This led me down such a deep rabbit hole, including 3rdi and so much more... Damn. Thank you for sharing this :O
People Staring at Computers
171–180 of 349 posts
Re: People Staring at Computers
#172The 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…
> Photos just show the shell that you won in the genetic lottery.
All sounds very profound. But a photo shows so much more : it shows how fit you are, if you look healthy and happy. It also shows how you treat yourself and how you feel about yourself.
I am very aware of this as I changed quite a bit over the last years and these effects can't be understated.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is what I don't understand why he can't be a messenger and an actor at the same time.
Everything doesn't have to be black and white you know
Re: People Staring at Computers
#174The 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…
People in cities are captured on CCTV hundreds of times per day but nobody seems to mind. I remember some fifteen years ago sitting in pub with a group of people and being the only one who cared that there was a CCTV camera right above our table (it was one of those creepy omni-directional domes).
Surveillance Camera Man showed that people have often violent reactions to being overtly filmed by individuals in public. These videos appear to be gone from Youtube now, but if you hadn't seen it he would often just film people do mundane stuff in public like drinking coffee. People always questioned what he was doing, he would tell them "I'm just making a video" and they wouldn't be pleased.
If you told someone you were going to install a keylogger on their machine they would almost certainly be against you doing that. But people voluntarily use "cloud" services like Google Docs etc. which are literally keylogging devices.
I think there is a strong tendency for people to submit to what they consider to be authority. Some random guy on the street isn't authority. But the government is. Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. are. Unfortunately it leads people to spend energy on things that don't matter, like the random guy on the street, and not the things that do matter, like systematic global surveillance.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#175It seems highly petty to let people install and run random software and then try to bully them with legal action when they take you up on it. Don't they have a term for it? Entrapment? Also, what a great legal system where if you have money, you can bully people who don't for years on end.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I always thought it was a pretty questionable idea that they have completely unprotected computers that they let anyone just walk in and use. I wonder if that's still the case. When you implicitly suggest "do whatever you want on these computers" (by having zero security or limited features whatsoever, nor any verbal or written ToS or even vaguely-suggested "house rules"), and let someone…
If a shop has free samples, I would reasonably assume you are welcome to take one or two to try to see if you would consider buying. But I wouldn't reasonably assume they would be OK with me taking all of the samples, even if there wasn't a sign saying so, or any mechanism preventing me from taking all of it.
Just the same, it seems reasonable to me that Apple leave the computers unprotected so that customers can try out software on them before buying. It does not seem reasonable to me to install software to secretly take photos of other customers for an art project, whether or not it is explicitly stated.
Note that I'm not saying calling the Secret Service is an appropriate reaction to this; just that it is ethically questionable, if not outright illegal.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#176Don't mess with other people's computers is the TL;DR lesson from this post.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#177They 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…
Everyone's phone is full of spyware installed by someone else (Apple or Google). This isn't any different.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#178The 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…
Tell someone there are a billion stars in the universe and they'll believe you. Tell them there is wet paint on a bench and they'll have to touch it to be sure.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Did you read the article? It’s about large scale systems like bureaucracies, rather then some piece of code.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What crime? I can't think of any laws broken. Certainly not the CFAA and it is legal to take pictures in public places.