractive’ face is one where the effect of the emotional affect correlated with reproductive success.
And I think pop-culture locked room mystery crime shows like Sherlock and Jonathan Creek would be written very differently if the puzzle solving character was supposed to represent the norm rather than the exception.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures. This was to draw attention to that fact. Perhaps the computers for public use should not take photos?
> This was to draw attention to that fact. Nowhere in the post do I have an indication this is trying to say "wake up Apple customers! Their imacs are taking pictures of you while you're in the store!". It's not as if people aren't already recorded 24/7 by security cameras in retail stores.
And nowhere in Picasso's painting did he harangue his audience about how he was trying to reduce representational imagery down to its core and elemental features.
Art works best by allowing people to discover their narrative through the piece.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#148The 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…
They're very different situations, and equating the two is like equating piracy to theft; just because they have an overlap doesn't mean they're the same thing.
You don't see the same visceral reaction to CCTV, which is much more akin to the mass surveillance performed by Google et Al, but if someone walked up to you in a coffee shop and stuck a USB key into your laptop and said "it's just an anonymous keylogger, don't worry about it" you would likely get the visceral reaction you're talking about.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
But you are defending a home raid on someone who was not brought to trial, but was making a politcal and moral point about corporate tools and corporate behaviours. When you think criticism - oblique, but clearly still harmless - is more of a problem than the behaviours, you are very much trying to shoot the messenger.
I think, as soon as he became the actor as well, he ceased being "the messager" in the terms of solely passing on a message.
Put another way, "shoot the messenger" is a phrase used when an unbiased person, merely delivering a message of bias/harm from another, is attacked for the message.
You are not a messenger, when you perform the act/deed/thing yourself.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#150The response on HN is explained by the introductory text in the article. This project was done *before Snowdon* way back in 2011.
We all here, and the world generally, were different back then.