41 ms·

People Staring at Computers

743 points by BayAreaEscapee 5y ago

dandanua 5y ago
I never thought a person could be that naive, lol. Interesting read anyway.
mhh__ 5y ago
Terrifying.
fnord77 5y ago
While interesting, this project does not seem ethically sound. Not to mention illegal. I think the author got lucky having the case dropped.
- dannyw 5y ago
  No charges were ever filled here.
  - liamkinne 5y ago
    Ethics != legality
    - sellyme 5y ago
      The grandparent comment explicitly mentioned legality.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    That's a different distinction.
  - fnord77 5y ago
    reading through the FOIA document, LEO was very clear about which laws were broken.
    - dannyw 5y ago
      A charge being filed is a formal process in the legal system that has specific implications. In this instance, while a search warrant was executed, no charges were filed.
      - fnord77 5y ago
        I'm not claiming charges were filed. I'm claiming (and the docs claim) laws were broken.
- paranoidrobot 5y ago
  Yeah, this story is definitely burying the lede. The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission. That software took photos of visitors to the apple store, and transmitted it to the author. Definitely shady activity, and when the information about how the author got the photos - is entirely unsurprising that they were raided.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sellyme 5y ago
    > The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission They had at least some level of permission: > I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. [...] > We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video, and I triggered the slideshow
    - teptoria 5y ago
      this was about videoing the live reactions of people within the store at the time of the slideshow 'exhibition', not about installing the software/taking the webcam pictures
      - sellyme 5y ago
        That's the second quote, the first quote was about the software installation.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      he definitely wasn't honest about the extent of what he did - that isn't 'some level of permission' it's lying to an apple employee.
      - sellyme 5y ago
        Is there a statement from one of the involved employees that wasn't covered in the blog or is this pure speculation?
dannyw 5y ago
This is such an interesting case. People can come to many reasonable opinions about it, but I'm glad that it ended without a fuss.
- tomduncalf 5y ago
  Was going to say the same thing! I can understand the wide range of reactions and I’m not 100% sure how it makes me feel, but I think that’s perhaps the nature of art like this. Definitely an interesting project and I did like the montage of all the faces aligned in the video. Not so sure about the privacy invasion of it. Kind of a crazy story, but I don’t actually think it was unreasonable for Apple to get the secret service involved - they didn’t know the details of the project and it might have looked like someone had hacked their internal network, for example. And I’m sure even without that, you could argue this was legally sketchy.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
“I continue to work with faces” is incredible in the context of installing spyware on Apple Store computers that secretly photographs customers.
- zeckalpha 5y ago
  To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures. This was to draw attention to that fact. Perhaps the computers for public use should not take photos?
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    >To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures How so?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > This was to draw attention to that fact. Nowhere in the post do I have an indication this is trying to say "wake up Apple customers! Their imacs are taking pictures of you while you're in the store!". It's not as if people aren't already recorded 24/7 by security cameras in retail stores.
    - monkeydreams 5y ago
      And nowhere in Picasso's painting did he harangue his audience about how he was trying to reduce representational imagery down to its core and elemental features. Art works best by allowing people to discover their narrative through the piece.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    No, McDonald wrote a timelapse program that took pictures, detected faces, and uploaded them to his server. > I started working on a modified version of the timelapse application. Instead of saving to disk, it sent images to my server. And it only saved photos containing a face.
  - jabedude 5y ago
    Where is proof of the computers "already taking pictures"?
ryandrake 5y ago
> "I'm not really a computer security person, so I don't understand how that law applies here. Did Apple just call you up and say 'we want you to check this guy out'?" > "Something like that." > "Can anyone do that? Can I call you up?" > The agent who had been taking notes chimed in: "I suppose so, if you just open up the Yellow Pages we're right there, on the inside cover." Raise your hand if you've had trouble getting the police to even come out to do a report on property theft or vandalism, let alone take it seriously. But, if you're Apple, you can just call up and hire the Secret Service to go after some rando artist messing around in their stores. Another minor illustration of who the government really works for.
- ehnto 5y ago
  I don't disagree that it's a sad state of affairs, but there's really no connection between the Secret Service and local police departments. Even neighboring local police departments are entirely separate entities. I bet if you had a legitimate case that the secret service were interested in, calling that line may actually get it looked at. Whereas calling a local PD about a problem that should be relevant to them doesn't always get it looked at.
- agloeregrets 5y ago
  For what it is worth, the incredibly irresponsible and unethical Artist's actions seemed a lot closer to high class cybercrime..which the secret service actually handled at the time. The only reason he wasn't charged is because the secret service didn't see him as a national threat. If the FBI had been the one running the operation he would have been Aaron Swartzed.
  - kcimc 5y ago
    OP here. The only reason I wasn't charged is because AUSA Judith Philips refused to prosecute me. Also, Aaron Swartz was investigated by both the FBI and the USSS.
jdkee 5y ago
Obligatory: Don't Talk to Police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tux1968 5y ago
  More succinct: https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o?t=34 https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o?t=34
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Didn't seem to hurt him in this case.
  - aarchi 5y ago
    The author divulged passwords, which weren't covered by the warrant. > "Do I have to give you my password?" > "If we find something protected that we need access to, we'll have to come back." > Later I learned that there are different kinds of warrants for retrieving hardware versus getting access to secure information, or even accessing email. But I didn't know this yet. "There's no password on the Mac. It should automatically log you in to anything you need access to." It was kind of ambiguous if I had just given them the right to access my email. "There is a password on the PC. But again, there's nothing there."
- aarchi 5y ago
  It seems that if he didn't explain his motives (i.e. art, not hacking), his actions may have easily been construed differently.
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
    The state wants you to believe this, and wants you to talk. You should never talk before you've met with your legal counsel, especially when you're under the pressure of being served a warrant. Almost always, if a federal agent is asking you questions while they are executing a warrant, they have built a prosecutable case against you – potentially absent any evidence they anticipate from the search. A United States attorney has certainly looked at the case and may have already obtained an indictment. The government has expended hundreds of hours investigating you. How much have you thought about defending your actions to the feds? When a federal agent asks you questions they are looking for you to either divulge facts that they can use to strengthen their case against you, or they are looking for you to lie. You don't even need to intentionally lie: you might simply misremember facts that your investigator has reviewed intensively, you may omit something that your investigator already knows, etc. But if you do, you've made a false statement to the federal government which is a felony on its own. Your lawyer can help you explain your motives without divulging things you shouldn't. More likely, your lawyer will tell you to say nothing because "explaining your motives" is another way to say "providing a confession". You have nothing to lose from invoking your sixth. It's the only safe thing to do in this case.
pabs3 5y ago
Definitely worth reading in its entirety, especially the section on the internet comments about the project.
fouc 5y ago
The article lead me to https://vimeo.com/23651106 https://vimeo.com/23651106 (timelapse of himself staring at the computer over 3 days) which lead me to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0bM0iV0Ht8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0bM0iV0Ht8 (People Staring at Computers)
rantwasp 5y ago
