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

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#71

Post by folsom »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20
FoomFries wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you have a case where the officer will try and use what you said against you. So, even if it wasn’t knowingly in truth, in practice it will be up to you to defend that truth. Whereas silence saves you the hassle.

In practice, good-faith and respectful interactions with law enforcement have a positive outcome.

In practice paying a lawyer $250/hour to sit with you while you answer questions (or not answer) is cheaper than missing out on five years of income and all of the other consequences that come with going to prison.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#72

Post by newZWhoDis »

paulpauper wrote: post #50
whycombinetor wrote: post #37

Dunno how the hell one would not expect this to be be highly illegal. The guy literally wrote a software tool that covertly sends images from an unsuspecting device's camera to his personal servers, and installed+activated it on target machines belonging to the US's 3rd largest company by market cap in 2010 (now 1st largest). I get that in the pre-Snowden world, it felt like you were building a cutesy proof-of-concep…

Agree. it's not art. he made literal spyware

Sure, and I don’t support this guy.

I do find it funny though that the same government that does this exact thing at scale works so hard to go after people who do this.

It’s not that they think it’s wrong, it’s that they don’t want competition.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#73

Post by dang »

Related:

People Staring at Computers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27799859 - July 2021 (337 comments)

When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide: 'People Staring at Computers' - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235037 - July 2012 (64 comments)

People Staring at Computers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2746026 - July 2011 (3 comments)

Feds visit artist behind People Staring at Computers, confiscate laptop - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2740485 - July 2011 (50 comments)

Secret Service confiscates computer of "People Staring at Computers" creator - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2740083 - July 2011 (1 comment)

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#74

Post by newZWhoDis »

rrwo wrote: post #22

And for anyone who insists that Apple is one of the good guys: > In response, Apple contacted the Secret Service and they raided my apartment. After censoring the work online, Apple did not pursue a civil case against me.

Why would the SS investigate this? Seems like a task for state police.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#75

Post by yCombLinks »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #38
whycombinetor wrote: post #37

Dunno how the hell one would not expect this to be be highly illegal. The guy literally wrote a software tool that covertly sends images from an unsuspecting device's camera to his personal servers, and installed+activated it on target machines belonging to the US's 3rd largest company by market cap in 2010 (now 1st largest). I get that in the pre-Snowden world, it felt like you were building a cutesy proof-of-concep…

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.

I always wonder how skeezebags justify their actions, and there it is. They're deluded

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#76

Post by ewzimm »

the-printer wrote: post #43
ewzimm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In these discussions, there's always an implicit assumption of certain intentions being the "real" ones. Statements like "police were created to..." first imply that there was a creator whose intentions define the police through incarnations, a kind of "god of police," and, more likely, if it was not a single individual, it is a "pantheon of police" composed of its creators and sustainers. And then we have the image…

What is to make of the overlap between institutional goals and those of individuals? We live in a time where people are developing institutional abstractions as their civil bedrock. How can we reasonably differentiate institutions that are fundamentally man-made from the men who are the means of the institution’s goals?

My answer would be that individual intentions are ultimately the only thing that matters, but they are shaped by cultures which use abstractions to communicate and connect. Social control means learning which abstractions will stick, like finding a catchy tune, but the most memorable ideas aren't always the best. When an internalized abstraction leads to negative consequences, people tend to rebel against it and find another one.

The goals of abstract institutions are abstractions of intentions. They exist in both the minds of those who write them down and those who carry them out, and a perfect translation between those two groups will never happen. If we want to get down reality, we have to talk about the intentions of the actual people involved.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#77

Post by googlryas »

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.

It's not illegal to make false statements in this context. It's illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements.

If later, the author said something like "I was talking to my roommate in his room just before you guys knocked on the door", then he might be charged with a felony. But the statement by itself was fine, even if false. 18 U.S. Code § 1001

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#78

Post by mjburgess »

js8 wrote: post #70
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…

The illegality of it might be clear cut, but the immorality of it is not. And why should the store owner be furious, and not amused, or embarrassed? It's just things, nobody got hurt. It is a very libertarian idea that violence against property is morally the same as violence against a person.

Right... but who's interest should the law here represent? There is no single common interest: this guy wants to install spyware and hijack pictures of customers for his own ends; apple doenst want that; customers dont want that (or even, of course, know about it!).

So "immorality"-wise, who here are you empathising with?

I, as a customer entering a store, do NOT want any burden to go and google whether that store has been hijacked by spyware and my data shared, etc.

I want ZERO such burden. And i would expect the police to seriously deter any such "stunts".

This guy has a sob story in which he's the hero... are you just going to take his framing?

Empathise with the random guy in the store.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#79

Post by muaytimbo »

Finnucane wrote: post #42
indymike wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The police forces were created to protect property and 'the system' If that is the case, why is civil asset forfeiture a thing? It seems to undermine property rights and is a glaring failure in the system.

Not your property, the aristocracy's property. Cops don't work for peasants.

replace "Aristocracy" with "political class"
Post reply on HN