7 ms·

Feds visit artist behind People Staring at Computers, confiscate laptop

50 points by th0ma5 15y ago

JackStraw 15y ago
How did the "artist" get the photos off the webcam?
- itg 15y ago
  Installing spyware on the computers at the apple store. This is a very one-sided and dishonest blogpost since they leave out a lot of information. http://mashable.com/2011/07/07/secret-service-apple-store-art-2/ http://mashable.com/2011/07/07/secret-service-apple-store-ar...
  - JackStraw 15y ago
    Ha! “McDonald set up roughly 100 Apple store computers to call his servers every minute.” Better get a real good attorney buddy, get your affairs in order, and give your cat to your mom, cause boy you are in a lot of trouble.
    - ams6110 15y ago
      On the plus side, he could probably get a job with that school system in Pennsylvania. He seems qualified.
      - chopsueyar 15y ago
        rimshot
  - omouse 15y ago
    Why doesn't apple secure their equipment? What about the millions of cameras in every store and building and ATM? Why are people worried about a few laptop cameras "spying" on them when they're spied upon as soon as they walk out of the house? Cameras, cameras everywhere, and not a shred of privacy left.
    - brown9-2 15y ago
      Why doesn't apple secure their equipment? Because the benefit of letting people do whatever they feel like on the display units in the store - while a good number of them are shopping for said equipment - is worth more than the cost of automatically wiping the machines each night.
ja27 15y ago
The article mentions Title 18 Section 1030 - probably (a)(5). He could potentially be prosecuted (a federal felony) for accessing a computer connected to the internet without permission. Since it wasn't a computer owned by the U.S. government or anything special, I think they need to show that he exploited his access for financial gain or that the damages exceeded $5,000. I can't imagine removing his program from a dozen macs would exceed $5,000, but they could try to show that. My guess is that unless there's more to this story, this won't result in a prosecution.
- JackStraw 15y ago
  (6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if— (A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; - 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access ¬devices If section 1030 doesn't fit, 1029 certainly does. How can you honestly think this won’t be prosecuted? He installed spyware on over 100 computers (Apple will have to come down hard to deter future instances of this nature and push for prosecution). The “artist” has also publicly admitted to doing so and provided the prosecution with more than enough evidence to see this through. It wasn't but an hour ago that the supposed “artist” received word from the EFF that he should just shut his mouth.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    The computers were setup in mind with visitors being able to access them, he accessed them. The software he wrote would not require elevated privileges. He even asked a security guard whether he had permission to photograph in the store. I fail to see how it's unauthorized, also the recordings were made in a public space where there is no expectation of privacy. Even if privacy could be argued in a public space, I'm sure the Apple stores / malls have the requisite notices that people are being recorded, should they think they are not. There's a decent chance of a good defense. It's going to be difficult for Apple to argue that the computers were not meant to be used this way, infact Apple provides software (Photobooth) to take pictures and upload them to the internet on its computers. Are the feds seriously trying to assert that Apple had no idea how to configure their computers to enforce their access policy? Even if they couldn't figure this out a simple piece of tape over the camera would suffice. If Apple doesn't want people doing this to their computers they should post notices that one should not access their computers until they have read and signed the acceptable use policy.
rfrey 15y ago
Now it appears that project may be in jeopardy. The "project" would be the least of my worries.
blhack 15y ago
Pardon the language, but what a jackass. Walking into the apple store doesn't mean that I want to have my photo on your website. I think the "but you were in a public space!" people need to cool it a little bit; maybe them and the "if you have nothing to hide!" people should get together and take a vacation. This is just incredibly discourteous. Being public to the people in my immediate vicinity, and being public to the billions of people on the internet are not the same thing. Having his laptop taken is obviously not really an appropriate response.
- fleitz 15y ago
  I'd seriously suggest not going out in public in any major city if you don't want your photo appearing on the internet. I always myself wonder how many people's vacation photos I'm in.
  - blhack 15y ago
    Really? Back this up, please. I'm sure my photo is taken many, many times per day. I doubt the majority of these photos are taken 18 inches in front of my face, then uploaded to a publicly accessible website. Being in the background of some kid's facebook photo, or being 1 of several hundred thousand pictures taken by a security camera, and this, are not the same.
    - fleitz 15y ago
      I didn't say it was the same, what I'm saying is that by going out in public there is a reasonable risk that you will be photographed and it will appear in public on the internet and it will probably be of enough quality to personally identify you. I don't see why this should be illegal. Is the guy a jackass? For sake of argument, lets say he is. The author has stated that he will remove any photos that you don't want, so if you don't want them up then just go ask him to take them down. I'm not sure what you wanted me to back up, could you be specific?
      - SystemOut 15y ago
guelo 15y ago
IANAL but here's my argument if I was his defense lawyer: When you walk into an Apple store Apple openly invites you to use their computers. There are no instructions on what you are and are not allowed to do on the computers, no warnings against installing software or that specific types of programs are not allowed to be installed. The computers are mostly not locked down, the fact that Apple wipes the computers every night shows that Apple expects customers to use the computers in anyway they see fit. Apple's open invitation to use the computers means it is not possible to "trespass" onto these computers. An Apple store contains hundreds of cameras, the cameras are prominent features in most of the devices and customers will be aware of them. Customers routinely take pictures of each other, of the employees and everything in the store. While using the cameras, they test uploading pictures to internet services such as email, Facebook, and others. There is no expectation of privacy and any reasonable customer should expect that their picture might be taken and uploaded to the internet.
- sorbus 15y ago
  Apply the same logic to using computers in an Apple store to launch a DDOS. You hardly have to change your argument, and yet it reveals how absurd it is.
  - guelo 15y ago
    There are specific laws against launching a DDOS. What law are you suggesting he violated?
    - sorbus 15y ago
      Neither of us are lawyers; we are not qualified to have a discussion of which laws he violated. I am pointing out that - ignoring the legality of what he did (I suspect the response might involve suspicions of keyloggers present in the his code, because I'm a bit paranoid) - your argument makes no sense.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      What law are you referring to?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dreamdu5t 15y ago
We have become a society obsessed with bureaucracy. We worship it.
napierzaza 15y ago
Just wait until this happens and it's not an artist who did it. Everyone here saying it's no big deal will do a 180. It's not his intent but his actions.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  ... and it's not an artist who did it. Define "artist." Best I can tell it's "someone who who declares 'I am an artist!'" I don't have a problem with that, but I am skeptical of people trying to excuse arbitrary behavior by hiding behind "But it's art."
RP_Joe 15y ago
Why was the secret service involved?
cheez 15y ago
So the guy used the store's property without their permission. He installed his own software on their computers and contacted his own servers. And then he advertised it. Come on dude, be a grownup. This is the behaviour of a jackass, to quote the top comment. Now why the SS is involved (see what I did there? haha) I don't know. Maybe they don't like non-government sanctioned backdoors in Apple computers.

