6 ms·

(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 wi

(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.
- chopsueyar 15y ago
  You're right. As long as the security guard said is was okay. I mean, it is a public space, paid for by our tax dollars, owned and run by the local government.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - JackStraw 15y ago
    Let’s be clear about the known facts: 1) McDonald claims he received permission from a security guard, but I didn't see any evidence or video proof to support this assertion. 2) McDonald claims he received permission from the security guard, but he fails to provide any information for what he was approved to do. -Clearly, filming from a public space, outside and apple store through a window and into an apple store is not really the central point here (policies of this nature would be the purview of the mall – and that's not even clear!) - McDonald, apparently, was filming within an apple store, which, correct me if I am wrong, is not technically a public space since it is a commercially zoned space, paid for by apple. - McDonald provides no information to suggest that he received authorization to film apple customers, likely a violation of apple store policy and security regulations. Last I checked, I didn't see a sign informing customers that by entering this apple store you waive your right to protest apple’s right to use your image for free. Ya, that’s right cause it doesn't exist. Apple security monitoring of clients in stores seems pretty straight forward and in line with any other retail outlet. Accesses: I would argue it’s not an issue of access but the fact that he installed a program on these computers. Even if the terminals did not require elevated privileges (which you will see apple change in the coming days), it is the unauthorized introduction of a program, which violates the law. Again, access doesn't mean permission to augment settings. Additionally, it is interesting to note “12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.” It is conceivable that the spyware in question infringed upon privacy laws in these states. That would be another charge. Photobooth has little to do with this situation as far as I can tell. Did customers agree to the service agreement or terms of service when demoing the computer? Answer, no. Because apple had no intention of allowing those pictures to be uploaded to the Net, right? Did these customers sign or digitally endorse a new kind of privacy policy that was presented by apple in order to use the demo computer? Answer, no. I mean really. Even if they did, would apple have been in a position to inform customers about potential spyware applications that were maliciously added to the demo computers? Answer, no. I mean come on. This is pretty clear, cut and dry. Whether or not McDonald is using art to cover his tracks or whether he is really that ignorant is best left to the courts. I am sure he can plead out, but he definitely gets zero sympathy from me.
- biturd 15y ago
  I could be wrong, don't remember for sure, but I believe photo laws state that even on private property, where there is no expectation of property, you must only cease when asked to leave. You can still keep photos taken prior to being asked to leave. I have also had Apple employees at MacWorld tell me that since I was a far drive from their campus labs that I could always go to an Apple Store and install and test my software. I am sure this is not an officially endorsed thing, but it is something many people are suggested to do. Many many youtube videos in the past have hit near meme status for a short time at least being made entirely in an Apple Store. At least half a million views or so. Apple has never C&D'd these performances. I see the points people are making, but I have to be honest, were it my idea, I would never have thought I would have had a computer taken from me for it. More like simply asked to stop. PhotoBooth does not delete images, they all end up rather hidden in the camera roll. Anyone can go in there and upload them to any site they desire. How do sites like "pics of my ex gf" and "pics of random strangers" etc become allowed if this is not? In both those examples, the person the photo was taken of did not consent. There are a million adult'ish sites that take photo submissions.
ja27 15y ago
They have to show intent and damages. Unless I'm misunderstanding, he didn't delete or disrupt any data nor did he capture anything except photos of people in a public place. The computers he accessed were unlocked and on public display (again, unless I'm misunderstanding this). Though he may not have had explicit permission to install anything, I don't think there are any statements posted in Apple stores that tell you not to install anything. (I've personally installed apps on display iOS devices a number of times to try them out.) It could be hard to show the damages. These are display models in a store that I would suspect are regularly wiped clean anyways. If it really is 100 computers, that could approach the $5,000 figure though. But they still need to consider his intent. A judge wouldn't even be able to accept a guilty plea from him if he didn't include his intent to cause damage in his allocution. He's made it pretty clear that his intent was to create some form of art. (Unless there's something more to the story.) It's not a case I'd want to bring before a judge or jury, based on my understanding of the facts. That doesn't mean that they won't push for a plea deal or try the case just for the experience. I think section 1030 cases are still relatively rare.
wnight 15y ago
> He installed spyware on over 100 computers Get over yourself. He installed a simple app that takes and emails photos. He put it on computers that don't save state so there's no more clean-up then flicking the switch and rebooting them all. Sony wrote a rootkit, one that caused actual damages, and put it on thousands, if not millions, of home PCs. Why so much outrage at this photo project? Photographer steal your soul?