yeah no. installing spyware and taking pictures of people without their consent is shady af. also the logic of “oh the apple store has glass windows” therefore i can do this illegal shit is mind boggling
- sellyme 5y ago
  It wasn't illegal, hence why no charges were ever filed.
  - agloeregrets 5y ago
    No. It wasn't the Secret Service's business. That's why he wasn't charged. If it were the FBI he could have been charged for unlawful use and a litany of other things.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    Do you think all crimes are prosecuted? There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time". Going 5-over in a 70mph zone is a good example.
    - sellyme 5y ago
      > There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time" Yes, and not many of these involve sending the secret service for a visit anyway.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        The secret service don't prosecute people. The prosecutors reviewed the evidence from their investigation, decided it was not a sure thing, and/or considered intent etc. and declined to prosecute as is their perogative.
      - 5y ago
egypturnash 5y ago
I find myself wondering how old this man was when he did this. It kinda feels like the sort of antics someone gets up to before their brain has fully developed the capacity of understanding things like "consequences". Although it got him in the NY Times and that's pretty good from the perspective of "all publicity is good publicity" I guess. He's wikinotable but neither the wikipedia page nor his website has a date of birth. The earliest work listed on his site is some Processing sketches from 2004; this piece was from 2011, seven years later.
- fossuser 5y ago
  IIRC he was a couple years out of school at the time, probably ~23-24
  - egypturnash 5y ago
    Sounds about right.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
may13noon 5y ago
Some people don't know why must not do something.
angry_octet 5y ago
The fact that a number of posters feel offended that he would 'install software that takes their picture without consent' simply highlights how necessary such art is -- most people have simply no idea how many times they are photographed each day without their consent. An artist taking a few pictures, in an incredibly public place, should barely stir a ripple in comparison. Consider if software had not been 'installed', but the browser left logged into a Zoom call, etc. Or a web page that looks like a computer game, but has camera permission. Or the feed from the dozens of surveillance cameras inside the Apple Store. At least now we can wear masks.
- titzer 5y ago
  This is like shitting on someone's car to point out the fact that...birds shit on cars. Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. The fact this software took pictures of unaware people directly right in their face is gobsmacking. But it was an "art project". At first I was pretty miffed right along with the author that the SS raided them. But with that detail, I am kinda glad they did it! Epicly stupid decision.
  - tueirueiru 5y ago
    The Secret Service is abbreviated USSS, not SS as that is associated with the Nazi Schutzstaffel.
    - titzer 5y ago
      How do you know my mistake wasn't intentional? :)
      - MrGilbert 5y ago
        That would make matters worse.
  - sellyme 5y ago
    > Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. I wouldn't have thought that the number of employees asked would be too important here (in comparison to e.g., seniority) - what's your minimum bar of different workers consulted before you'd no longer consider it a violation of Apple's property?
kunle 5y ago
"I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. It was a sign of my privilege, and of my naive faith in the system." > Systems are designed first, to benefit their creators, and subsequently their controllers, and then everyone else. Unless you designed the system, you should assume it's not designed to benefit you by default.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  As always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
  - sideshowb 5y ago
    Try using that excuse next time sometime finds a bug in your code
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      I wouldn't, because that would be a basic misunderstanding the quote.
      - sideshowb 5y ago
        What properties must a system have for the quote to be applicable then?
        djrobstep 5y ago
        Did you read the article? It’s about large scale systems like bureaucracies, rather then some piece of code.
        sideshowb 5y ago
        My question still stands. How many people must be involved in the system design for you to consider it 'large scale'?
neolog 5y ago
> And because it's the internet, there were the inevitable flames against me It's not "because it's the internet", it's because publishing images of nonconsenting people is widely disliked.
- fossuser 5y ago
  Yeah - I had a negative reaction to this in 2011, if anything it’s only soured more in time (and the artist seems even less aware of why people hated it or why he was investigated). It’s also the low quality (imo) type of art that does a disservice to the rest. Like the blank canvas art hung in the SF MOMA, it’s the stuff you roll your eyes at and ignore. A lot of the art at RPI was like that. They should have prosecuted him, maybe then his lawyers could have explained to him why what he did was wrong.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > maybe then his lawyers could have explained to him why what he did was wrong. It sounds like his lawyers recognized that what he did was so obviously not illegal or with sufficient crimnal intent that they were sure the charges would be dropped. It certainly seems like a stretch to apply the CFAA to these actions, what other laws do you think applied?
  - bagels 5y ago
    There is a difference (sometimes) between what some find unpalatable and what is illegal. Malicious prosecution for non crimes is not something I find palatable.
    - garmaine 5y ago
      There were crimes involved here. They just just weren't worth the federal prosecutor's time to take to court.
      - Miner49er 5y ago
        What crime? I can't think of any laws broken. Certainly not the CFAA and it is legal to take pictures in public places.
marsven_422 5y ago
The author have internalised the woke "I'm privileged" narrative.. sad
yupper32 5y ago
They installed spyware on someone else's computers. Of course that's illegal, regardless of whether or not the AG decided to go after them. Are people serious here? There's nothing ethical or legal going on with the blog post here. The fact that they got off is just luck. There's no whistleblowing or any other protection granted, and there shouldn't be. Period. And the worst part in my opinion is the author has no intention of not doing something like this again. They think they're in the right. Probably because they got off the first time.
- quenix 5y ago
  Wow. I found a video of this exhibition on YouTube, and it looks like what this guy installed is less pure spyware and more a remote administration tool (RAT). After he took the photos he wanted, he remotely uploaded them to every computer and forced them to be shown on-screen while people were browsing around the demo. Freaky stuff. How is installing RATs on other peoples’ computers even remotely ethical?
  - yupper32 5y ago
    For real. People here are treating them with whistleblower gloves. There's nothing of that sort going on here. Just unethical, horrible stuff.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      All kinds of unethical horrible stuff doesn't get a Secret Service raid. The whole point of the unethical horrible stuff was to get people to think about what they were doing, think about what was happening with tech and surveillance, think at all. An artist got their home raided, Cambridge Analytica - which was manipulation on an industrial scale - barely got a slapped wrist. Ad tech uses mass surveillance to build personal profiles and hardly anyone notices - because the surveillance and behaviour mod happen under the surface. Who is more unethical? Which response was proportionate?
      - yupper32 5y ago
paxys 5y ago
> In the end, if Apple hadn't so vehemently condemned the piece, it would have been resigned to live as just another quick F.A.T. Lab project, and part of my ongoing curiosity exploring computer-mediated interaction. But because they had the project taken offline, and my computer confiscated, Apple managed to give it more attention than I could have ever attracted. The reporters using headlines with "artist" in scare quotes got the media artists mad. The censorship and search warrant got the freedom of speech people mad. The feeling of privacy invasion, or just the awareness of surveillance, took care of everyone else. Apple created an amazing discussion I never could have planned. Sounds about right
- ant6n 5y ago
  This phrasing of „vehemently condemned“ is a bit odd. It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down. Even in the author’s own admission, they could have given him much more trouble. It seems reasonable for Apple not to give their blessing to this sort of project, both to „protect“ their customers and discourage the installation of what looks like malware on a bunch of their computers. I guess Apple also reported the artist to the secret service, but given that he installed what appeared to be Malware on a bunch of computers, it’s not an entirely unreasonable response. The artist probably knew that if he’d been straightforward with Apple about the project he wanted to do and asked for permission for it, rather than vaguely asking whether he can take some pictures/video, he wouldn’t have gotten permission. In the end it seems like it mostly worked out. The artist got to do the project, and only got a little trouble for operating what many would consider a legal grey zone, and he got a buch of discussion and exposure from it.
