4 ms·
"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
by 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 agoAs 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 agoTry using that excuse next time sometime finds a bug in your code
- djrobstep 5y agoI wouldn't, because that would be a basic misunderstanding the quote.
- sideshowb 5y agoWhat properties must a system have for the quote to be applicable then?
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoI don't understand it either. What's that quote supposed to mean? Systems can and do have unintended consequences, surely.
- marcosdumay 5y agoIt's really recommended that anybody not getting it to read the article. You won't get a good TLDR. But yeah, systems can not have unintended consequences because systems do not have intentions. It's people who have intentions, and those are not additive properties. (And, well, you can't simply add additive properties into system ones either.)
- jakelazaroff 5y agoNo, it still applies. What types of bug fixes and features get prioritized? Are certain features gated? Are there use cases considered too niche to support? Nothing exists in a vacuum. The "system" isn't just the code — it's also the organization that writes and supports the software.
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoThe author was caught installing a remote administration tool on someone else’s computers and using that RAT to take surreptitious photos of the computers’ users which he then posted online for personal gain. Seems to me that the legal system was working as designed here, protecting the public from this individual’s actions. It’s strange that he’s getting a free pass in the HN comments for hijacking computers, stealing candid photos, then publishing those online. It seems the author is the only person in this story who didn’t get violated. He’s not the hero.
- whydoineedthis 5y agoexcept - his software didn't have any remote administrative capabilities. - all photographers take pictures in public and then post them for profit, there is nothing new about that whatsoever. - There were no disclaimers on the computers in Apple's store that would prevent him from installing such software. Matter of fact, they are available for people to use and test in any way they see fit. He's getting a free pass because he broke 0 laws. Zero.
- Zanneth 5y agoIf what you’re saying is true (which I highly doubt, given that he was tampering with computer equipment that didn’t belong to him), then the laws need to change so that we can prosecute people like this. I absolutely do not want to live in a society where people can install malware on computers in public spaces to spy on me. I don’t care if it’s for advertising or some self-serving “art” project.
- whydoineedthis 5y agoApple consented to his usage of the computers within the store...they actually put them there for the purpose of being used. I'm sorry that photography offends you. Wait till you see what those new fanged house door bells are doing!
- sweetheart 5y agoYeah, maybe folks have a problem with that, but the artist certainly only highlighted already creepy-ish things that we accept all the time (companies tracking us, and the lack of an expectation of privacy in public places).