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.

chopsueyar 15y ago
You're right. As long as the security guard said is was okay. I mean, it is a public space, paid for by our tax dollars, owned and run by the local government.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- JackStraw 15y ago
  Let’s be clear about the known facts: 1) McDonald claims he received permission from a security guard, but I didn't see any evidence or video proof to support this assertion. 2) McDonald claims he received permission from the security guard, but he fails to provide any information for what he was approved to do. -Clearly, filming from a public space, outside and apple store through a window and into an apple store is not really the central point here (policies of this nature would be the purview of the mall – and that's not even clear!) - McDonald, apparently, was filming within an apple store, which, correct me if I am wrong, is not technically a public space since it is a commercially zoned space, paid for by apple. - McDonald provides no information to suggest that he received authorization to film apple customers, likely a violation of apple store policy and security regulations. Last I checked, I didn't see a sign informing customers that by entering this apple store you waive your right to protest apple’s right to use your image for free. Ya, that’s right cause it doesn't exist. Apple security monitoring of clients in stores seems pretty straight forward and in line with any other retail outlet. Accesses: I would argue it’s not an issue of access but the fact that he installed a program on these computers. Even if the terminals did not require elevated privileges (which you will see apple change in the coming days), it is the unauthorized introduction of a program, which violates the law. Again, access doesn't mean permission to augment settings. Additionally, it is interesting to note “12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.” It is conceivable that the spyware in question infringed upon privacy laws in these states. That would be another charge. Photobooth has little to do with this situation as far as I can tell. Did customers agree to the service agreement or terms of service when demoing the computer? Answer, no. Because apple had no intention of allowing those pictures to be uploaded to the Net, right? Did these customers sign or digitally endorse a new kind of privacy policy that was presented by apple in order to use the demo computer? Answer, no. I mean really. Even if they did, would apple have been in a position to inform customers about potential spyware applications that were maliciously added to the demo computers? Answer, no. I mean come on. This is pretty clear, cut and dry. Whether or not McDonald is using art to cover his tracks or whether he is really that ignorant is best left to the courts. I am sure he can plead out, but he definitely gets zero sympathy from me.
biturd 15y ago
I could be wrong, don't remember for sure, but I believe photo laws state that even on private property, where there is no expectation of property, you must only cease when asked to leave. You can still keep photos taken prior to being asked to leave. I have also had Apple employees at MacWorld tell me that since I was a far drive from their campus labs that I could always go to an Apple Store and install and test my software. I am sure this is not an officially endorsed thing, but it is something many people are suggested to do. Many many youtube videos in the past have hit near meme status for a short time at least being made entirely in an Apple Store. At least half a million views or so. Apple has never C&D'd these performances. I see the points people are making, but I have to be honest, were it my idea, I would never have thought I would have had a computer taken from me for it. More like simply asked to stop. PhotoBooth does not delete images, they all end up rather hidden in the camera roll. Anyone can go in there and upload them to any site they desire. How do sites like "pics of my ex gf" and "pics of random strangers" etc become allowed if this is not? In both those examples, the person the photo was taken of did not consent. There are a million adult'ish sites that take photo submissions.

ja27 15y ago

They have to show intent and damages. Unless I'm misunderstanding, he didn't delete or disrupt any data nor did he capture anything except photos of people in a public place. The computers he accessed were unlocked and on public display (again, unless I'm misunderstanding this). Though he may not have had explicit permission to install anything, I don't think there are any statements posted in Apple stores that tell you not to install anything. (I've personally installed apps on display iOS devices a number of times to try them out.) It could be hard to show the damages. These are display models in a store that I would suspect are regularly wiped clean anyways. If it really is 100 computers, that could approach the $5,000 figure though. But they still need to consider his intent. A judge wouldn't even be able to accept a guilty plea from him if he didn't include his intent to cause damage in his allocution. He's made it pretty clear that his intent was to create some form of art. (Unless there's something more to the story.) It's not a case I'd want to bring before a judge or jury, based on my understanding of the facts. That doesn't mean that they won't push for a plea deal or try the case just for the experience. I think section 1030 cases are still relatively rare.

wnight 15y ago

> He installed spyware on over 100 computers Get over yourself. He installed a simple app that takes and emails photos. He put it on computers that don't save state so there's no more clean-up then flicking the switch and rebooting them all. Sony wrote a rootkit, one that caused actual damages, and put it on thousands, if not millions, of home PCs. Why so much outrage at this photo project? Photographer steal your soul?