  - Cheezemansam 5y ago
    >It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down. Sending law enforcement to confiscate their belongings seems pretty in line with "vehemently condemned". Personally I don't think his art project was entirely ethically in the clear so to speak, but this seems like nitpicky semantics considering they sent him a legal nastygram that referenced a criminal investigation that they themselves initiated. >"Those violations of the CFAA give rise to a civil cause of action by Apple, and the display of the images and video is causing ongoing harm to Apple. There is also a criminal investigation related to those violations of the CFAA. Furthermore, the images and video may violate the privacy/publicity rights of the individuals pictured therein, including but not limited to Apple employees."
ggm 5y ago
Has a strong vibe of "I never asked myself if I should do something, having discovered that I could do something" which is ever-present in a lot of creative work. The self-censorship implicit in "should" tends to make people go no, but sometimes, you do have to wonder if yes might have been better. (yes as in Yes, I should think twice about doing this) Its not "piss christ" (Serrano) or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, but it has a similar vibe to me: The transgressive quality of what he did, obviously partly appealed. The consequences of annoying people didn't, until was too late. Now in the case of Serrano and Jyllands-Posten, one was just being offensive to make a point, the other paid the ultimate price. What if e.g. it was "accidentally outing US secret forces because you map where fitbit are via the GPS leak"
nairodd 5y ago
just curious: if books had a webcam built into them, would the pictures of people staring at them look different? Discuss.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > if books had a webcam built into them Amazon is way ahead of you on this one, the Kindle Fire HD has had a camera since 2012. > would the pictures of people staring at them look different? I would suspect not, apart from being taken at far less flattering angles.
  - paxys 5y ago
    Kindle Fire is a pretty generic Android tablet. No Kindle e-reader has a camera (yet).
yarcob 5y ago
The most curious thing about this project is how people seem to have a visceral reaction to having photos of them made without their permission; but having their activity tracked online hardly evokes the same reaction. It's weird. What harm is a random picture of my face in public going to do? But still some people worry so much about that. Whereas only very few people show the same reaction to the fact that Google stores a copy of every word you typed into their search field ever. Or that Apple stores a copy of every message I have sent to a loved one with my phone on their servers. We accept that our most private thoughts are being captured, analyzed, sold; but the outrage is about someone taking an anonymous photo of us in a public setting.
- mjhagen 5y ago
  > Or that Apple stores a copy of every message I have sent to a loved one with my phone on their servers. Unencrypted, for them to see?
  - yarcob 5y ago
    I hope it's not completely unencrypted, but they definitely have access to iCloud backups and will provide your data to law enforcement.
  - developer2 5y ago
    The encryption/decryption keys for your iMessages are stored with Apple, and are accessible to them. If you have iCloud Backup enabled, Apple–and thus law enforcement–can in fact decrypt them. A while back, Apple was aiming to transition to store iMessage backups using a more secure method; ie. the same method that some other content such as Health data is stored, which uses encryption keys derived using local info such as your macOS or iOS password. The FBI requested Apple not to make this change, and Apple complied. Apple runs a great PR game when they talk about privacy, but the reality is nowhere near the same. Some things are fully encrypted so that Apple cannot decrypt, while other things are not safe to store with them. iMessage falls into the latter bucket. Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
in Kashmir at least, there is a big thing about "Six months later, I still get nervous when I hear an unexpected knock." this late night knocking has been connected with bad omen because for the past 30 odd years, many homes have gotten bad news of their loved ones being killed or they having disappeared. that said, if you have to go to a neighbour house, or a friends house, you never just go and knock. people might faint or have a heart attack. instead you call first or just wait till morning.
- kcimc 5y ago
  OP here. Thank you for sharing this. I'm lucky in that this is the only bad knock I've had. And after a few years this effect slowly disappeared for me.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    Thanks for reading. If you have the time, https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/09/11/everyone-lives-fear/patterns-impunity-jammu-and-kashmir https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/09/11/everyone-lives-fear/pa... Found this just now. There is a line "Suspicion and fear continue to permeate the Kashmir valley. A knock on the door late at night sends spasms of anxiety through households, afraid that a family member will be asked by the security forces or militants to step outside for "a minute" and then never return." They have put it better than me but the idea is the same. People hear dread the knock and that is somehow a part of our identity and culture now
alexashka 5y ago
It seems highly petty to let people install and run random software and then try to bully them with legal action when they take you up on it. Don't they have a term for it? Entrapment? Also, what a great legal system where if you have money, you can bully people who don't for years on end.
- amatecha 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't get it either. I always thought it was a pretty questionable idea that they have completely unprotected computers that they let anyone just walk in and use. I wonder if that's still the case. When you implicitly suggest "do whatever you want on these computers" (by having zero security or limited features whatsoever, nor any verbal or written ToS or even vaguely-suggested "house rules"), and let someone download and install software on every computer in the store (?!??), I don't see how they can later turn around and say "hey, but not that like that!" and call the Secret Service.
  - Liquid_Fire 5y ago
    If a shop has free samples, I would reasonably assume you are welcome to take one or two to try to see if you would consider buying. But I wouldn't reasonably assume they would be OK with me taking all of the samples, even if there wasn't a sign saying so, or any mechanism preventing me from taking all of it. Just the same, it seems reasonable to me that Apple leave the computers unprotected so that customers can try out software on them before buying. It does not seem reasonable to me to install software to secretly take photos of other customers for an art project, whether or not it is explicitly stated. Note that I'm not saying calling the Secret Service is an appropriate reaction to this; just that it is ethically questionable, if not outright illegal.
MaanuAir 5y ago
Any tools suggestion, to timelapse me as author did, including video conferencing sessions?
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I'm sure there are command-line tools that would take a picture and save it as a file. Put that in a loop with a "sleep 60" in between (or whatever delay you want) and you're done.
i_dont_know_ 5y ago
This reminds me of a random, but chilling, scene in "Minority Report". The protagonist confronts a man he thinks is responsible for killing his child. The man decides to reassure the protagonist by explaining how kind he was to the child, and made sure the child didn't suffer when he killed him. He's presenting it as though this is a legitimate defense for such an obvious violation. The part that sticks with me is the man's seeming sincerity in believing he's making a case for himself, "yeah I did this horrible thing, but I did it in the nicest way possible so it's really kinda big of me if you think about it" This post fills me with the same chills. The author's utter lack of culpability for such a viscerally gross violation and strange attempts to spin it as though he's kind of a good person for doing it in a slightly less terrible way than he could have otherwise done it... To be clear, he didn't go out and do a security research project with ethical standards in place. He made it clear how laughable he considers the concept of 'consent' (an ethical way to do this might've been to take people's pictures, then ask them if they were OK with sharing it right after. He doesn't consider such a process at all) Instead, he thought of an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent, for his own pleasure, curiosity, and amusement and decided to call it 'art'. There are more horrible ways he could have done the above, sure. But that argument to me sounds as hollow as the "but he didn't suffer" argument from the movie. Him expressing his own sense of magnanimousness and ironic sense of victimhood at the end of it... it really is a scary glimpse into the mind of such people. It's sad because it's very easy to misconstrue this as a "security researcher gets feds sent on him by apple" story, and I think lots of people are basically trying to frame it that way, but it's not that at all. To me, it's clearly "jackass doesn't understand consent, apple calls the feds, still a jackass, still doesn't understand". [Note: yes I know the character in the movie is revealed as a bluff shortly after, the scene sticks with me because of the character's apparent sincerity at the moment] [Additional Note: yes I know many of these companies also don't respect consent. Them not respecting it is not an excuse for everyone to behave the same way.]
