Live data from Hacker News

People Staring at Computers

kylemcdonald.net

281–290 of 349 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers

#281
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…

I think it's more human social dynamics. A human taking your photo is an active action, probably a dominance one on top of that, and a lot of human social instincts kick in.

A faceless computer, doing it in the background environment outside of your perception unless you really dig in under the hood triggers none of that. It's the same reason why most humans are not anxious about the footprints they leave in the sand on the beach, because it feels about the same.

A lot of the rich and powerful understand this dynamic well, and use environmental stonewalling to say no to people vs. a direct human interaction.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#282
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…

>We accept that our most private thoughts are being captured, analyzed, sold; but the outrage is about someone taking an anonymous photo of us in a public setting

https://www.theawl.com/2013/09/i-am-an-object-of-internet-ri...

Re: People Staring at Computers

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Off the top of my head, I'd say every single one. Including the corner grocery stores and the lobby of the building that I live in. I used to work right at street corner that was a top tier Instagram destination so I'm probably plastered all over thousands of random people's social media all over the world.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#284
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…

> 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…

> The former is only ever seen by computer algorithms serving us ads without human intervention.

[assumed]

Re: People Staring at Computers

#286
> At some point, Tesla founder Elon Musk came out of the woodwork on Twitter with his submarine idea, which would not have worked, as *experts analyzed later*

To my knowledge Musk wanted to build a small vehicle for rescue that could not be made in time, but was the design of the vehicle was analyzed later and found by experts that it can not work? If any one knows source please do point.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's far more troubling that too few people are questioning the mass surveillance he was critiquing and dramatising. It's classic shoot-the-messenger. Meanwhile Facebook was - and probably still is - tracking people's online behaviour even when they're not logged into Facebook, based on legalese buried in T&Cs which most users don't even know exist, never mind have read, never mind understood, never mind given explic…

> It's classic shoot-the-messenger. No it's not! I don't go around shooting people to advocate gun control laws. I don't go around stealing people's belongings in cars to advocate that people shouldn't leave valuables in cars. This is vigilante behavior that should never be condoned.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Every noteworthy push for societal change through history that ever involved breaking a law could be labeled vigilante behavior by some party. I just don't find that argument convincing. Our laws aren't there to protect themselves, they exist to create the society we want to live in. In what ways did the artist's actions harm our society? In what ways did it change how we view our society? Do we like what we see?

This isn't big brother with all the power systematically spying on citizens, this is a nobody with no power showing us a picture of ourselves. Both cases are happening, both happen against the will of the people, and yet which one do we allow to continue?

I'll also point out that the discussion we're having is exactly the outcome the artist intended.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were crimes involved here. They just just weren't worth the federal prosecutor's time to take to court.

What crime? I can't think of any laws broken. Certainly not the CFAA and it is legal to take pictures in public places.

It's not legal to install spyware (or anything, really) on computers you don't own.

Re: People Staring at Computers

#289

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…

"someone" else's computer ... It's Apple, not a personal computer. Are corporations people?

Re: People Staring at Computers

#290
post #289

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…

"someone" else's computer ... It's Apple, not a personal computer. Are corporations people?

ATMs belong to banks, not individuals. Is that enough of a justification to install malware on them?
Post reply on HN