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

101–110 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#101

Post by SirSourdough »

yupper32 wrote: post #84
SirSourdough wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a major functional difference between installing the spyware and taking the pictures with an open browser tab, a Facetime call to yourself, or a long lens from outside the store. It's hard for me to see those things as rising to the level of criminality on a publicly accessible computer in a public space, so it's hard for me to be offended just because installed software was used to achieve the same ends.…

> I don't see a major functional difference between installing the spyware and taking the pictures with an open browser tab, a Facetime call to yourself, or a long lens from outside the store. That's troubling. How would you react if I installed spyware on one of your devices that constantly took pictures of you, but only when you were out in public? Do you think I should face any sort of punishment? If you're not on…

My devices are not open to public use, so it's likely you would have to significantly invade my privacy to do that. There's no expectation that you are allowed to do any computing on my devices. You're already allowed to browse the internet, use Facetime, take pictures, etc. on the computers in an Apple store so the line where inappropriate use begins is a lot less clearly defined. Would a Facetime call made from an Apple Store computer that captured the faces of people walking through the store behind you be offensive or illegal? I don't think so, so where exactly is the line?

Capturing a singular moment in a person's life in a fixed context is also significantly different to me than capturing the entire story of their public life. What you are proposing has a tracking component that the OP's project did not, so I don't see it as an apples to apples comparison.

I don't think people should generally face punishment for taking pictures in public, and if you took my picture each time I went to a particular store without stalking or harassing me, and without using the pictures for malicious purposes it's hard for me to see that as criminal or particularly wrong even if it's not entirely comfortable. At the very least it's a common and legal practice for stores to do so via their security systems, so I'm reluctant to villainize art that points that surveillance out as opposed to the actual surveillance itself.

To be clear, I'm not saying that installing spyware can't rise to the level of being wrong or illegal, I just don't see this example as very egregious. Your example would be much more insidious.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#102

Post by yupper32 »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #97
yupper32 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not many are offended about taking pictures. What people should be offended by is that so many people on here think it's totally acceptable to install spyware onto computers without the owner's consent. This isn't some kind of whistleblower situation. This is someone fucking around and installing spyware. That's illegal! There's no grey area here, regardless of the lack of action by the AG.

Oh you mean like adware? Or research conglomerates, like the barely regulated credit bureaus? using a camera API on a website would have had the same effect in this scenario. Installing it as a binary does change the narrative, but that’s just our own conditioning in this case, given that all the goals of this project could have been achieved without doing that. The spyware comes pre-installed on your computer, it’s…

> Obviously installing spyware is wrong, ethically and legally.

Why bother writing this post if this is your view? You know damn well there's a difference between a web browser preinstalled on a Macbook and someone installing their own spyware. And yet, you write a post against my point of view.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#103

Post by simion314 »

hulitu wrote: post #77
simion314 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's illegal! Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras? Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case?

> >That's illegal! > Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras? So being a public place means that laws do not apply ? > Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case? Of course not. Laws are for (poor) persons. When you are a corporation or have some money in your pocket, you can…

>So being a public place means that laws do not apply ?

I mean it was not someone private computer lost in a public place, it was a computer placed in a public place for people to use it to do whatever , the author says there was no TOS and he did not "hack" the device with some infected USB stick. It might be illegal but I don't think is so trivial to prove. So what should we learn from this ?

1 users can do shit you might not like with your public computer, maybe he can open a porn page, or put some port image as wallpaper, or install an app , so put a comptent person to lock down the devices as much as possible and reset them often to factory settins.

2 think 10 times before upsetting a giant, they have the serif,FBI,CIA,NSA in their quick dial , you might have trouble.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#104

Post by star-trek-fleet »

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…

Publicly displayed images vs. Only Google can see data

I think that's cognitively different concept. And I guess this distinction is also the hidden rationale of rejecting nationalized corporations to have similar power as Google, I.e., when they are nationalized, they suddenly conceptually exposed their information "public". Although in reality, a nationalized Google probably would never reach the same level of perversity as Google...

Re: People Staring at Computers

#105

Post by hellbannedguy »

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…

A picture is permanent. It seems like my pic is always taken on days I wish I never woke up, or I am Shrek?

There is a glimer of hope data about us online might be found, and deleted, one day.

I can't stand my picture being taken, especially by strangers. I have given up to DMV, but not Costco.

My know it all father retired, and was bored. He decided to buy a camera, and take pictures of the homeless on Market Street. He was big in reveling in other people's missery. (I loved the man, but didn't respect anything about the man.)

He didn't understand why the guys were flipping him off, or running away.

I told him to stop his "art" project, or take pics of birds.

He kept it up, until this huge guy dragged him into a alley, and threw his Canon against the wall.

My dad found a new hobby.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#106

Post by jrowen »

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…

One reason is that people generally expect large companies to have a level of scrutiny and process associated with collecting that data, and reasonably trust that it won't be used "improperly." That trust does not extend to "some random guy" hijacking those companies' systems.

The other reason is more visceral, in the fact that those photos of themselves and others were displayed semi-publicly. A lot of the tracking that goes on is invisible if you don't think too hard about it (out of sight, out of mind). If they saw a dump of a bunch of people's private messages or search history (even anonymized) posted online for anyone to see, they would likely be similarly spooked.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#108

Post by aarchi »

throwawayboise wrote: post #51
jdkee wrote: post #9

Obligatory: Don't Talk to Police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Didn't seem to hurt him in this case.

The author divulged passwords, which weren't covered by the warrant.

> "Do I have to give you my password?"

> "If we find something protected that we need access to, we'll have to come back."

> Later I learned that there are different kinds of warrants for retrieving hardware versus getting access to secure information, or even accessing email. But I didn't know this yet. "There's no password on the Mac. It should automatically log you in to anything you need access to." It was kind of ambiguous if I had just given them the right to access my email. "There is a password on the PC. But again, there's nothing there."

Re: People Staring at Computers

#109

Post by paxys »

sellyme wrote: post #95
nairodd wrote: post #88

just curious: if books had a webcam built into them, would the pictures of people staring at them look different? Discuss.

> if books had a webcam built into them Amazon is way ahead of you on this one, the Kindle Fire HD has had a camera since 2012. > would the pictures of people staring at them look different? I would suspect not, apart from being taken at far less flattering angles.

Kindle Fire is a pretty generic Android tablet. No Kindle e-reader has a camera (yet).

Re: People Staring at Computers

#110

Post by yarcob »

mjhagen wrote: post #99
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…

> Or that Apple stores a copy of every message I have sent to a loved one with my phone on their servers. Unencrypted, for them to see?

I hope it's not completely unencrypted, but they definitely have access to iCloud backups and will provide your data to law enforcement.
Post reply on HN