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

181–190 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#181

Post by gizmo »

NotEvil wrote: post #170
berkes wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

It is, he never asks people for there consent. Even apple does that (although in a never read privacy policy) but they do

There are cameras on every street corner. At ATMs. In every store. On public transportation. I never consented to any of this. Art projects that confront people with the reality that they're being recorded and watched are vital to remind people that privacy still matters, and that we should struggle to regain some of the privacy expectations we've lost.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#182

Post by Miner49er »

titzer wrote: post #34
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…

This is like shitting on someone's car to point out the fact that...birds shit on cars. Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. The fact this software took pictures of unaware people directly right in their face is gobsmacking. But it was an "art project". At first I was pretty miffed right along with th…

Do people not reguarly install software on display computers? Everytime I've used one (especially phones) they've been full of installed apps. That's illegal?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#183

Post by TeMPOraL »

the-dude wrote: post #172
TeMPOraL wrote: post #115

Earlier 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…

> 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.

Fair enough. Photos also leak much more data points than most people realize. For example, the higher the quality and resolution, the more diseases a skilled doctor would be able to diagnose from it - even ones you don't know you have.

My point is, all those little bits of data that are being collected all the time, by almost every website and program you use, leak all of this and much more. It doesn't "feel" like you're revealing anything important, and yet a full visibility into a week of your browsing history will tell me an order of magnitude more about you than a random photo ever could. A year's worth of your digital footprint will tell me more than your whole photo album. Etc.

(And the worst thing is, when you make and share your photos digitally, companies get both.)

Re: People Staring at Computers

#184

Post by [deleted] »

brainless wrote: post #158
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 o…

[deleted]

Re: People Staring at Computers

#185

Post by TeMPOraL »

emptyparadise wrote: post #165
TeMPOraL wrote: post #115

Earlier 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…

Let's be careful and not blame people for all of it because the Facebooks of the world go a very long way to make sure actually understanding what's going on with your data is extremely difficult.

Not my intent. My position is that:

- Most people have little clue about how reality works;

- Companies thriving on people's data do their best to perpetuate that state of things;

- I don't blame people from being ignorant about practical implications of complex topics at the intersection of mathematics and philosophy; I blame companies for exploiting that lack of understanding.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#186

Post by [deleted] »

NotEvil wrote: post #173
b112 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: People Staring at Computers

#187

Post by agloeregrets »

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…

This. This guy deserved everything that came to him and his ethics are so downright screwed that Apple and the Gov probably actually assumed that no artist would do this kind of thing.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#188

Post by easton »

developer2 wrote: post #156
mjhagen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

Note that (based on that article), you can disable iCloud Backup and leave Messages in the Cloud enabled, which results in your messages being backed up but the key to decrypting them not being backed up. IIRC, this also results in the key your device uses to decrypt your messages being regenerated so Apple can't go into your backups and pull it out.

I disable iCloud Backup because there isn't much that is useful in there that isn't under one of the other checkboxes (Photos is separate, Health is separate, Messages is separate), so my messages should be safe?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#189

Post by batty_alex »

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."

> What was the justification for the raid?

They had a warrant to seize assets used for developing the spyware installed on Apple's property. If the feds don't have jurisdiction to investigate potential infringement of other' rights, what do they do about peeping toms? How do they know the extent of this spyware they've deployed?

To even get that warrant, they need a decent argument in front of a judge. None of this is infringing on any rights

> home raid which found no grounds for prosecution

They knocked, presented the warrant, and the agents were cordial and honest. The purpose of these sorts of warrants are for investigative purposes, which is in the warrant. You don't need to promise a prosecution to serve one

He made it super-small (and it's not in the FOIA doc, that I could find) but, here's the warrant he was served by the agents at the door: https://kylemcdonald.net/psac/large/warrant.png

They gave him all the reasons they were there, they let him know what would expand the scope of the warrant (drugs or weapons) and discussed, in-detail, what they were there for

Re: People Staring at Computers

#190

Post by Miner49er »

brainless wrote: post #159
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.

It's not just your data though. They probably have your photos, and they share those with people like the NSA, who show your nude photos around the office.

That's way worse IMO, but doesn't seem to illicit the same response as this guy's art.

Post reply on HN