5 ms·

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

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.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      There's plentt of things that cops (including Secret Service) do an initial review of and find that it is probably criminal but not a priority to do the legwork to even get a prosecutor involved, or that they do minimal legwork, and get a prosecutor involved who decides that its criminal but not a prosecutorial priority.
- judge2020 5y ago
  It likely was illegal, just not something the USSS or Apple wanted to spend the legal fees fighting - they wanted to make sure this person wasn't part of some hacker or terrorist group trying to gather data or scare off people from going in the Apple store.
- yupper32 5y ago
  If I took your computer and installed spyware without your consent, that would be legal? Absolutely incorrect. Where do you get this idea from?
  - sellyme 5y ago
    > without your consent The author mentions getting consent from Apple employees on multiple occasions. If you asked me if you could install spyware on my computer and I said "yes", then of course it would be legal.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      I'm rather amazed that it's possible to install software on public computers in the Apple Store. And since it apparently is (or was), that this sort of thing was not happening daily.
      - clort 5y ago
        To be clear, everybody who had the opportunity back in the day "installed software" on computers in public stores: 10 PRINT "Hello" 20 GOTO 10
      - SirSourdough 5y ago
        The ease with which he was able to install the spyware on an entire store worth of computers is significantly more troubling to me than the fact that he did. I'm sure a shocking number of people input login credentials on those computers. More malicious code could do far more harm than just take a picture of your face.
    - yupper32 5y ago
      Bull. Shit. "We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video" There was no consent to install software onto their computers. They just tried to find some consent loophole.
      - 5y ago
- rantwasp 5y ago
  IANAL but this sounds pretty illegal to me. It's illegal even if you do this to one computer. Doing it to all computers in the store without asking?
  - sellyme 5y ago
    The author seems to have asked: > I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee
    - kristiandupont 5y ago
      Installing spyware on store computers isn't something you "just double check" about. To me that implies that he did not make it clear to the employee what he intended to do. In addition to which, I doubt some random store worker would have the authority to allow this.
shkkmo 5y ago
It's just not the "glass windows": > And I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. McDonald recieved permission to take photos, he just didn't disclose how he would take the photo or what he would use them for. If there is anything unethical here, it is how the pictures were taken and why (and lack of disclosure thereof), not the taking of photos itself.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  nah. it's the difference between your phone being intercepted when the police have a warrant and mass surveillance. In no world, no matter how poorly trained this hypothetical apple employee that allegedly gave them permission is, they would have not agreed to this.

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.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    There's plentt of things that cops (including Secret Service) do an initial review of and find that it is probably criminal but not a priority to do the legwork to even get a prosecutor involved, or that they do minimal legwork, and get a prosecutor involved who decides that its criminal but not a prosecutorial priority.
judge2020 5y ago
It likely was illegal, just not something the USSS or Apple wanted to spend the legal fees fighting - they wanted to make sure this person wasn't part of some hacker or terrorist group trying to gather data or scare off people from going in the Apple store.
yupper32 5y ago
If I took your computer and installed spyware without your consent, that would be legal? Absolutely incorrect. Where do you get this idea from?
- sellyme 5y ago
  > without your consent The author mentions getting consent from Apple employees on multiple occasions. If you asked me if you could install spyware on my computer and I said "yes", then of course it would be legal.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    I'm rather amazed that it's possible to install software on public computers in the Apple Store. And since it apparently is (or was), that this sort of thing was not happening daily.
    - clort 5y ago
      To be clear, everybody who had the opportunity back in the day "installed software" on computers in public stores: 10 PRINT "Hello" 20 GOTO 10
    - SirSourdough 5y ago
      The ease with which he was able to install the spyware on an entire store worth of computers is significantly more troubling to me than the fact that he did. I'm sure a shocking number of people input login credentials on those computers. More malicious code could do far more harm than just take a picture of your face.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    Bull. Shit. "We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video" There was no consent to install software onto their computers. They just tried to find some consent loophole.
    - 5y ago
rantwasp 5y ago
IANAL but this sounds pretty illegal to me. It's illegal even if you do this to one computer. Doing it to all computers in the store without asking?
- sellyme 5y ago
  The author seems to have asked: > I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee
  - kristiandupont 5y ago
    Installing spyware on store computers isn't something you "just double check" about. To me that implies that he did not make it clear to the employee what he intended to do. In addition to which, I doubt some random store worker would have the authority to allow this.

shkkmo 5y ago

It's just not the "glass windows": > And I saw people taking pictures inside all the time, so I just had to double check with an employee. McDonald recieved permission to take photos, he just didn't disclose how he would take the photo or what he would use them for. If there is anything unethical here, it is how the pictures were taken and why (and lack of disclosure thereof), not the taking of photos itself.

rantwasp 5y ago
nah. it's the difference between your phone being intercepted when the police have a warrant and mass surveillance. In no world, no matter how poorly trained this hypothetical apple employee that allegedly gave them permission is, they would have not agreed to this.