- mighty_bander 5y ago
  You're comparing a guy who took pictures of people in an Apple store to a child murderer? I have difficulty with this analogy.
- 5y ago
fareesh 5y ago
Made me think of this https://obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com/ https://obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com/
thinkingemote 5y ago
The response on HN is explained by the introductory text in the article. This project was done *before Snowdon* way back in 2011. We all here, and the world generally, were different back then.
bambax 5y ago
> In 2011 I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. Well, law enforcement's first job is to protect property, not people.
codingcodger 5y ago
I'd be interested to see a piece of paper's view of someone writing. Eg a letter. Just to see what, if any, difference there would be. Mostly to get some indication of how zoned out we get when we use screens versus a book made of paper. On a side note: how many people here use webcam covers to block that camera? I do. But how many people block their phone's selfie camera as well? Shouldn't we be more careful about that?
lionkor 5y ago
This led me down such a deep rabbit hole, including 3rdi and so much more... Damn. Thank you for sharing this :O
roland35 5y ago
Don't mess with other people's computers is the TL;DR lesson from this post.
enimodas 5y ago
Reminds me of one of my favorite pieces of art of the 21th century: surveillance camera man: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/
- brutusborn 5y ago
  I found myself laughing at this but also feeling uncomfortable. The way he calmly evades people's questions and just continues on is impressive.
- dua2020 5y ago
  This is such an elegant, insightful, funny and thrilling piece!
- merpnderp 5y ago
  This is the kind of asshole abusing the protections and courtesies of civil society and ruining it for everyone. In most places I’ve lived, he’d have been physically assaulted in short order.
  - enimodas 5y ago
    You don't see the parallels to security cameras?
    - merpnderp 5y ago
      Only the barest, most superficial.
- SamBam 5y ago
  This is really good. I could only stomach the first half because of the awkwardness, but that's exactly the point: > "Excuse me, you don't take a video without asking." Exactly.
- hammock 5y ago
  Some soft Tom Green stuff right here
jl2718 5y ago
>>> "What is your day job, Kyle?" "This is my day job. I'm a media artist, I just write a lot of code. I spend most of my time making open source tools with other people." "But how do you make money?" "I get commissions, grants, and live off artist fees from exhibiting work. I fly to conferences and festivals and do workshops and presentations. Sometimes I'll do residencies." <<< This agent and I are both having a ‘Deuce Bigalow’ moment over this. But seriously, is this just bohemian speak for some other source of financial support, or is it actually realistic to make a big city living this way?
- dale_glass 5y ago
  My brother lives in a well known capital city, and does it like this. He does a bit of everything: illustration, graphics for games, teaching, work for hire, etc. As I understand it, it doesn't pay amazingly well, but he manages. Pretty sure it's a more stressful way of making a living than just working a normal job. Living in a "big city" doesn't mean you're rich. There's cheaper parts of the city, studio apartments, flatmates, and saving up what you can.
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    My cousin does something like this as well. I do not, I'm a full-time engineer, family breadwinner, and a homeowner. We talked about our respective budgets a few months ago...they could not be more different. He doesn't have any of the major line items on my monthly budget, which requires on the order of $2,500/mo at a bare minimum, which is easily met by working for 40 hours a week and drawing a dependable paycheck. He does odd jobs, usually various forms of graphic design with Photoshop or Illustrator - making up new menus for a restaurant, logos or website headers and design elements for a small business, T-shirt design for a church retreat or sports league, photoshopping a portrait for someone's anniversary, anything where you'd want someone 'artsy' but don't know who to call. A job might be between $50 and $500, the jobs and contacts come and go. Sometimes he's busy day after day, sometimes he'll go weeks without a job. Weeks without a job, I say! How do you survive? Well, he sublets from a couple friends, but isn't on the lease himself; he usually keeps a month ahead of rent but sometimes can't find the money and will 'get behind', they're generally accommodating; moreso than a bank. He has no mortgage, no car, no car insurance, no car payments, doesn't need a line item for gas and car maintenance because he doesn't drive or commute, doesn't have expensive hobbies, has no cell phone bills (uses a prepaid phone that he tops up and uses as needed/as budgets allow), internet is part of his sublet room, has no TV, no garbage/recycling bills, no lawn care or other services, no home insurance...Critically, he has no health insurance - which sucks come tax season and would really suck if he wasn't a 25 year old in fine health who thinks he's invincible. Relatedly to being an invincible 25-year-old, he has no IRA or 401k. Groceries cost about $200/month, his sublet of one room costs about the same, he doesn't have any other dependents, and if you don't want them there's not really anything else that someone needs to buy. To hire any professional for much of anything costs about $500, in a big city that's basically the minimum price of a day or two of skilled labor. If he can get one job that will pay him that much in any given month, his minimum budget needs are met. Someday, he says, he'll want to move out and settle down and start on a career progression, but he's tried the 40 hour wage slave model and loathed it, and his lifestyle in the big city is fun for now. If by "big city living" you mean all the budget items you'd expect of a homeowner in a small town, but scaled up to downtown living by means of a 6-figure salary, no, this lifestyle won't pay those bills.
bla3 5y ago
(2012)
minikites 5y ago
>In 2011 I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. Many people continue to have this false belief today. Police exist to protect property and capital. Even "good" interactions with police show this. My parents had their house broken into some years ago and many valuables were stolen. The police don't care about recovering valuables, their function is to be a trusted third party for the insurance company. The current incarnation of policing needs to be abolished and any new "safety department" needs to be thought out very carefully. The current system of policing where they can execute a man on the street without consequences for the "crime" of selling single cigarettes has no place in a civil democratic society.
Causality1 5y ago
shows how deep I was into the idea of having a unified online persona I will never understand this outlook. Why would I use the same name on more than one website? Why would I ever do anything online under my real name? I suppose it would be a benefit if you were trying to get famous and make a living off being an influencer but otherwise it's incomprehensible to me.
aj7 5y ago
I see what you did, and understand your motivations. That said, I think you got off very lightly. I can think of many more causes, other than your art, that would have been more worthy of your skills and the risks taken.
gbertasius 5y ago
This is fascinating. I'm sorry for what he had to go through. Sometimes we just don't think things through before executing the idea :). Would be cool to see another attempt in various locations around the world like internet cafes or some-such places. With the blessing of the location owners of course.
ChrisArchitect 5y ago
this basically needs s (2012) Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235037
sat3492 5y ago
> At some point, Tesla founder Elon Musk came out of the woodwork on Twitter with his submarine idea, which would not have worked, as *experts analyzed later* To my knowledge Musk wanted to build a small vehicle for rescue that could not be made in time, but was the design of the vehicle was analyzed later and found by experts that it can not work? If any one knows source please do point.
xtat 5y ago
"In some ways this is a story about how I began to learn that law enforcement is there to protect some specific people (and companies), and not the general public as I imagined."
akudha 5y ago
Does it take one full year for a FOIA request to complete? Why does it take so long? On the other hand, the document does seem thorough (I only skimmed it) from a first glance

