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

321–330 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#321

Post by kcimc »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #90

in Kashmir at least, there is a big thing about "Six months later, I still get nervous when I hear an unexpected knock." this late night knocking has been connected with bad omen because for the past 30 odd years, many homes have gotten bad news of their loved ones being killed or they having disappeared. that said, if you have to go to a neighbour house, or a friends house, you never just go and knock. people might…

OP here. Thank you for sharing this. I'm lucky in that this is the only bad knock I've had. And after a few years this effect slowly disappeared for me.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#322

Post by IanCal »

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…

Perhaps one of the most HN replies I've ever seen. Only on HN would a photo of you be something that contains barely any information but revealing how many devices you own and how long you've had them is leaking your very soul.

I'll tell you that a photo of my son flailing out of a blanket is a deeply personal memory of a hilarious and touching moment.

That he has an electronic device is so incredibly irrelevant it's hard to put into words.

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

No, they show a moment.

If you were right, people would care about all photos being shared or none. But that's not what happens - people care about some far more than others.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#323

Post by dannyw »

fnord77 wrote: post #262
dannyw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No charges were ever filled here.

reading through the FOIA document, LEO was very clear about which laws were broken.

A charge being filed is a formal process in the legal system that has specific implications.

In this instance, while a search warrant was executed, no charges were filed.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#324

Post by Cheezemansam »

ant6n wrote: post #246
paxys wrote: post #82

> In the end, if Apple hadn't so vehemently condemned the piece, it would have been resigned to live as just another quick F.A.T. Lab project, and part of my ongoing curiosity exploring computer-mediated interaction. But because they had the project taken offline, and my computer confiscated, Apple managed to give it more attention than I could have ever attracted. The reporters using headlines with "artist" in scare…

This phrasing of „vehemently condemned“ is a bit odd. It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down. Even in the author’s own admission, they could have given him much more trouble. It seems reasonable for Apple not to give their blessing to this sort of project, both to „protect“ their customers and discourage the installation of what looks like malware on a bunch of their computers. I guess Apple also report…

>It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down.

Sending law enforcement to confiscate their belongings seems pretty in line with "vehemently condemned". Personally I don't think his art project was entirely ethically in the clear so to speak, but this seems like nitpicky semantics considering they sent him a legal nastygram that referenced a criminal investigation that they themselves initiated.

>"Those violations of the CFAA give rise to a civil cause of action by Apple, and the display of the images and video is causing ongoing harm to Apple. There is also a criminal investigation related to those violations of the CFAA. Furthermore, the images and video may violate the privacy/publicity rights of the individuals pictured therein, including but not limited to Apple employees."

Re: People Staring at Computers

#325

Post by its-all-data »

gonehome wrote: post #44
neolog wrote: post #39

> 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…

Hey Zach, I would love to hear how your experience working at Palantir informs your reaction to this.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#326

Post by sellyme »

philsnow wrote: post #314
kcimc wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Apple Stores are quite clearly not "public space", they are private spaces that they allow most members of the public access to.

The definition of "public" vs "private" in the context of property is fairly distinct from the one used in the context of privacy law. Obviously an Apple store is a privately-owned property, but in terms of privacy law it's very overtly public - you are allowed to take photos there, and people inside an Apple store would not (or at least, should not) believe that they are "in private".

In short, private property (like retail stores) "generally open to the public" allows photography by default, and you're good to go unless there's a "No photos" sign put up by the proprieter.

> If the photos were taken with a telephoto lens through the glass walls, they'd be totally in the clear (though IANAL).

For the sake of discussion on this point, let's pretend that the Apple store is unambiguously private in all senses, like your residence would be.

I believe that in the relevant jurisdiction taking photos of it would be legal under the conditions that:

(a) the photo was taken from somewhere public

(b) the owners/occupants of the building made no attempt to prevent it

(c) the photo is not of a "sensitive" location (bedroom, bathroom, changing room, etcetera)

(d) the photo does not contain genitalia (this is illegal to do without consent, even in completely public scenarios)

(e) the photo was taken with ordinary photographic equipment (so no zooming in from 10km away)

So obviously the first four are no problem at all, but a telephoto lens specifically might get you in trouble on point (e). Not too relevant to the Apple store, but it's an interesting point of discussion.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#327

Post by sellyme »

merpnderp wrote: post #217
gizmo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence. The difference is security cameras announce their presence by being visible and obvious. Installing spyware on an Apple Store laptop to capture people’s images and upload them for your own amusement is not obvious, was never announced and most people would find gross and abusive. At the very least the security ca…

> Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence.

My understanding is that this is not a legal requirement and is rather something stores do solely to scare away potential burglars.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#328

Post by xwolfi »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #209
CaptArmchair wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

The interesting aspect of it is that the only reason you and me discuss it is because of Apple's (natural) reaction to a camera backdoor install in their public computers.

We're not exactly caring about the artistic value of it, but the author might get positive returns on this project (fame, money, inspiration) only because it's a little bit wrong (maybe a little bit legal still).

If the core artistic value was of concern, which is to show people what they look like while talking on a computer, which the author confessed was fine with consent since he himself noticed it while he knew he was filming himself, then we d probably brush it of "yeah right sure, like when we read" and basta.

It's like the surrounding story is of more interest than the art piece and I think that's where the author should dig next time: he should find something that both strike by its artistic value while being made in interesting circumstances, to reach optimal value for us and him and lasting fame !

I think it says a lot also about the state of art these days where the work tends to be secondary to the circumstances because it's easier to generate quick loudness while hard to generate a long lasting hum like the ancients could with technique. But it's an impressive attempt nonetheless ! I think he's on to something with using software techniques.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#329

Post by Nitramp »

brainless wrote: post #158
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…

I had sort of a similar reaction to this but then I thought that the artist here seems to have done this only to show people they are being surveyed or that hidden surveillance is easy. > Probably because they got off the first time. Imagine all the companies and governments doing exactly what this artist did, without any remorse or intention to show it back to the public. And they do not get caught, forget getting o…

> I had sort of a similar reaction to this but then I thought that the artist here seems to have done this only to show people they are being surveyed or that hidden surveillance is easy.

If you want to make an art piece exposing how much violence happens in our society, you don't do that by acting violently yourself. If you do that, you're not an artist exposing a societal wrong, you're the perpetrator, and should be persecuted for it.

Seriously, how would you feel about your picture, secretly taken without your consent in a setting you had reasonable expectation to be private, ending up in this art installation?

Post reply on HN