50 points by th0ma5 15y ago

JackStraw 15y ago

How did the "artist" get the photos off the webcam?

itg 15y ago
Installing spyware on the computers at the apple store. This is a very one-sided and dishonest blogpost since they leave out a lot of information. http://mashable.com/2011/07/07/secret-service-apple-store-art-2/ http://mashable.com/2011/07/07/secret-service-apple-store-ar...
- JackStraw 15y ago
  Ha! “McDonald set up roughly 100 Apple store computers to call his servers every minute.” Better get a real good attorney buddy, get your affairs in order, and give your cat to your mom, cause boy you are in a lot of trouble.
  - ams6110 15y ago
    On the plus side, he could probably get a job with that school system in Pennsylvania. He seems qualified.
    - chopsueyar 15y ago
      rimshot
- omouse 15y ago
  Why doesn't apple secure their equipment? What about the millions of cameras in every store and building and ATM? Why are people worried about a few laptop cameras "spying" on them when they're spied upon as soon as they walk out of the house? Cameras, cameras everywhere, and not a shred of privacy left.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    Why doesn't apple secure their equipment? Because the benefit of letting people do whatever they feel like on the display units in the store - while a good number of them are shopping for said equipment - is worth more than the cost of automatically wiping the machines each night.

ja27 15y ago

The article mentions Title 18 Section 1030 - probably (a)(5). He could potentially be prosecuted (a federal felony) for accessing a computer connected to the internet without permission. Since it wasn't a computer owned by the U.S. government or anything special, I think they need to show that he exploited his access for financial gain or that the damages exceeded $5,000. I can't imagine removing his program from a dozen macs would exceed $5,000, but they could try to show that. My guess is that unless there's more to this story, this won't result in a prosecution.