dandanua 5y ago

I never thought a person could be that naive, lol. Interesting read anyway.

mhh__ 5y ago

Terrifying.

fnord77 5y ago

While interesting, this project does not seem ethically sound. Not to mention illegal. I think the author got lucky having the case dropped.

dannyw 5y ago
No charges were ever filled here.
- liamkinne 5y ago
  Ethics != legality
  - sellyme 5y ago
    The grandparent comment explicitly mentioned legality.
- garmaine 5y ago
  That's a different distinction.
- fnord77 5y ago
  reading through the FOIA document, LEO was very clear about which laws were broken.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    A charge being filed is a formal process in the legal system that has specific implications. In this instance, while a search warrant was executed, no charges were filed.
    - fnord77 5y ago
      I'm not claiming charges were filed. I'm claiming (and the docs claim) laws were broken.
paranoidrobot 5y ago
Yeah, this story is definitely burying the lede. The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission. That software took photos of visitors to the apple store, and transmitted it to the author. Definitely shady activity, and when the information about how the author got the photos - is entirely unsurprising that they were raided.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sellyme 5y ago
  > The author installed software on computers in Apple Stores, without Apple's permission They had at least some level of permission: > I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. [...] > We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video, and I triggered the slideshow
  - teptoria 5y ago
    this was about videoing the live reactions of people within the store at the time of the slideshow 'exhibition', not about installing the software/taking the webcam pictures
    - sellyme 5y ago
      That's the second quote, the first quote was about the software installation.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    he definitely wasn't honest about the extent of what he did - that isn't 'some level of permission' it's lying to an apple employee.
    - sellyme 5y ago
      Is there a statement from one of the involved employees that wasn't covered in the blog or is this pure speculation?

dannyw 5y ago

This is such an interesting case. People can come to many reasonable opinions about it, but I'm glad that it ended without a fuss.

tomduncalf 5y ago
Was going to say the same thing! I can understand the wide range of reactions and I’m not 100% sure how it makes me feel, but I think that’s perhaps the nature of art like this. Definitely an interesting project and I did like the montage of all the faces aligned in the video. Not so sure about the privacy invasion of it. Kind of a crazy story, but I don’t actually think it was unreasonable for Apple to get the secret service involved - they didn’t know the details of the project and it might have looked like someone had hacked their internal network, for example. And I’m sure even without that, you could argue this was legally sketchy.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

“I continue to work with faces” is incredible in the context of installing spyware on Apple Store computers that secretly photographs customers.

zeckalpha 5y ago
To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures. This was to draw attention to that fact. Perhaps the computers for public use should not take photos?
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  >To be clear, the computers already were taking pictures How so?
- judge2020 5y ago
  > This was to draw attention to that fact. Nowhere in the post do I have an indication this is trying to say "wake up Apple customers! Their imacs are taking pictures of you while you're in the store!". It's not as if people aren't already recorded 24/7 by security cameras in retail stores.
  - monkeydreams 5y ago
    And nowhere in Picasso's painting did he harangue his audience about how he was trying to reduce representational imagery down to its core and elemental features. Art works best by allowing people to discover their narrative through the piece.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  No, McDonald wrote a timelapse program that took pictures, detected faces, and uploaded them to his server. > I started working on a modified version of the timelapse application. Instead of saving to disk, it sent images to my server. And it only saved photos containing a face.
- jabedude 5y ago
  Where is proof of the computers "already taking pictures"?

ryandrake 5y ago

> "I'm not really a computer security person, so I don't understand how that law applies here. Did Apple just call you up and say 'we want you to check this guy out'?" > "Something like that." > "Can anyone do that? Can I call you up?" > The agent who had been taking notes chimed in: "I suppose so, if you just open up the Yellow Pages we're right there, on the inside cover." Raise your hand if you've had trouble getting the police to even come out to do a report on property theft or vandalism, let alone take it seriously. But, if you're Apple, you can just call up and hire the Secret Service to go after some rando artist messing around in their stores. Another minor illustration of who the government really works for.

ehnto 5y ago
I don't disagree that it's a sad state of affairs, but there's really no connection between the Secret Service and local police departments. Even neighboring local police departments are entirely separate entities. I bet if you had a legitimate case that the secret service were interested in, calling that line may actually get it looked at. Whereas calling a local PD about a problem that should be relevant to them doesn't always get it looked at.
agloeregrets 5y ago
For what it is worth, the incredibly irresponsible and unethical Artist's actions seemed a lot closer to high class cybercrime..which the secret service actually handled at the time. The only reason he wasn't charged is because the secret service didn't see him as a national threat. If the FBI had been the one running the operation he would have been Aaron Swartzed.
- kcimc 5y ago
  OP here. The only reason I wasn't charged is because AUSA Judith Philips refused to prosecute me. Also, Aaron Swartz was investigated by both the FBI and the USSS.

jdkee 5y ago

Obligatory: Don't Talk to Police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tux1968 5y ago
More succinct: https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o?t=34 https://youtu.be/sgWHrkDX35o?t=34
throwawayboise 5y ago
Didn't seem to hurt him in this case.
- aarchi 5y ago
  The author divulged passwords, which weren't covered by the warrant. > "Do I have to give you my password?" > "If we find something protected that we need access to, we'll have to come back." > Later I learned that there are different kinds of warrants for retrieving hardware versus getting access to secure information, or even accessing email. But I didn't know this yet. "There's no password on the Mac. It should automatically log you in to anything you need access to." It was kind of ambiguous if I had just given them the right to access my email. "There is a password on the PC. But again, there's nothing there."
aarchi 5y ago
It seems that if he didn't explain his motives (i.e. art, not hacking), his actions may have easily been construed differently.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  The state wants you to believe this, and wants you to talk. You should never talk before you've met with your legal counsel, especially when you're under the pressure of being served a warrant. Almost always, if a federal agent is asking you questions while they are executing a warrant, they have built a prosecutable case against you – potentially absent any evidence they anticipate from the search. A United States attorney has certainly looked at the case and may have already obtained an indictment. The government has expended hundreds of hours investigating you. How much have you thought about defending your actions to the feds? When a federal agent asks you questions they are looking for you to either divulge facts that they can use to strengthen their case against you, or they are looking for you to lie. You don't even need to intentionally lie: you might simply misremember facts that your investigator has reviewed intensively, you may omit something that your investigator already knows, etc. But if you do, you've made a false statement to the federal government which is a felony on its own. Your lawyer can help you explain your motives without divulging things you shouldn't. More likely, your lawyer will tell you to say nothing because "explaining your motives" is another way to say "providing a confession". You have nothing to lose from invoking your sixth. It's the only safe thing to do in this case.

pabs3 5y ago

Definitely worth reading in its entirety, especially the section on the internet comments about the project.

