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

251–260 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#251

Post by jkepler »

simion314 wrote: post #96
jonas21 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but they were considering prosecuting him under Title 18, U.S. Code 1030 [1]. According to the law, simply accessing a computer without authorization is not a crime. You also need to do one of several other things -- one of which is causing "damage and loss" (see section (5)(C)). It sounds like the Secret Service was saying that he caused damage and loss because Apple had to remove his software from their comp…

From my understanding those computers were opened for people to use, the guy did not bypass any security measure and he did not accept any TOS. Those computers should (but who knows) be reset to factory settings periodically.

In the post he says that the apple computers all reset at midnight, automatically.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#252

Post by kemitche »

belter wrote: post #242
harry8 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you actually show people everything that Apple, Google, Facebook keep about them including those examples you'll get a very, very different reaction. One is seen the other is not and is denied. Nobody ever agreed to it. There was never informed consent. Show someone their private stuff and they'll freak out very, very hard indeed.

And the best experiment to prove it, is this one. Nobody seems to care about all the cameras,sensors, tracking. Some even encourage it in the name of "Safety". But show them the camera and they freak out. "Surveillance Camera Man": https://youtu.be/mP5ZVPwP7bg Edit: It seems the link above has now been made private but that was not the case for many years. I will keep the comment as above for the sake of historical a…

Google Glass is another example of this. Everyone freaked out about it being a camera always at the ready. It was a more obvious camera, and that freaked people out - never mind that, if someone wanted to take a picture surreptitiously, the phone in their pocket was a much better choice.

(There were, of course, other factors that a reasonable person could be concerned about with Glass - "glassholes", for one, and providing more data to Google for another)

Re: People Staring at Computers

#253

Post by jodrellblank »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #115
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…

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…

> "People don't understand how technology works."

Today on BBC Radio there was a discussion about racism on the big technology platforms (after the England/Italy match last night), and how their human moderators were overwhelmed. Someone whose name I missed said "I don't think it should be too hard for a computer to look at the monkey emoji and decide if it's being used in an inappropriate context". It was like hearing the "research team and five years" XKCD in real life.

> "Photos just show the shell that you won in the genetic lottery."

Tell that to the teacher who lost her job for posting a vacation photo including her holding alcohol, in 2009: https://www.good.is/articles/facebook-and-privacy-fired-for-...

Re: People Staring at Computers

#254

Post by marcosdumay »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #155
djrobstep wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's really recommended that anybody not getting it to read the article. You won't get a good TLDR.

But yeah, systems can not have unintended consequences because systems do not have intentions. It's people who have intentions, and those are not additive properties. (And, well, you can't simply add additive properties into system ones either.)

Re: People Staring at Computers

#255

Post by angry_octet »

simion314 wrote: post #162
yupper32 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I install a whiteboard on a public place You're already off. This was private property. > and say to everyone, "please have a test" then can you complain if someone draw something you don't like on it This would be more like bolting a camera to the whiteboard in your private place of business. And yes, sometimes comparisons fall apart.

I think a place can be private property and at the same time a public place(not a public property) , but I am not a native English speaker so maybe this terms are not equivalent. But image the whiteboard was in a mall that is not owned by the government and people are encouraged to use it as they want. I agree that publishing those images of poeple without consent is the important part, the guy could have just use th…

You are correct, private property can be a public place. Stores are a definite example of this. Many people get very confused by what Private Property! means. By inviting the public into their store they have waived the requirement to have privacy in that space, unless they specifically inform you that photography is not allowed.

The irony is that the visitors to the store can have no expectation of privacy. Even if you wear a giant sign that says 'no photos' you can and will be photographed.

Publishing photos of specific individuals is more nuanced. It depends on the jurisdiction, if it is for news, artistic or commercial purposes (the latter is usually forbidden without written consent).

Re: People Staring at Computers

#256

Post by wintermutestwin »

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…

There is a huge difference between handing over your messages to a law enforcement agency and using your messages to build detailed advertising profiles of you and then selling you to anyone who will pay.

I am not saying that to necessarily advocate for the former, but rather to point out that the latter is the focus of Apple's "PR game"

Re: People Staring at Computers

#257

Post by syshum »

sovnade wrote: post #234
syshum wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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.

From a privacy standpoint individuals have no more right to privacy in an Apple store then they do on the Street.

Apply can forbid photography on the premises, and remove anyone that fails to follow this rule but that is about property rights not privacy.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#258

Post by jabedude »

zeckalpha wrote: post #32
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #7

“I continue to work with faces” is incredible in the context of installing spyware on Apple Store computers that secretly photographs customers.

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?

Where is proof of the computers "already taking pictures"?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#259

Post by sysadm1n »

dale_glass wrote: post #100
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…

A picture is a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands. A normal picture of a person could still expose something important about them to the wrong party. Eg, "I visit the unsavory part of town", "I'm not really washing my hair", "I'm slacking off", etc. Those are mostly "real-world" concerns. There's the paranoia angle: some stranger wants your picture specifically. What could they have in mind? If you look at least…

> Google fortunately isn't run by edgy teens looking for the maximum lulz, but by boring accountants looking for profit

Google is the most targeted company by hackers for sure. Google sit on exabytes of personal data, and it's like hoarding tonnes of dangerous radioactive waste, which if it got in the wrong hands, could be very dangerous. That's why their security is unparalleled. They have a lot of dirt on people.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#260

Post by momirlan »

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…

Maybe I had a bad hair day... People will not appreciate how beautiful I look in "reality"
Post reply on HN