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

301–310 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#301

Post by dale_glass »

jacobolus wrote: post #297
dale_glass wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'm not really washing my hair Can you explain this one?

I just meant to reference the stereotypical (to me at least) way to blow off somebody by claiming to be busy doing something at the time.

In general, I mean that having your picture taken at the wrong time can reveal things people would rather not be revealed, even if to the photographer it looks completely ordinary and harmless.

Some people here will reference the 24/7 CCTV surveillance, but that's kept private and not published as some sort of art project. So though one could compile a video of my coming and going around the town by looking at surveillance tapes, in practice that doesn't really happen. Now random photographers and artists however are very likely to put their work somewhere public.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#302

Post by neolog »

garmaine wrote: post #288
Miner49er wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What crime? I can't think of any laws broken. Certainly not the CFAA and it is legal to take pictures in public places.

It's not legal to install spyware (or anything, really) on computers you don't own.

It's probably not legal to install spyware on computers you do own without consent of the observed.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#303

Post by skramble »

i_dont_know_ wrote: post #138

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…

Did you read the commentary?

>I'm not sure I would make this piece today, anyway. I'm increasingly critical of artwork that attempts to engage with the theme of surveillance by replicating systems of surveillance. How fruitful can a conversation be about consent and privacy, when an artist does not seek their subject's consent?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#304

Post by garmaine »

neolog wrote: post #302
garmaine wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not legal to install spyware (or anything, really) on computers you don't own.

It's probably not legal to install spyware on computers you do own without consent of the observed.

It would be nice if this were true.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#305

Post by kcimc »

jl2718 wrote: post #197

>>> "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…

Hi, I think I can answer (I am Kyle). tl;dr: It barely worked for many years, but I have since been able to find more & larger grants for my art, and get better paying consulting work on the side. Full story—first, income. Some examples from my books around 2011: $10k for a 3-month residency in Japan, $4k for 2 weeks of 14 hour days implementing computer vision and generative graphics as part of a team developing an interactive installation, $3k for 3 weeks of generative sound design work, $500 traveling overseas to give an hour-long talk, $500 traveling overseas to lead a full-day 3d scanning workshop for artists, $50 for an art+tech blog post. Regarding expenses: At the time I was living in a one-floor, 4bd apartment with three other people, $1815 divided 4 ways, about $450. I spent a similar amount each month on food, transportation, and utilities combined. I did not have healthcare. My artwork was digital so it did not require regular material costs, and I had no studio space. Total was closer to $20-25k/year due to additional costs and because I had $170k of college loans and no financial support. All together, I was barely in the black: I had between 8-12 jobs totaling $20-40k each year, from 2010-2014. My bank account hovered between $1-4k until 2015 when I started pitching larger projects that saw more income and also allowed me to start paying others. Hope that answers your questions, happy to share more.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#306

Post by kcimc »

i_dont_know_ wrote: post #292
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).

I'll assume you're asking this genuinely. For the 'legal' part... you're generally not allowed to install whatever arbitrary software you want on other people's machines without some sort of consent, even in an Apple store. I'm not sure how much more elaboration this needs. For the 'moral' part... he's taking a small intimate chunk of a person's life without their knowledge or consent and putting it in a picture fram…

Regarding the "legal" part, having looked into this quite deeply, I believe I was legally in the clear. Both in terms of of publishing the photographs and in terms of installing the app. Keep in mind this was 2011. To install the app today would require circumventing access control policies, but not at the time. If you do have additional elaboration on why you think it was illegal, I would be happy to learn more! Thanks.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#307

Post by kcimc »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #166
i_dont_know_ wrote: post #138

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…

I agree with that assessment. To my mind, the act of capturing faces in and off itself isn't even the reason why he was investigated. Consent from members of the public is an entirely separate discussion. This boils entirely down to him not having formal consent from Apple. He simply walked into the store and quite literally installed a small application on each Macbook without Apple's consent. > I remember being a b…

Hi, if you have any reference on why I needed consent to install an app in the Apple Store, I would love to hear! Because the case never went to court I didn't get a chance to hear a prosecutor spell it out. And my attorney at the time was unsure how they could possibly make that case, so I didn't get it from him either. But a lot of people here in the comments seem to believe that the case is clear. I'm not sure whether it's hubris, or if my attorney just didn't have the imagination of HN ;) Thanks!

Re: People Staring at Computers

#308

Post by kcimc »

i_dont_know_ wrote: post #138

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…

OP here. Thanks for taking the time to share the (scary) connection you made while reading. While this story has been picked up by security folks, I am definitely not a security researcher :) This project did help me to think more explicitly about security, founding a NYC-based group called "artsec" where security researchers and media artists worked together. One of the members was Samy Kamkar, who you may know for the infamous "Samy is my hero" MySpace worm. His case, also investigated by the USSS, actually went to court and ended with a 3-year ban from touching a computer. This is just to say that the relationship between "art" and "research" (and even "pranks") is not always clear. I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal. It is also undeniably art. I set out to make it as art, and it has been exhibited and written about as art. You can call it bad art, you can say it's similar to a prank, but unfortunately it's still art. Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves. I appreciate hearing your side. Thanks.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#310

Post by kcimc »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #195
gizmo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

OP here. Just to clarify, this piece was not primarily designed for the Apple Store audience. I felt that it was important to exhibit the photos in the store, but I knew that the majority of the folks who heard about it would see it online. In the exhibition at the store, people first saw a photo of themselves, with no knowledge that they were posted to the internet. Online, people saw photos of folks in the store. If you have spent time in a big city like NYC, you might recognize the feelings of anonymity and privacy-in-public that I was drawing on. There are certainly "I'm harming you for your own good" style art installations I've made. For example, I had a piece called "Wifi Whisperer" around 2016 that sniffed all the open wifi traffic in a cafe, and a little speaker in the corner would describe what it sniffed. https://soundcloud.com/kyle-mcdonald/whisper I still think there is a place for non-consensual art to surprise and inform, especially in the physical context of an art exhibition or festival. But I also feel this work tends towards provoking fear and anger over any more helpful reactions. And there's the constant danger that in the process of crossing a boundary of consent, or in breaking a social contract that you might do real, even irreversible harm. So instead with projects like https://facework.app/ I find ways to critique face classification, but in a way that everything happens in-browser. Sometimes it's possible to have the feeling of boundary crossing without the dangers.
Post reply on HN