fouc 5y ago

The article lead me to https://vimeo.com/23651106 https://vimeo.com/23651106 (timelapse of himself staring at the computer over 3 days) which lead me to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0bM0iV0Ht8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0bM0iV0Ht8 (People Staring at Computers)

rantwasp 5y ago

yeah no. installing spyware and taking pictures of people without their consent is shady af. also the logic of “oh the apple store has glass windows” therefore i can do this illegal shit is mind boggling

sellyme 5y ago
It wasn't illegal, hence why no charges were ever filed.
- agloeregrets 5y ago
  No. It wasn't the Secret Service's business. That's why he wasn't charged. If it were the FBI he could have been charged for unlawful use and a litany of other things.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Do you think all crimes are prosecuted? There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time". Going 5-over in a 70mph zone is a good example.
  - sellyme 5y ago
    > There are plenty of things where the cops say "its illegal, but not worth our time" Yes, and not many of these involve sending the secret service for a visit anyway.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      The secret service don't prosecute people. The prosecutors reviewed the evidence from their investigation, decided it was not a sure thing, and/or considered intent etc. and declined to prosecute as is their perogative.
    - 5y ago

egypturnash 5y ago

I find myself wondering how old this man was when he did this. It kinda feels like the sort of antics someone gets up to before their brain has fully developed the capacity of understanding things like "consequences". Although it got him in the NY Times and that's pretty good from the perspective of "all publicity is good publicity" I guess. He's wikinotable but neither the wikipedia page nor his website has a date of birth. The earliest work listed on his site is some Processing sketches from 2004; this piece was from 2011, seven years later.

fossuser 5y ago
IIRC he was a couple years out of school at the time, probably ~23-24
- egypturnash 5y ago
  Sounds about right.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

may13noon 5y ago

Some people don't know why must not do something.

angry_octet 5y ago

The fact that a number of posters feel offended that he would 'install software that takes their picture without consent' simply highlights how necessary such art is -- most people have simply no idea how many times they are photographed each day without their consent. An artist taking a few pictures, in an incredibly public place, should barely stir a ripple in comparison. Consider if software had not been 'installed', but the browser left logged into a Zoom call, etc. Or a web page that looks like a computer game, but has camera permission. Or the feed from the dozens of surveillance cameras inside the Apple Store. At least now we can wear masks.

titzer 5y ago
This is like shitting on someone's car to point out the fact that...birds shit on cars. Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. The fact this software took pictures of unaware people directly right in their face is gobsmacking. But it was an "art project". At first I was pretty miffed right along with the author that the SS raided them. But with that detail, I am kinda glad they did it! Epicly stupid decision.
- tueirueiru 5y ago
  The Secret Service is abbreviated USSS, not SS as that is associated with the Nazi Schutzstaffel.
  - titzer 5y ago
    How do you know my mistake wasn't intentional? :)
    - MrGilbert 5y ago
      That would make matters worse.
- sellyme 5y ago
  > Installing software on an entire Apple Store's set of display models because one employee supposedly "consented" is a serious violation of their property. I wouldn't have thought that the number of employees asked would be too important here (in comparison to e.g., seniority) - what's your minimum bar of different workers consulted before you'd no longer consider it a violation of Apple's property?

kunle 5y ago

"I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. It was a sign of my privilege, and of my naive faith in the system." > Systems are designed first, to benefit their creators, and subsequently their controllers, and then everyone else. Unless you designed the system, you should assume it's not designed to benefit you by default.

djrobstep 5y ago
As always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
- sideshowb 5y ago
  Try using that excuse next time sometime finds a bug in your code
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    I wouldn't, because that would be a basic misunderstanding the quote.
    - sideshowb 5y ago
      What properties must a system have for the quote to be applicable then?
      - djrobstep 5y ago
        Did you read the article? It’s about large scale systems like bureaucracies, rather then some piece of code.
        sideshowb 5y ago
        My question still stands. How many people must be involved in the system design for you to consider it 'large scale'?

neolog 5y ago

> And because it's the internet, there were the inevitable flames against me It's not "because it's the internet", it's because publishing images of nonconsenting people is widely disliked.

fossuser 5y ago
Yeah - I had a negative reaction to this in 2011, if anything it’s only soured more in time (and the artist seems even less aware of why people hated it or why he was investigated). It’s also the low quality (imo) type of art that does a disservice to the rest. Like the blank canvas art hung in the SF MOMA, it’s the stuff you roll your eyes at and ignore. A lot of the art at RPI was like that. They should have prosecuted him, maybe then his lawyers could have explained to him why what he did was wrong.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > maybe then his lawyers could have explained to him why what he did was wrong. It sounds like his lawyers recognized that what he did was so obviously not illegal or with sufficient crimnal intent that they were sure the charges would be dropped. It certainly seems like a stretch to apply the CFAA to these actions, what other laws do you think applied?
- bagels 5y ago
  There is a difference (sometimes) between what some find unpalatable and what is illegal. Malicious prosecution for non crimes is not something I find palatable.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    There were crimes involved here. They just just weren't worth the federal prosecutor's time to take to court.
    - Miner49er 5y ago
      What crime? I can't think of any laws broken. Certainly not the CFAA and it is legal to take pictures in public places.

marsven_422 5y ago

The author have internalised the woke "I'm privileged" narrative.. sad

yupper32 5y ago

They installed spyware on someone else's computers. Of course that's illegal, regardless of whether or not the AG decided to go after them. Are people serious here? There's nothing ethical or legal going on with the blog post here. The fact that they got off is just luck. There's no whistleblowing or any other protection granted, and there shouldn't be. Period. And the worst part in my opinion is the author has no intention of not doing something like this again. They think they're in the right. Probably because they got off the first time.

quenix 5y ago
Wow. I found a video of this exhibition on YouTube, and it looks like what this guy installed is less pure spyware and more a remote administration tool (RAT). After he took the photos he wanted, he remotely uploaded them to every computer and forced them to be shown on-screen while people were browsing around the demo. Freaky stuff. How is installing RATs on other peoples’ computers even remotely ethical?
- yupper32 5y ago
  For real. People here are treating them with whistleblower gloves. There's nothing of that sort going on here. Just unethical, horrible stuff.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    All kinds of unethical horrible stuff doesn't get a Secret Service raid. The whole point of the unethical horrible stuff was to get people to think about what they were doing, think about what was happening with tech and surveillance, think at all. An artist got their home raided, Cambridge Analytica - which was manipulation on an industrial scale - barely got a slapped wrist. Ad tech uses mass surveillance to build personal profiles and hardly anyone notices - because the surveillance and behaviour mod happen under the surface. Who is more unethical? Which response was proportionate?
    - yupper32 5y ago

paxys 5y ago

> In the end, if Apple hadn't so vehemently condemned the piece, it would have been resigned to live as just another quick F.A.T. Lab project, and part of my ongoing curiosity exploring computer-mediated interaction. But because they had the project taken offline, and my computer confiscated, Apple managed to give it more attention than I could have ever attracted. The reporters using headlines with "artist" in scare quotes got the media artists mad. The censorship and search warrant got the freedom of speech people mad. The feeling of privacy invasion, or just the awareness of surveillance, took care of everyone else. Apple created an amazing discussion I never could have planned. Sounds about right

ant6n 5y ago
This phrasing of „vehemently condemned“ is a bit odd. It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down. Even in the author’s own admission, they could have given him much more trouble. It seems reasonable for Apple not to give their blessing to this sort of project, both to „protect“ their customers and discourage the installation of what looks like malware on a bunch of their computers. I guess Apple also reported the artist to the secret service, but given that he installed what appeared to be Malware on a bunch of computers, it’s not an entirely unreasonable response. The artist probably knew that if he’d been straightforward with Apple about the project he wanted to do and asked for permission for it, rather than vaguely asking whether he can take some pictures/video, he wouldn’t have gotten permission. In the end it seems like it mostly worked out. The artist got to do the project, and only got a little trouble for operating what many would consider a legal grey zone, and he got a buch of discussion and exposure from it.
- Cheezemansam 5y ago
  >It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down. Sending law enforcement to confiscate their belongings seems pretty in line with "vehemently condemned". Personally I don't think his art project was entirely ethically in the clear so to speak, but this seems like nitpicky semantics considering they sent him a legal nastygram that referenced a criminal investigation that they themselves initiated. >"Those violations of the CFAA give rise to a civil cause of action by Apple, and the display of the images and video is causing ongoing harm to Apple. There is also a criminal investigation related to those violations of the CFAA. Furthermore, the images and video may violate the privacy/publicity rights of the individuals pictured therein, including but not limited to Apple employees."

