"In some ways this is a story about how I began to learn that law enforcement is there to protect some specific people (and companies), and not the general public as I imagined."
People Staring at Computers
311–320 of 349 posts
Re: People Staring at Computers
#312The 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…
Doesn't Google delete your search history after 18 months (unless you ask it not to)? https://www.wired.com/story/google-auto-delete-data/
Re: People Staring at Computers
#313The 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…
OP here. Not going to disagree about folks underestimating where the real danger is. But the fear of photography is not unfounded. There are many examples of people suffering from being captured in public settings. Sometimes it is because of their behavior (every "Karen" video), sometimes it is an abuser getting a lead on their ex's location from a tagged Facebook pic. For this project I tried to make sure that I didn't "feature" anyone, so attention was diluted across thousands of photos. When I eventually exhibited the work, I worked with a watercolor artist to create paintings from the photos to further disconnect the work from the customer's identity.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#314This 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…
As a privacy enthusiast, I am very mildly (because I was not directly affected) annoyed that you undertook this project. I see your post discussing it as tacitly attempting to move the overton window in a direction you want it to go.
> Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves.
(from the article:)
> What was probably 10 minutes felt like 30.
I don't know if it "felt like 30" because the task felt boring or because you were concerned about being caught, but if it's the latter then I think you know that it was at _least_ on the far side of "ethical".
> I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal.
(from the article:)
> After the one-minute-exhibition ended, we made a staggered exit from the store
Also doesn't seem like you really thought it was totally legal if you left the store that way.
Most people in this thread are addressing the legality/morality of installing an app on all those computers in the Apple Stores, but what about the unauthorized use of all those people's likenesses? I'm not familiar with New York state law, but in a lot of states, you can't use photos of people commercially without their consent.
You make a living from art projects. Maybe you didn't make any money from this art project, so you didn't directly profit from the use of these photos, but I would think a reasonable person would see your online portfolio as an advertisement or promotion of your services.
In the original article you talk about how it should have been alright to take the photos:
> I tried to think of a busy public space full of computers, and the Apple Store seemed so obvious.
Apple Stores are quite clearly not "public space", they are private spaces that they allow most members of the public access to. If the photos were taken with a telephoto lens through the glass walls, they'd be totally in the clear (though IANAL). Still creepy, but legally in the clear.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Seems to me that the legal system was working as designed here, protecting the public from this individual’s actions. The legal system was deployed to protect Apple, not the public. That the public benefited was just a coincidence.
OP here. This person gets it.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#316"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…
Hi, OP here. Just wanted to add one point of technical clarification: it wasn't a RAT, it was a C++ app that used the QuickTime SDK to connect to the camera, OpenCV to run face detection, and curl to regularly send the results to a hacked-together PHP script that uploaded them to Tumblr. It sat in the dock while it was running, with a silver Apple logo as the icon.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#317They 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…
Wow. I found a video of this exhibition on YouTube, and it looks like what this guy installed is less pure spyware and more a remote administration tool (RAT). After he took the photos he wanted, he remotely uploaded them to every computer and forced them to be shown on-screen while people were browsing around the demo. Freaky stuff. How is installing RATs on other peoples’ computers even remotely ethical?
Hi, OP here. Just some technical clarification. There were two apps. The first one took a photo once a minute and uploaded it to a PHP script on my server. Apple probably identified this one because it sent a ping to my server even when it didn't send a photo. The second app was essentially a screensaver that regularly checked a URL to see whether it should go fullscreen or not, and then it quit after one minute. These were both custom-built apps, less than 100 loc each and missing all of the functionalities of spyware and RATs. I would expect that real RATs have been installed on Apple Store machines in the past, and perhaps Apple suspected this was another. If I had been sniffing and posting keystrokes, the situation may have turned out completely different. But this project was focused on face analysis.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#318Earlier 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.
OP here. syshum has it correct. If you take a photo with your lens on one side of the Apple Store's massive glass wall, it is legally the same from a privacy perspective as taking a photo on the other side (unless Apple explicitly forbids it).
Re: People Staring at Computers
#319> "I'm not really a computer security person, so I don't understand how that law applies here. Did Apple just call you up and say 'we want you to check this guy out'?" > "Something like that." > "Can anyone do that? Can I call you up?" > The agent who had been taking notes chimed in: "I suppose so, if you just open up the Yellow Pages we're right there, on the inside cover." Raise your hand if you've had trouble gett…
For what it is worth, the incredibly irresponsible and unethical Artist's actions seemed a lot closer to high class cybercrime..which the secret service actually handled at the time. The only reason he wasn't charged is because the secret service didn't see him as a national threat. If the FBI had been the one running the operation he would have been Aaron Swartzed.
OP here. The only reason I wasn't charged is because AUSA Judith Philips refused to prosecute me. Also, Aaron Swartz was investigated by both the FBI and the USSS.
Re: People Staring at Computers
#320> And because it's the internet, there were the inevitable flames against me It's not "because it's the internet", it's because publishing images of nonconsenting people is widely disliked.
Yeah - I had a negative reaction to this in 2011, if anything it’s only soured more in time (and the artist seems even less aware of why people hated it or why he was investigated). It’s also the low quality (imo) type of art that does a disservice to the rest. Like the blank canvas art hung in the SF MOMA, it’s the stuff you roll your eyes at and ignore. A lot of the art at RPI was like that. They should have prosec…
Hi, OP here. Do I know you? Thanks for your thoughts :) I would hope that anyone evaluating this project today not look at it alone, but examine it as part of a much larger body of work I've made since around that time. By itself, it was a small gesture that got overblown. In context, I like to think that it has more to offer. In case anyone is curious, see on my website https://kylemcdonald.net/ "Facework", "Vibe Check", "ICESpy", "How We Act Together", "Sharing Faces", "us+", "FaceOSC" and "Face Substitution" (now people call it "face swapping").