271–280 of 349 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
he definitely wasn't honest about the extent of what he did - that isn't 'some level of permission' it's lying to an apple employee.
Is there a statement from one of the involved employees that wasn't covered in the blog or is this pure speculation?
While interesting, this project does not seem ethically sound. Not to mention illegal. I think the author got lucky having the case dropped.
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.
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…
Hrm, yeah, based on that I'm not going to consider your opinion very important.
"I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. It was a sign of my privilege, and of my naive faith in the system." > Systems are designed first, to benefit their creators, and subsequently their controllers, and then everyone else. Unless you designed the system, you should assume it's not designed to benefit you by default.
The author was caught installing a remote administration tool on someone else’s computers and using that RAT to take surreptitious photos of the computers’ users which he then posted online for personal gain. Seems to me that the legal system was working as designed here, protecting the public from this individual’s actions. It’s strange that he’s getting a free pass in the HN comments for hijacking computers, steali…
He's getting a free pass because he broke 0 laws. Zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He simply walked into the store and quite literally installed a small application on each Macbook without Apple's consent. People install free software on computers in Apple Stores all the time though, don't they? It's part of testing out the computers, and expected by Apple. As mentioned in the story, Apple resets the computers each night. My guess would be this is part of why they decided they didn't have a legal…
> People install free software on computers in Apple Stores all the time though, don't they? It's part of testing out the computers But he wasn't testing out the computers, which was what they were intended for and he knew that. That's why it was abusive of him.
Is that obviously abusive (and specifically criminal?) too? Maybe not?
So it depends on what you are installing software for. I thin it's not just a question of "simply walking into the store and quite literally installing a small application" being obviously illegal and/or abusive. That's all I'm saying, it's not so clearcut that simply becuase he installed software means it's "abusive" (let alone criminal).
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…
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…
>>> "What is your day job, Kyle?" "This is my day job. I'm a media artist, I just write a lot of code. I spend most of my time making open source tools with other people." "But how do you make money?" "I get commissions, grants, and live off artist fees from exhibiting work. I fly to conferences and festivals and do workshops and presentations. Sometimes I'll do residencies." This agent and I are both having a ‘Deuce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…