ggm 5y ago

Has a strong vibe of "I never asked myself if I should do something, having discovered that I could do something" which is ever-present in a lot of creative work. The self-censorship implicit in "should" tends to make people go no, but sometimes, you do have to wonder if yes might have been better. (yes as in Yes, I should think twice about doing this) Its not "piss christ" (Serrano) or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, but it has a similar vibe to me: The transgressive quality of what he did, obviously partly appealed. The consequences of annoying people didn't, until was too late. Now in the case of Serrano and Jyllands-Posten, one was just being offensive to make a point, the other paid the ultimate price. What if e.g. it was "accidentally outing US secret forces because you map where fitbit are via the GPS leak"

nairodd 5y ago

just curious: if books had a webcam built into them, would the pictures of people staring at them look different? Discuss.

sellyme 5y ago
> if books had a webcam built into them Amazon is way ahead of you on this one, the Kindle Fire HD has had a camera since 2012. > would the pictures of people staring at them look different? I would suspect not, apart from being taken at far less flattering angles.
- paxys 5y ago
  Kindle Fire is a pretty generic Android tablet. No Kindle e-reader has a camera (yet).

yarcob 5y ago

The most curious thing about this project is how people seem to have a visceral reaction to having photos of them made without their permission; but having their activity tracked online hardly evokes the same reaction. It's weird. What harm is a random picture of my face in public going to do? But still some people worry so much about that. Whereas only very few people show the same reaction to the fact that Google stores a copy of every word you typed into their search field ever. Or that Apple stores a copy of every message I have sent to a loved one with my phone on their servers. We accept that our most private thoughts are being captured, analyzed, sold; but the outrage is about someone taking an anonymous photo of us in a public setting.

mjhagen 5y ago
> Or that Apple stores a copy of every message I have sent to a loved one with my phone on their servers. Unencrypted, for them to see?
- yarcob 5y ago
  I hope it's not completely unencrypted, but they definitely have access to iCloud backups and will provide your data to law enforcement.
- developer2 5y ago
  The encryption/decryption keys for your iMessages are stored with Apple, and are accessible to them. If you have iCloud Backup enabled, Apple–and thus law enforcement–can in fact decrypt them. A while back, Apple was aiming to transition to store iMessage backups using a more secure method; ie. the same method that some other content such as Health data is stored, which uses encryption keys derived using local info such as your macOS or iOS password. The FBI requested Apple not to make this change, and Apple complied. Apple runs a great PR game when they talk about privacy, but the reality is nowhere near the same. Some things are fully encrypted so that Apple cannot decrypt, while other things are not safe to store with them. iMessage falls into the latter bucket. Source: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

in Kashmir at least, there is a big thing about "Six months later, I still get nervous when I hear an unexpected knock." this late night knocking has been connected with bad omen because for the past 30 odd years, many homes have gotten bad news of their loved ones being killed or they having disappeared. that said, if you have to go to a neighbour house, or a friends house, you never just go and knock. people might faint or have a heart attack. instead you call first or just wait till morning.

kcimc 5y ago
OP here. Thank you for sharing this. I'm lucky in that this is the only bad knock I've had. And after a few years this effect slowly disappeared for me.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  Thanks for reading. If you have the time, https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/09/11/everyone-lives-fear/patterns-impunity-jammu-and-kashmir https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/09/11/everyone-lives-fear/pa... Found this just now. There is a line "Suspicion and fear continue to permeate the Kashmir valley. A knock on the door late at night sends spasms of anxiety through households, afraid that a family member will be asked by the security forces or militants to step outside for "a minute" and then never return." They have put it better than me but the idea is the same. People hear dread the knock and that is somehow a part of our identity and culture now

alexashka 5y ago

It seems highly petty to let people install and run random software and then try to bully them with legal action when they take you up on it. Don't they have a term for it? Entrapment? Also, what a great legal system where if you have money, you can bully people who don't for years on end.

amatecha 5y ago
Yeah, I don't get it either. I always thought it was a pretty questionable idea that they have completely unprotected computers that they let anyone just walk in and use. I wonder if that's still the case. When you implicitly suggest "do whatever you want on these computers" (by having zero security or limited features whatsoever, nor any verbal or written ToS or even vaguely-suggested "house rules"), and let someone download and install software on every computer in the store (?!??), I don't see how they can later turn around and say "hey, but not that like that!" and call the Secret Service.
- Liquid_Fire 5y ago
  If a shop has free samples, I would reasonably assume you are welcome to take one or two to try to see if you would consider buying. But I wouldn't reasonably assume they would be OK with me taking all of the samples, even if there wasn't a sign saying so, or any mechanism preventing me from taking all of it. Just the same, it seems reasonable to me that Apple leave the computers unprotected so that customers can try out software on them before buying. It does not seem reasonable to me to install software to secretly take photos of other customers for an art project, whether or not it is explicitly stated. Note that I'm not saying calling the Secret Service is an appropriate reaction to this; just that it is ethically questionable, if not outright illegal.

MaanuAir 5y ago

Any tools suggestion, to timelapse me as author did, including video conferencing sessions?

Nextgrid 5y ago
I'm sure there are command-line tools that would take a picture and save it as a file. Put that in a loop with a "sleep 60" in between (or whatever delay you want) and you're done.

i_dont_know_ 5y ago

This reminds me of a random, but chilling, scene in "Minority Report". The protagonist confronts a man he thinks is responsible for killing his child. The man decides to reassure the protagonist by explaining how kind he was to the child, and made sure the child didn't suffer when he killed him. He's presenting it as though this is a legitimate defense for such an obvious violation. The part that sticks with me is the man's seeming sincerity in believing he's making a case for himself, "yeah I did this horrible thing, but I did it in the nicest way possible so it's really kinda big of me if you think about it" This post fills me with the same chills. The author's utter lack of culpability for such a viscerally gross violation and strange attempts to spin it as though he's kind of a good person for doing it in a slightly less terrible way than he could have otherwise done it... To be clear, he didn't go out and do a security research project with ethical standards in place. He made it clear how laughable he considers the concept of 'consent' (an ethical way to do this might've been to take people's pictures, then ask them if they were OK with sharing it right after. He doesn't consider such a process at all) Instead, he thought of an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent, for his own pleasure, curiosity, and amusement and decided to call it 'art'. There are more horrible ways he could have done the above, sure. But that argument to me sounds as hollow as the "but he didn't suffer" argument from the movie. Him expressing his own sense of magnanimousness and ironic sense of victimhood at the end of it... it really is a scary glimpse into the mind of such people. It's sad because it's very easy to misconstrue this as a "security researcher gets feds sent on him by apple" story, and I think lots of people are basically trying to frame it that way, but it's not that at all. To me, it's clearly "jackass doesn't understand consent, apple calls the feds, still a jackass, still doesn't understand". [Note: yes I know the character in the movie is revealed as a bluff shortly after, the scene sticks with me because of the character's apparent sincerity at the moment] [Additional Note: yes I know many of these companies also don't respect consent. Them not respecting it is not an excuse for everyone to behave the same way.]

