5 ms·

There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point).

by omouse 15y ago

adolph 15y ago
They probably capture me finger-in-nose more often than artists too. The security cameras do have an appealing lack of pretentiousness, though.
irahul 15y ago
> There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point). Nitpick: His being an artist isn't relevant here. What he is doing isn't a work of art. It seems like somehow the article's headline is making it seem like art is being censored which isn't the case.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art, but there is a legal question of whether or not what he's doing is protected by the First Amendment. It's a novel take on the "public spaces" argument, but not by much. If he had put cameras in the eyes of a statue in a park and recorded people interacting with the statue, would that be forbidden as well? I get where he's coming from, and I get that some people would be upset by it. That's why we need to have a conversation about what privacy means in this day and age, and how much of a reasonable expectation of it you have in public spaces (and what constitutes a public space). I think the fact that it's the Apple Store in New York is relevant. It's not a Best Buy in Bellingham. That store really is a public place, and the computers within it are basically public in every sense of the word.
  - SystemOut 15y ago
    The Apple Store is NOT a public place. Neither are their computers. Why would you even think they are? Can Apple ask you to leave their store for any reason? Yes. Could a private citizen or corporation ask you to leave a park? No. They are two very different things. It also doesn't make a bit of difference that it's in New York and not in Bellingham.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      Of course it's private property, and of course it's Apple's call what goes on there. I never claimed it was anything but. My argument was not one of ownership, but one of privacy. I was not using "public" as an antonym for "privately owned", but rather as an antonym for "in private". If I have sex on a public bus, I'm not going to be charged with misusing public property, I'm going to be charged with having sex in public.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - irahul 15y ago
    > Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? > I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art, And the article and headline about an "artist" makes it look like a "work of art" is being censored. And who are you to decide it's a work of art? It's not. If you think otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion. > That store really is a public place, and the computers within it are basically public in every sense of the word. They are owned by Apple and you are allowed to use them per Apple's discretion. The same argument extends about public places - the park is public doesn't mean you can go there and take a dump. Regardless what constitutes a public place, there are norms.

There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point).

by omouse 15y ago

There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point).

adolph 15y ago

They probably capture me finger-in-nose more often than artists too. The security cameras do have an appealing lack of pretentiousness, though.

irahul 15y ago

> There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point). Nitpick: His being an artist isn't relevant here. What he is doing isn't a work of art. It seems like somehow the article's headline is making it seem like art is being censored which isn't the case.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art, but there is a legal question of whether or not what he's doing is protected by the First Amendment. It's a novel take on the "public spaces" argument, but not by much. If he had put cameras in the eyes of a statue in a park and recorded people interacting with the statue, would that be forbidden as well? I get where he's coming from, and I get that some people would be upset by it. That's why we need to have a conversation about what privacy means in this day and age, and how much of a reasonable expectation of it you have in public spaces (and what constitutes a public space). I think the fact that it's the Apple Store in New York is relevant. It's not a Best Buy in Bellingham. That store really is a public place, and the computers within it are basically public in every sense of the word.
- SystemOut 15y ago
  The Apple Store is NOT a public place. Neither are their computers. Why would you even think they are? Can Apple ask you to leave their store for any reason? Yes. Could a private citizen or corporation ask you to leave a park? No. They are two very different things. It also doesn't make a bit of difference that it's in New York and not in Bellingham.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Of course it's private property, and of course it's Apple's call what goes on there. I never claimed it was anything but. My argument was not one of ownership, but one of privacy. I was not using "public" as an antonym for "privately owned", but rather as an antonym for "in private". If I have sex on a public bus, I'm not going to be charged with misusing public property, I'm going to be charged with having sex in public.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- irahul 15y ago
  > Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? > I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art, And the article and headline about an "artist" makes it look like a "work of art" is being censored. And who are you to decide it's a work of art? It's not. If you think otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion. > That store really is a public place, and the computers within it are basically public in every sense of the word. They are owned by Apple and you are allowed to use them per Apple's discretion. The same argument extends about public places - the park is public doesn't mean you can go there and take a dump. Regardless what constitutes a public place, there are norms.