People Staring at Computers • Hacker News Board

Re: People Staring at Computers

#231

Post by syshum » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

sovnade wrote: post #225

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…

That was my first thought. Inside an Apple store is not a public place. A sidewalk is a public place - you can take photos there and post them with no consequences. Inside a private business might as well be inside someone's private residence as far as the law is concerned. Just because a business is open to the public does not mean it is a public space. People confuse the two.

>>>Apple store is not a public place. A sidewalk is a public place ...Inside a private business might as well be inside someone's private residence

In correct, an Apple Store would be a Public Accommodation, there are all kinds of laws governing Public Accommodation that do not apply to a Private Residence.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#232

Post by enimodas » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #219

enimodas wrote: post #194

Reminds me of one of my favorite pieces of art of the 21th century: surveillance camera man: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/

This is the kind of asshole abusing the protections and courtesies of civil society and ruining it for everyone. In most places I’ve lived, he’d have been physically assaulted in short order.

You don't see the parallels to security cameras?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#233

Post by sovnade » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #227

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…

> And the worst part in my opinion is the author has no intention of not doing something like this again. I think the author's intentions are what earn him some sympathy from people around here. He wasn't stealing bank info or passwords. He wasn't tracking their location or scanning their email. He was essentially doing street photography albeit with cameras owned by Apple. The author may be naive but he's not malici…

Taking pictures of people and posting them without their permission while they're at a private business is malicious in my opinion. And also illegal. There's a reason he had to hide it. Ethically it's no different to me than connecting to someone's webcam at home and uploading the photos.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#234

Post by sovnade » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #231

sovnade wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my first thought. Inside an Apple store is not a public place. A sidewalk is a public place - you can take photos there and post them with no consequences. Inside a private business might as well be inside someone's private residence as far as the law is concerned. Just because a business is open to the public does not mean it is a public space. People confuse the two.

>>>Apple store is not a public place. A sidewalk is a public place ...Inside a private business might as well be inside someone's private residence In correct, an Apple Store would be a Public Accommodation, there are all kinds of laws governing Public Accommodation that do not apply to a Private Residence.

I was referring to the privacy side of things, since that's the context of this story. Also would apply to trespassing - hence you can be removed from a private business if the owner/manager wants you gone.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#235

Post by sideshowb » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

djrobstep wrote: post #179

sideshowb wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My question still stands. How many people must be involved in the system design for you to consider it 'large scale'?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#236

Post by rtpg » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #227

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…

> And the worst part in my opinion is the author has no intention of not doing something like this again. I think the author's intentions are what earn him some sympathy from people around here. He wasn't stealing bank info or passwords. He wasn't tracking their location or scanning their email. He was essentially doing street photography albeit with cameras owned by Apple. The author may be naive but he's not malici…

Despite this artists claims, he was basically taking a bunch of people close up pictures without their consent for their personal gain.

Steer photography at least has more plausible deniability

Re: People Staring at Computers

#237

Post by criddell » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

sovnade wrote: post #233

criddell wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the worst part in my opinion is the author has no intention of not doing something like this again. I think the author's intentions are what earn him some sympathy from people around here. He wasn't stealing bank info or passwords. He wasn't tracking their location or scanning their email. He was essentially doing street photography albeit with cameras owned by Apple. The author may be naive but he's not malici…

Taking pictures of people and posting them without their permission while they're at a private business is malicious in my opinion. And also illegal. There's a reason he had to hide it. Ethically it's no different to me than connecting to someone's webcam at home and uploading the photos.

On YouTube there are dozens of videos taken inside shopping malls. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54i8i_sSvM

Does that feel malicious to you as well?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#238

Post by PragmaticPulp » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

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…

> 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;

The complaints primarily came from Apple. This artist effectively hijacked their private camera system and then published the resulting images with a personal emphasis on certain individuals.

People would have a similar negative reaction if he had hacked into their store security cameras, focused on video of a few people, and then published those stolen images as art. We all know we’re recorded by security cameras when we go into private stores, but we also know that the images won’t cropped down to our faces and posted publicly online as art.

Likewise, it would be a different situation if the artist had broken into a company’s private ad targeting database, singled out a few individuals, and posted their tracking information publicly in a way that personally identified them. It really is different when a company uses aggregate data to target ads than if that same data would be published publicly for anyone to see and judge. The latter is a massive privacy violation in front of other individuals. The former is only ever seen by computer algorithms serving us ads without human intervention.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#239

Post by minikites » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

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

Many people continue to have this false belief today. Police exist to protect property and capital. Even "good" interactions with police show this. My parents had their house broken into some years ago and many valuables were stolen. The police don't care about recovering valuables, their function is to be a trusted third party for the insurance company. The current incarnation of policing needs to be abolished and any new "safety department" needs to be thought out very carefully. The current system of policing where they can execute a man on the street without consequences for the "crime" of selling single cigarettes has no place in a civil democratic society.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#240

Post by jameshart » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #202

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art projects still have ethics to them. He could’ve put a singular art installation somewhere for people to use and have their photo taken while they browse a specific art installation. Violating people’s privacy in order to remind them their privacy is important sounds like the sort of “I’m harming you for your own good” that abusers use.

Everybody who enters an Apple store is already being recorded by hidden video cameras without their consent. Loss prevention. Unless you think being photographed in addition to being unknowingly video recorded is a grave privacy violation, I don't get your point.

Apple don’t post video montages of their security footage online and ask people to look at the faces of the shoppers and see if they can read some meaning into the lack of emotion on their faces.

When you enter an Apple store you are trusting Apple implicitly with your safety and security during your visit. That they might take security video as part of that is a reasonable component of that trust relationship. Being forced to participate as a model in an art exhibit by a random third party with no relationship to Apple violates that trust. It’s no wonder Apple would have a concern.

It’s not remotely comparable to security surveillance, and the artist doesn’t even seem particularly to be trying to draw that comparison, so I’m not sure why people are seeing this as about ‘always being on camera’.