mighty_bander 5y ago
You're comparing a guy who took pictures of people in an Apple store to a child murderer? I have difficulty with this analogy.
5y ago

fareesh 5y ago

Made me think of this https://obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com/ https://obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com/

thinkingemote 5y ago

The response on HN is explained by the introductory text in the article. This project was done *before Snowdon* way back in 2011. We all here, and the world generally, were different back then.

bambax 5y ago

> In 2011 I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. Well, law enforcement's first job is to protect property, not people.

codingcodger 5y ago

I'd be interested to see a piece of paper's view of someone writing. Eg a letter. Just to see what, if any, difference there would be. Mostly to get some indication of how zoned out we get when we use screens versus a book made of paper. On a side note: how many people here use webcam covers to block that camera? I do. But how many people block their phone's selfie camera as well? Shouldn't we be more careful about that?

lionkor 5y ago

This led me down such a deep rabbit hole, including 3rdi and so much more... Damn. Thank you for sharing this :O

roland35 5y ago

Don't mess with other people's computers is the TL;DR lesson from this post.

enimodas 5y ago

Reminds me of one of my favorite pieces of art of the 21th century: surveillance camera man: https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/

brutusborn 5y ago
I found myself laughing at this but also feeling uncomfortable. The way he calmly evades people's questions and just continues on is impressive.
dua2020 5y ago
This is such an elegant, insightful, funny and thrilling piece!
merpnderp 5y ago
This is the kind of asshole abusing the protections and courtesies of civil society and ruining it for everyone. In most places I’ve lived, he’d have been physically assaulted in short order.
- enimodas 5y ago
  You don't see the parallels to security cameras?
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    Only the barest, most superficial.
SamBam 5y ago
This is really good. I could only stomach the first half because of the awkwardness, but that's exactly the point: > "Excuse me, you don't take a video without asking." Exactly.
hammock 5y ago
Some soft Tom Green stuff right here

jl2718 5y ago

>>> "What is your day job, Kyle?" "This is my day job. I'm a media artist, I just write a lot of code. I spend most of my time making open source tools with other people." "But how do you make money?" "I get commissions, grants, and live off artist fees from exhibiting work. I fly to conferences and festivals and do workshops and presentations. Sometimes I'll do residencies." <<< This agent and I are both having a ‘Deuce Bigalow’ moment over this. But seriously, is this just bohemian speak for some other source of financial support, or is it actually realistic to make a big city living this way?

dale_glass 5y ago
My brother lives in a well known capital city, and does it like this. He does a bit of everything: illustration, graphics for games, teaching, work for hire, etc. As I understand it, it doesn't pay amazingly well, but he manages. Pretty sure it's a more stressful way of making a living than just working a normal job. Living in a "big city" doesn't mean you're rich. There's cheaper parts of the city, studio apartments, flatmates, and saving up what you can.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  My cousin does something like this as well. I do not, I'm a full-time engineer, family breadwinner, and a homeowner. We talked about our respective budgets a few months ago...they could not be more different. He doesn't have any of the major line items on my monthly budget, which requires on the order of $2,500/mo at a bare minimum, which is easily met by working for 40 hours a week and drawing a dependable paycheck. He does odd jobs, usually various forms of graphic design with Photoshop or Illustrator - making up new menus for a restaurant, logos or website headers and design elements for a small business, T-shirt design for a church retreat or sports league, photoshopping a portrait for someone's anniversary, anything where you'd want someone 'artsy' but don't know who to call. A job might be between $50 and $500, the jobs and contacts come and go. Sometimes he's busy day after day, sometimes he'll go weeks without a job. Weeks without a job, I say! How do you survive? Well, he sublets from a couple friends, but isn't on the lease himself; he usually keeps a month ahead of rent but sometimes can't find the money and will 'get behind', they're generally accommodating; moreso than a bank. He has no mortgage, no car, no car insurance, no car payments, doesn't need a line item for gas and car maintenance because he doesn't drive or commute, doesn't have expensive hobbies, has no cell phone bills (uses a prepaid phone that he tops up and uses as needed/as budgets allow), internet is part of his sublet room, has no TV, no garbage/recycling bills, no lawn care or other services, no home insurance...Critically, he has no health insurance - which sucks come tax season and would really suck if he wasn't a 25 year old in fine health who thinks he's invincible. Relatedly to being an invincible 25-year-old, he has no IRA or 401k. Groceries cost about $200/month, his sublet of one room costs about the same, he doesn't have any other dependents, and if you don't want them there's not really anything else that someone needs to buy. To hire any professional for much of anything costs about $500, in a big city that's basically the minimum price of a day or two of skilled labor. If he can get one job that will pay him that much in any given month, his minimum budget needs are met. Someday, he says, he'll want to move out and settle down and start on a career progression, but he's tried the 40 hour wage slave model and loathed it, and his lifestyle in the big city is fun for now. If by "big city living" you mean all the budget items you'd expect of a homeowner in a small town, but scaled up to downtown living by means of a 6-figure salary, no, this lifestyle won't pay those bills.

bla3 5y ago

(2012)

minikites 5y ago

>In 2011 I was still under the false belief that all varieties of law enforcement are designed to protect the public from harm. Many people continue to have this false belief today. Police exist to protect property and capital. Even "good" interactions with police show this. My parents had their house broken into some years ago and many valuables were stolen. The police don't care about recovering valuables, their function is to be a trusted third party for the insurance company. The current incarnation of policing needs to be abolished and any new "safety department" needs to be thought out very carefully. The current system of policing where they can execute a man on the street without consequences for the "crime" of selling single cigarettes has no place in a civil democratic society.

Causality1 5y ago

shows how deep I was into the idea of having a unified online persona I will never understand this outlook. Why would I use the same name on more than one website? Why would I ever do anything online under my real name? I suppose it would be a benefit if you were trying to get famous and make a living off being an influencer but otherwise it's incomprehensible to me.

aj7 5y ago

I see what you did, and understand your motivations. That said, I think you got off very lightly. I can think of many more causes, other than your art, that would have been more worthy of your skills and the risks taken.

gbertasius 5y ago

This is fascinating. I'm sorry for what he had to go through. Sometimes we just don't think things through before executing the idea :). Would be cool to see another attempt in various locations around the world like internet cafes or some-such places. With the blessing of the location owners of course.

ChrisArchitect 5y ago

this basically needs s (2012) Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235037 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4235037

sat3492 5y ago

> At some point, Tesla founder Elon Musk came out of the woodwork on Twitter with his submarine idea, which would not have worked, as *experts analyzed later* To my knowledge Musk wanted to build a small vehicle for rescue that could not be made in time, but was the design of the vehicle was analyzed later and found by experts that it can not work? If any one knows source please do point.

xtat 5y ago

"In some ways this is a story about how I began to learn that law enforcement is there to protect some specific people (and companies), and not the general public as I imagined."

akudha 5y ago

Does it take one full year for a FOIA request to complete? Why does it take so long? On the other hand, the document does seem thorough (I only skimmed it) from a first glance