People Staring at Computers (2021) • Hacker News Board

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#81

Post by mindslight » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

The stores where this was done are chock full of purpose-built cameras performing more in-depth and persistent surveillance. The main difference is the proceeds from that surveillance system are generally kept hidden, so they don't provoke a base response.

This is yet another occurrence of the draconian CFAA being used to persecute individuals, often with severe life-destroying penalties, for what should be considered, at most, misdemeanor trespass - a modern day witch hunt. And since the CFAA hinges on this nebulous concept of "authorization", it's straightforwardly nullified by a contract of adhesion, so it does nothing to protect individuals from transgressions by companies.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#82

Post by muaytimbo » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

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.

Somehow, I doubt you have much "practicing" this.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#83

Post by CPLX » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

newZWhoDis wrote: post #72

paulpauper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point of government is to have a monopoly on various kinds of power and control.

It’s the core concept of the thing, with the first premise being a monopoly on violence.

It’s not hypocritical for a government to say it’s not wrong when they do violence and it is wrong when others do it.

A government may commit moral or immoral violence, or express moral or immoral values in its actions.

But it’s not hypocrisy to not want competition. It’s the point of the thing.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#84

Post by the-printer » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

ewzimm wrote: post #76

the-printer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who decides when the “tune” of an abstraction becomes stale? The people, but which people? And how is it determined that an institution is yielding negative or positive results?

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#85

Post by SoftAnnaLee » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

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.

The thing with authorization is... well... you can have authorization to go to a public park. But carving up a park bench is very much not authorized. You can be "able" to do something when the public has access to it. However the ethics of altering property that belongs to somebody else tends to lean from anywhere from "okay if you have permission" to "heavily illegal".

Anybody can install spyware on a public computer, anybody can install spyware when given permission by the property owner. Installing spyware on a public computer (that you do not own) without permission of the owner is very much illegal.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#86

Post by peterkelly » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

Seems like it might have been a good idea to discuss this "art project" with the Apple store in question before proceeding.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#87

Post by iamdamian » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 6:24 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #80

cortesoft wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor true Scotsman, apparently.

I mean the definition of aristocracy is basically the people who get to make the rules. It’s the core point.

Without making a falsifiable claim about who this “aristocracy” is whose assets are the only assets protected by the police, it’s hard to test your statement or see how it provides value.

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#88

Post by antihero » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 6:26 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #45

jacknews wrote: post #11

The police forces were created to protect property and 'the system', not people, and that's what they continue to do. https://worxintheory.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/origins-of-the...

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 is literal truth that the first police in the US were slave hunters and the first police station in the world was to protect from theft at the Wapping docks

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#89

Post by bitwize » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 6:26 PM UTC

mkl95 wrote: post #21

bitwize wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had the government wanted to give him a harder time than they did, it could've been a significant issue. FBI agents are trained in interrogation techniques designed to manipulate you into saying contradictory things, for the sole purpose of being able to slap you with a false-statements charge in case they can't get enough on you to convict you of the crime they were actually investigating.

Any idea why they do this? Is it a PR thing? Some angle like 95% of our suspects are convicted within 5 years .

It can help the FBI nail someone they know is guilty, but is somehow made of teflon so the prosecutor can't prove it in court.

It's also handy for dealing with political opponents. Like imagine Occupy starts up again and gains real traction this time. The sight of its leadership being perp-walked into federal court can be real demoralizing. If the FBI has the ability to arrest them on procedural crimes any time they want, they could break up the entire operation before it poses a threat to the status quo. Do you think COINTELPRO actually went away?

Re: People Staring at Computers (2021)

#90

Post by stordoff » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 6:34 PM UTC

carbocation wrote: post #32

ChrisArchitect wrote: post #26

(2021) A bunch of previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27799859

> *(2021) Isn't it 2012, not 2021? (The article footer says "Kyle McDonald June 12, 2012")

The first section (regarding the FOIA request and looking back from "ten years later") is from 2021. There is a signoff just before the picture of Steve Jobs that states "Kyle McDonald June 7, 2021".