JackStraw 15y ago
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if— (A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; - 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access ¬devices If section 1030 doesn't fit, 1029 certainly does. How can you honestly think this won’t be prosecuted? He installed spyware on over 100 computers (Apple will have to come down hard to deter future instances of this nature and push for prosecution). The “artist” has also publicly admitted to doing so and provided the prosecution with more than enough evidence to see this through. It wasn't but an hour ago that the supposed “artist” received word from the EFF that he should just shut his mouth.
- fleitz 15y ago
  The computers were setup in mind with visitors being able to access them, he accessed them. The software he wrote would not require elevated privileges. He even asked a security guard whether he had permission to photograph in the store. I fail to see how it's unauthorized, also the recordings were made in a public space where there is no expectation of privacy. Even if privacy could be argued in a public space, I'm sure the Apple stores / malls have the requisite notices that people are being recorded, should they think they are not. There's a decent chance of a good defense. It's going to be difficult for Apple to argue that the computers were not meant to be used this way, infact Apple provides software (Photobooth) to take pictures and upload them to the internet on its computers. Are the feds seriously trying to assert that Apple had no idea how to configure their computers to enforce their access policy? Even if they couldn't figure this out a simple piece of tape over the camera would suffice. If Apple doesn't want people doing this to their computers they should post notices that one should not access their computers until they have read and signed the acceptable use policy.

rfrey 15y ago

Now it appears that project may be in jeopardy. The "project" would be the least of my worries.

blhack 15y ago

Pardon the language, but what a jackass. Walking into the apple store doesn't mean that I want to have my photo on your website. I think the "but you were in a public space!" people need to cool it a little bit; maybe them and the "if you have nothing to hide!" people should get together and take a vacation. This is just incredibly discourteous. Being public to the people in my immediate vicinity, and being public to the billions of people on the internet are not the same thing. Having his laptop taken is obviously not really an appropriate response.

fleitz 15y ago
I'd seriously suggest not going out in public in any major city if you don't want your photo appearing on the internet. I always myself wonder how many people's vacation photos I'm in.
- blhack 15y ago
  Really? Back this up, please. I'm sure my photo is taken many, many times per day. I doubt the majority of these photos are taken 18 inches in front of my face, then uploaded to a publicly accessible website. Being in the background of some kid's facebook photo, or being 1 of several hundred thousand pictures taken by a security camera, and this, are not the same.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    I didn't say it was the same, what I'm saying is that by going out in public there is a reasonable risk that you will be photographed and it will appear in public on the internet and it will probably be of enough quality to personally identify you. I don't see why this should be illegal. Is the guy a jackass? For sake of argument, lets say he is. The author has stated that he will remove any photos that you don't want, so if you don't want them up then just go ask him to take them down. I'm not sure what you wanted me to back up, could you be specific?
    - SystemOut 15y ago

guelo 15y ago

IANAL but here's my argument if I was his defense lawyer: When you walk into an Apple store Apple openly invites you to use their computers. There are no instructions on what you are and are not allowed to do on the computers, no warnings against installing software or that specific types of programs are not allowed to be installed. The computers are mostly not locked down, the fact that Apple wipes the computers every night shows that Apple expects customers to use the computers in anyway they see fit. Apple's open invitation to use the computers means it is not possible to "trespass" onto these computers. An Apple store contains hundreds of cameras, the cameras are prominent features in most of the devices and customers will be aware of them. Customers routinely take pictures of each other, of the employees and everything in the store. While using the cameras, they test uploading pictures to internet services such as email, Facebook, and others. There is no expectation of privacy and any reasonable customer should expect that their picture might be taken and uploaded to the internet.

sorbus 15y ago
Apply the same logic to using computers in an Apple store to launch a DDOS. You hardly have to change your argument, and yet it reveals how absurd it is.
- guelo 15y ago
  There are specific laws against launching a DDOS. What law are you suggesting he violated?
  - sorbus 15y ago
    Neither of us are lawyers; we are not qualified to have a discussion of which laws he violated. I am pointing out that - ignoring the legality of what he did (I suspect the response might involve suspicions of keyloggers present in the his code, because I'm a bit paranoid) - your argument makes no sense.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    What law are you referring to?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dreamdu5t 15y ago

We have become a society obsessed with bureaucracy. We worship it.

napierzaza 15y ago

Just wait until this happens and it's not an artist who did it. Everyone here saying it's no big deal will do a 180. It's not his intent but his actions.

jamesbritt 15y ago
... and it's not an artist who did it. Define "artist." Best I can tell it's "someone who who declares 'I am an artist!'" I don't have a problem with that, but I am skeptical of people trying to excuse arbitrary behavior by hiding behind "But it's art."

RP_Joe 15y ago

Why was the secret service involved?

cheez 15y ago

So the guy used the store's property without their permission. He installed his own software on their computers and contacted his own servers. And then he advertised it. Come on dude, be a grownup. This is the behaviour of a jackass, to quote the top comment. Now why the SS is involved (see what I did there? haha) I don't know. Maybe they don't like non-government sanctioned backdoors in Apple computers.