Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People Staring at Computers (2021)

kylemcdonald.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#121

Post by ewzimm »

williamcotton wrote: post #101
ewzimm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In these discussions, there's always an implicit assumption of certain intentions being the "real" ones. Statements like "police were created to..." first imply that there was a creator whose intentions define the police through incarnations, a kind of "god of police," and, more likely, if it was not a single individual, it is a "pantheon of police" composed of its creators and sustainers. And then we have the image…

The term is "reification".

Personification is a special case of reification, but it is the underlying issue. We reify signifiers based on memories.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#122

Post by kcimc »

author here. i'm deeply, genuinely grateful that you all care enough to revisit and discuss this decade-old work. special thanks to throwayyy479087 for stirring some shit on my behalf, saving me the work of creating a sock puppet just to cast shade and spread rumors. i'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them.

sorry it took a while to get to this post. i'm literally on a beach on a remote island in fiji, working on the next project. https://unframed.lacma.org/2021/01/21/art-tech-lab-project-u...

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#123

Post by kcimc »

mjburgess wrote: post #52
mixmastamyk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's an open-and-shut case. Why was it dropped then?

Little public interest in the secret service pursing a 25yo megalomaniac moron, who thinks installing spyware makes him the hero against the forces of institutional evil. I imagine apple contacted the secret service in the first place because they weren't sure what else he'd done, other than, installing spyware across NY's apple stores. Once they realised it was just an art project, I imagine they backed off to be ki…

my impression was that apple initiated contact based on an assumption that i was running a keylogger or other information that could be used for identity theft. they quickly learned it was an art project but decided to apply force via the secret service to keep it from gaining too much publicity. after that caused a bit of a streisand effect, they decided not pursue a civil case. i would guess that the judge decided not to pursue a criminal case because it would have been an obvious waste of resources.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#124

Post by kcimc »

throwayyy479087 wrote: post #63

Quoted post unavailable.

super fascinating to see this comment! it gave me the chance to take a step through my memories, and try to guess who might have felt this way. if i was an asshole to you and never apologized, send me a message and i would be very happy to take responsibility <3

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#125

Post by indymike »

Finnucane wrote: post #42
indymike wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The police forces were created to protect property and 'the system' If that is the case, why is civil asset forfeiture a thing? It seems to undermine property rights and is a glaring failure in the system.

Not your property, the aristocracy's property. Cops don't work for peasants.

In the US, they don't work for aristocrats, ether. Sometimes, it's really unclear who the boss is, but it is clear that they get paid by the public.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#126

Post by indymike »

uoaei wrote: post #93
cortesoft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor true Scotsman, apparently.

"No true Scotsman is not Scottish" seems true, definitionally. Same applies for aristocracy: they are the ones who are served by special interests, by definition .

> Same applies for aristocracy: they are the ones who are served by special interests, by definition

I'm not sure I follow. Homeless military veterans are served by extremely well funded special interests, but are not aristocrats.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#127

Post by uoaei »

indymike wrote: post #126
uoaei wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No true Scotsman is not Scottish" seems true, definitionally. Same applies for aristocracy: they are the ones who are served by special interests, by definition .

> Same applies for aristocracy: they are the ones who are served by special interests, by definition I'm not sure I follow. Homeless military veterans are served by extremely well funded special interests, but are not aristocrats.

Clearly they are not being served. That is the difference.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#128

Post by liamN »

I think the main issue with the original art piece was the lack of consent. The pictures are clearly of a single subject (the device user) and not of a space that mutiple unconsenting persons happen to be occupying, which makes the violation feel more egregeous and uncomfortable.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#129

Post by carbocation »

stordoff wrote: post #90
carbocation wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> *(2021) Isn't it 2012, not 2021? (The article footer says "Kyle McDonald June 12, 2012")

The first section (regarding the FOIA request and looking back from "ten years later") is from 2021. There is a signoff just before the picture of Steve Jobs that states "Kyle McDonald June 7, 2021".

Thanks, I had missed it.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#130

Post by newZWhoDis »

CPLX wrote: post #83
newZWhoDis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and I don’t support this guy. I do find it funny though that the same government that does this exact thing at scale works so hard to go after people who do this. It’s not that they think it’s wrong, it’s that they don’t want competition.

The point of government is to have a monopoly on various kinds of power and control. It’s the core concept of the thing, with the first premise being a monopoly on violence. It’s not hypocritical for a government to say it’s not wrong when they do violence and it is wrong when others do it. A government may commit moral or immoral violence, or express moral or immoral values in its actions. But it’s not hypocrisy to…

>The point of government is to have a monopoly on various kinds of power and control.

That one idea, of many.

Post reply on HN