241–250 of 349 posts
I will never understand this outlook. Why would I use the same name on more than one website? Why would I ever do anything online under my real name? I suppose it would be a benefit if you were trying to get famous and make a living off being an influencer but otherwise it's incomprehensible to me.
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…
If you actually show people everything that Apple, Google, Facebook keep about them including those examples you'll get a very, very different reaction. One is seen the other is not and is denied. Nobody ever agreed to it. There was never informed consent. Show someone their private stuff and they'll freak out very, very hard indeed.
"Surveillance Camera Man": https://youtu.be/mP5ZVPwP7bg
Edit: It seems the link above has now been made private but that was not the case for many years. I will keep the comment as above for the sake of historical accuracy. More details here:
Obligatory: Don't Talk to Police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
It seems that if he didn't explain his motives (i.e. art, not hacking), his actions may have easily been construed differently.
Almost always, if a federal agent is asking you questions while they are executing a warrant, they have built a prosecutable case against you – potentially absent any evidence they anticipate from the search. A United States attorney has certainly looked at the case and may have already obtained an indictment. The government has expended hundreds of hours investigating you. How much have you thought about defending your actions to the feds?
When a federal agent asks you questions they are looking for you to either divulge facts that they can use to strengthen their case against you, or they are looking for you to lie. You don't even need to intentionally lie: you might simply misremember facts that your investigator has reviewed intensively, you may omit something that your investigator already knows, etc. But if you do, you've made a false statement to the federal government which is a felony on its own.
Your lawyer can help you explain your motives without divulging things you shouldn't. More likely, your lawyer will tell you to say nothing because "explaining your motives" is another way to say "providing a confession".
You have nothing to lose from invoking your sixth. It's the only safe thing to do in this case.
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…
I don't know. For me, the photo makes it a discrete moment that I can identify, more tangible, compared to my ISP silently recording every website I visit.
I think there are probably many reasons why. I actually think Apple's new commercial for privacy gets at this well, where it has people literally following someone around and snooping on them, asking questions, and I think that visceral surveillance may few much more intrusive than the hidden forms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking pictures of people and posting them without their permission while they're at a private business is malicious in my opinion. And also illegal. There's a reason he had to hide it. Ethically it's no different to me than connecting to someone's webcam at home and uploading the photos.
On YouTube there are dozens of videos taken inside shopping malls. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54i8i_sSvM Does that feel malicious to you as well?
> 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…
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 reported the artist to the secret service, but given that he installed what appeared to be Malware on a bunch of computers, it’s not an entirely unreasonable response.
The artist probably knew that if he’d been straightforward with Apple about the project he wanted to do and asked for permission for it, rather than vaguely asking whether he can take some pictures/video, he wouldn’t have gotten permission.
In the end it seems like it mostly worked out. The artist got to do the project, and only got a little trouble for operating what many would consider a legal grey zone, and he got a buch of discussion and exposure from it.
"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.
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, stealing candid photos, then publishing those online. It seems the author is the only person in this story who didn’t get violated. He’s not the hero.
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…
> 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; The complaints primarily came from Apple. This artist effectively hijacked their private camera system and then published the resulting images with a personal emphasis on certain individuals. People would have a similar negative reaction if he had hacked into their store s…
Private camera system? You mean the webcams that are open to the public in Apple stores?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Nobody on the street recognizes who the string "TeMPOraL" is. Show them a picture and now they all recognize.
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…