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

151–160 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#151

Post by noisy_boy »

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…

I think it is also about the expectations in one's mind of what is acceptable. For typical people signing up with Google/Facebook, firstly, the information being scraped is overwhelmingly large/indirect/hidden for them to realize the magnitude/gravity of it. Second, they "mentally" accepted/resigned to that "system" when they signed up.

However, in case of someone taking photo of a face without permission, a) and b) above no longer hold true - it is their face - totally tangible, something a lot more personal and something people hold much more dear than the last search query and they never "agreed" to it (neither explicitly nor in their head).

Re: People Staring at Computers

#152

Post by b112 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #142
yupper32 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

Hmm.

I'm a big proponent for sanctity of the home.

So, this made me think ; where does the current home end, and the current office?

If the future, we may see more and more home raids, where an employer's malfeasance results in employee "workspaces" being raided for info.

All computers taken, mobile phones, various office artifacts, with homes involved due to work-from-home.

I suspect this may have already happened many times over the years, with CEOs, employees of small startups working from home.

Has this battle already been lost? Not sure for Canada and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but what of the US?

Does work from home, mean raids are easily justified?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#153

Post by kaba0 »

sellyme wrote: post #19
paranoidrobot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this story is definitely burying the lede. The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission. That software took photos of visitors to the apple store, and transmitted it to the author. Definitely shady activity, and when the information about how the author got the photos - is entirely unsurprising that they were raided.

> The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission They had at least some level of permission: > I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. [...] > We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video, and I triggered the slideshow

Also, an employee is not one who can give permission for that, at most he/she can explain what is allowed/not allowed.

Like, just because a (potentially misinformed) McDonald’s employee told you, that you can eat your own food at the place doesn’t mean it is actually the rule of the place. And on top of that, in this situation it was even illegal.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#154

Post by ralfd »

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.

AFAIK 'Messages in iCloud' is enabled when iCloud backup is enabled and can be switched off easily if one only wants to have messages locally on the device.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#155

Post by trompetenaccoun »

djrobstep wrote: post #134
sideshowb wrote: post #111

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.

I don't understand it either. What's that quote supposed to mean? Systems can and do have unintended consequences, surely.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#156

Post by developer2 »

mjhagen wrote: post #99
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?

The encryption/decryption keys for your iMessages are stored with Apple, and are accessible to them. If you have iCloud Backup enabled, Apple–and thus law enforcement–can in fact decrypt them.

A while back, Apple was aiming to transition to store iMessage backups using a more secure method; ie. the same method that some other content such as Health data is stored, which uses encryption keys derived using local info such as your macOS or iOS password. The FBI requested Apple not to make this change, and Apple complied.

Apple runs a great PR game when they talk about privacy, but the reality is nowhere near the same. Some things are fully encrypted so that Apple cannot decrypt, while other things are not safe to store with them. iMessage falls into the latter bucket.

Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

Re: People Staring at Computers

#157

Post by bambax »

> In 2011 I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm.

Well, law enforcement's first job is to protect property, not people.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#158

Post by brainless »

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…

I had sort of a similar reaction to this but then I thought that the artist here seems to have done this only to show people they are being surveyed or that hidden surveillance is easy.

> Probably because they got off the first time.

Imagine all the companies and governments doing exactly what this artist did, without any remorse or intention to show it back to the public. And they do not get caught, forget getting off "first time". What emotions should we express for them?

This artist put a face to the story, a photo that did the job of a thousand words. I think it is easy to see his ways are unjust but I do not think there is an easy way to motivate more people to ask tough questions about our own data.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#159

Post by brainless »

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…

I feel "my" photo makes it real, personal. I see it, I visualize and comprehend it as me. A curtain of sorts is raised on me. My data is all bits and bytes. Unless some ugly* stuff I said can be picked up and mirrored at me, I do not think there is enough emotional punch as a photo.

Edit: it does not have to be ugly, just something to draw immediate emotional reaction.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#160

Post by berkes »

i_dont_know_ wrote: post #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 th…

> such a viscerally gross violation

How did you reach this conclusion? Because your entire response hinges on this being true.

I highly doubt it is a "violation" in the first place, and certainly not a "gross violation", the courts decided that it was not, as you call it "an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent" (well, maybe amoral, as courts have nothing to say about that).

Post reply on HN