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

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#51

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

mjburgess wrote: post #41
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

since he had legal access to the computer, I don't think what he did is legally want different than running OBS on your own computer.

He did not have legal "access" to the computer; this isnt how the law, or even basic common sense, works. Apple made store computers available for demo, installing spyware on them clearly violates the level and kind of authorisation apple was providing. THe law makes these distinctions. But likewise, so does anyone with half a brain. You cannot come into my house an d install a keylogger on my PC, even if I make it a…

Apple made store computers available for demo and he didn't bypass any protection to run the software, and there isn't any agreement you have to sign to use one of the demo computers that lists what you are and aren't allowed to do with them. I agree this is on the edge, but looking through the CFAA, it isn't obvious to me which if any section applies here.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#52

Post by mjburgess »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #48
mjburgess wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "let's turn this into a libertarian political-philosophical discussion" angle is a misdirection. (And an increasingly common one, eg., cf. crypto). The guy installed spyware on laptops in a commercial store and then publicly displayed the data collected. It's an open-and-shut case. Almost any person who went to that store, and any store owner, would be furious. It is these people the law here protects(, and…

> 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 kind, not because he couldnt be prosecuted. He clearly violated the CFAA

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#54

Post by paulpauper »

trillic wrote: post #4
bitwize wrote: post #2

> "Ok. Is there anyone else in the house?" > "No sir." > They opened up two doors and found my roommates sleeping. "Who is this?" > "Oh, those are my roommates." I didn't realize it was 8 am. I was up late the night before, and I figured it was ten or eleven already, and that they had left for work. That's making false statements, a felony punishable by up to five years in federal prison.

..and that's why you never, ever, speak to a police officer. If a police officer wants to talk to you, they are probably conducting a criminal investigation. Do yourself a favor and exercise your right to remain silent.

not quite so. you may still be required to identify yourself and they may run background check

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#55

Post by mixmastamyk »

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…

So you have it all figured out, including motivations not expressed in the piece.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#56

Post by mjburgess »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #51
mjburgess wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not have legal "access" to the computer; this isnt how the law, or even basic common sense, works. Apple made store computers available for demo, installing spyware on them clearly violates the level and kind of authorisation apple was providing. THe law makes these distinctions. But likewise, so does anyone with half a brain. You cannot come into my house an d install a keylogger on my PC, even if I make it a…

Apple made store computers available for demo and he didn't bypass any protection to run the software, and there isn't any agreement you have to sign to use one of the demo computers that lists what you are and aren't allowed to do with them. I agree this is on the edge, but looking through the CFAA, it isn't obvious to me which if any section applies here.

> law prohibits accessing a computer without authorization, or in excess of authorization

Excess is a very broad condition, and deliberately so. The law doesnt say what counts as auth one way or another, that's up to the courts to interpret.

It seems beyond doubt that any reasonable court would find this guy did not have auth to install anything, let alone spyware.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#57

Post by mjburgess »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #55
mjburgess wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you have it all figured out, including motivations not expressed in the piece.

Of course they're not expressed. I did however go and read articles from 2011, which give a clear account consistent with my interpretation.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#58

Post by subradios »

It is not a product of privilege or the police existing to protect specific companies.

The secret service in this case were acting in the interest of public order, and if shopkeepers or franchisees couldn't have people installing Spyware on their machines prosecuted - it would make any kind of public hardware or software demo impossible.

It's true that good public order does have effects that "empower" some people and disempower others, and sometimes this is Bad(TM). However good public order is also inherently necessary to have a society at all.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#59

Post by cmeacham98 »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #51
mjburgess wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did not have legal "access" to the computer; this isnt how the law, or even basic common sense, works. Apple made store computers available for demo, installing spyware on them clearly violates the level and kind of authorisation apple was providing. THe law makes these distinctions. But likewise, so does anyone with half a brain. You cannot come into my house an d install a keylogger on my PC, even if I make it a…

Apple made store computers available for demo and he didn't bypass any protection to run the software, and there isn't any agreement you have to sign to use one of the demo computers that lists what you are and aren't allowed to do with them. I agree this is on the edge, but looking through the CFAA, it isn't obvious to me which if any section applies here.

This is like claiming "You downloaded and ran my executable from the internet, so the fact it starting keylogging you is ok! I had totally legitimate access provided by you!!"

Apple makes the computers available for the purposes of demonstration. No rational person would ever think this includes installing spyware on them, so you are exceeding the level of authorization Apple gave you. I strongly believe a court would see it the same way.

Post reply on HN