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

211–220 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#211

Post by IggleSniggle »

yupper32 wrote: post #102
IggleSniggle wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because in this particular scenario there’s zero functional difference, even if in the only slightly more general, there is an absolutely huge difference.

In the specifics of the implementation, the ethical details are the same. In the more general, quite different.

And that’s sort of the point. It may be unethical art, but it’s no more unethical than what’s happening across millions of websites and billions of devices. It’s not more unethical than the work of countless corporate ad (and otherwise) engineering hours focused on the Wonder of the World that is surveillance capitalism.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#212

Post by thujlife »

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…

I would guess hes involved with drug traffiking considering he is a "artist".

Re: People Staring at Computers

#213

Post by berkes »

gizmo wrote: post #202
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> Unless you think being photographed in addition

Author also emphasises that visitors are making photographs of the shop, and other visitors in that shop. Without consent.

I'm trying to understand where the line lies. As I don't see it, but gauging by the heated reactions in the threads here, many apparently see a clear and obvious line.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#214

Post by berkes »

thujlife wrote: post #212
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…

I would guess hes involved with drug traffiking considering he is a "artist".

You forgot to add the sarcasm /s. Or did you?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#215

Post by merpnderp »

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…

What companies and governments are taking secret images of you while shopping at stores? This guy is a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut who then goes on to do the exact kind of evil he accuses others of.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#216

Post by merpnderp »

gizmo wrote: post #181
NotEvil wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, he never asks people for there consent. Even apple does that (although in a never read privacy policy) but they do

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.

The difference is you know those cameras are there and that they’re recording. It’s their single purpose for public safety. You don’t expect the laptop at Apple to be uploading your image to some sick weirdos “art project”.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#217

Post by merpnderp »

gizmo wrote: post #202
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 cameras come with liability if abused and cause harm to the customer.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#218

Post by vaylian »

globular-toast wrote: post #174
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…

People in cities are captured on CCTV hundreds of times per day but nobody seems to mind. I remember some fifteen years ago sitting in pub with a group of people and being the only one who cared that there was a CCTV camera right above our table (it was one of those creepy omni-directional domes). Surveillance Camera Man showed that people have often violent reactions to being overtly filmed by individuals in public.…

> People in cities are captured on CCTV hundreds of times per day but nobody seems to mind.

That argument is a bit vague. How does minding work in this case? People who are opposed to CCTV will try to avoid it. But will that avoidance be visible to the rest of the public? Hardly so. Besides, many cameras tend to be placed at places where cameras blend in and you need to make an effort to actually spot them.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#219

Post by merpnderp »

enimodas wrote: post #194

Reminds me of one of my favorite pieces of art of the 21th century: surveillance camera man: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/

This is the kind of asshole abusing the protections and courtesies of civil society and ruining it for everyone. In most places I’ve lived, he’d have been physically assaulted in short order.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#220

Post by bayindirh »

sharken wrote: post #114
hellbannedguy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Good story and a great attitude towards your father, i must admit i don't really understand the need to revel in other people's misery, even though sometimes it's difficult not to. I also don't understand why he did not listen to the advice, but i guess some people can only learn from making a mistake.

Spontaneous portraits, especially street photography has a very revealing side to it, and being able show people this side is exciting and somewhat of a calling for some of us.

That's being said, street photography is hard. Especially when you add empathy. All the shots I'm taking are extremely calculated. Trying not to focus on one person squarely, not upsetting someone during the process is extremely energy consuming.

If anyone tells me they don't want their face to be shot, I show them the photo. If they hesitate even for a microsecond, that image is gone for good. I'm not a voyeur and have no intention to violate anyone's boundaries even from 100 feet away.

Knowing nobody is unhappy because of my hobby lets me sleep better at night.

Post reply on HN