5 ms·

Not many are offended about taking pictures. What people should be offended by is that so many people on here think it's totally acceptable to install spyware

Not many are offended about taking pictures. What people should be offended by is that so many people on here think it's totally acceptable to install spyware onto computers without the owner's consent. This isn't some kind of whistleblower situation. This is someone fucking around and installing spyware. That's illegal! There's no grey area here, regardless of the lack of action by the AG.

hulitu 5y ago
Well, google does it also and i think they wouldn't do anything illegal (like stealing user data in blatant violation of GDPR for example).
simion314 5y ago
>That's illegal! Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras? Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case?
- yupper32 5y ago
  The law absolutely applies. They just decided it wasn't worth their time. Can you imagine a world where the law didn't apply here? I could just go into an Apple store and install whatever software I want on their computers without the law applying at all?
  - simion314 5y ago
    But the computer was opened for you, no TOS that says you can't install software or you can't open this website. I imagine a judge asking Apple why did you not block this "installation" ? did you allowed it or are you incompetent? This computers were setup for public use, no password or security measure so I do not see that is super obvious that the exact same laws apply here as for a private computer.
    - yupper32 5y ago
      If I allow you into my home, are you allowed to install a secret camera? If I allow you into my coffee shop, are you allowed to install a secret camera? No. Always no. Am I "incompetent" because my home or coffee shop didn't have sufficient security to stop you? No. But also, that doesn't matter. There's no password to walk into my coffee shop. That doesn't give you the right to install a camera.
      - simion314 5y ago
        I think your comparison is flawed, if I install a whiteboard on a public place and say to everyone, "please have a test" then can you complain if someone draw something you don't like on it? You did not made the person sign some contract on what he is allowed to draw or write. In this case Apple said , please come and test this machine, do whatever you want, use the browser, click around, and did not made the guy sign that "I shell not change the wallpaper to a cat or I shell not open this webpage and then allow it to access the camera etc..." You see Apple asked you to do whatever, if they did not want that they should have tell you or use those permissions things to not allow you to do it. Btw I am not convinced that this is completly legal but I am sure is not so clear as if it were the case someone hacked a private computer with bad intent and produced damaged.
        yupper32 5y ago
        > I install a whiteboard on a public place You're already off. This was private property. > and say to everyone, "please have a test" then can you complain if someone draw something you don't like on it This would be more like bolting a camera to the whiteboard in your private place of business. And yes, sometimes comparisons fall apart.
        simion314 5y ago
        I think a place can be private property and at the same time a public place(not a public property) , but I am not a native English speaker so maybe this terms are not equivalent. But image the whiteboard was in a mall that is not owned by the government and people are encouraged to use it as they want. I agree that publishing those images of poeple without consent is the important part, the guy could have just use the browser and use some video chat app bypassing the install an applet part(probably this tech was not ready at that time). Still this issue is not something for NSA or other 3 letter agency to get involved in. In fact if this issue would have been handled by the normal procedure it might have be resolved with some punishment for the guy, but involving the big agency backfired.
- hulitu 5y ago
  > >That's illegal! > Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras? So being a public place means that laws do not apply ? > Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case? Of course not. Laws are for (poor) persons. When you are a corporation or have some money in your pocket, you can settle.
  - simion314 5y ago
    >So being a public place means that laws do not apply ? I mean it was not someone private computer lost in a public place, it was a computer placed in a public place for people to use it to do whatever , the author says there was no TOS and he did not "hack" the device with some infected USB stick. It might be illegal but I don't think is so trivial to prove. So what should we learn from this ? 1 users can do shit you might not like with your public computer, maybe he can open a porn page, or put some port image as wallpaper, or install an app , so put a comptent person to lock down the devices as much as possible and reset them often to factory settins. 2 think 10 times before upsetting a giant, they have the serif,FBI,CIA,NSA in their quick dial , you might have trouble.
- jonas21 5y ago
  IANAL, but they were considering prosecuting him under Title 18, U.S. Code 1030 [1]. According to the law, simply accessing a computer without authorization is not a crime. You also need to do one of several other things -- one of which is causing "damage and loss" (see section (5)(C)). It sounds like the Secret Service was saying that he caused damage and loss because Apple had to remove his software from their computers. But perhaps the prosecutor disagreed or felt it would be hard to convince a jury. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
  - simion314 5y ago
    From my understanding those computers were opened for people to use, the guy did not bypass any security measure and he did not accept any TOS. Those computers should (but who knows) be reset to factory settings periodically.
    - yupper32 5y ago
      Ah yes. When I let someone borrow my phone or computer I totally think they should be allowed to install whatever spyware they want. It's my fault I didn't have them accept a TOS.
      - simion314 5y ago
        And what law is your friend breaking? What if it was a webpage or applet ? I don't think is as obvious that is illegal but IMO the people wronged here are the poor Apple shoppers that become part of the art, the article is trying to justify why this is allowed (public place , already recorded by cameras) but who knows what a judge will decide. But this s not something for NSA/FBI to waste their time on.
    - jkepler 5y ago
      In the post he says that the apple computers all reset at midnight, automatically.
SirSourdough 5y ago
I don't see a major functional difference between installing the spyware and taking the pictures with an open browser tab, a Facetime call to yourself, or a long lens from outside the store. It's hard for me to see those things as rising to the level of criminality on a publicly accessible computer in a public space, so it's hard for me to be offended just because installed software was used to achieve the same ends. Maybe if the intention was malicious it would be more offensive to me. The legal(?) surveillance both in stores and throughout our lives used for manipulative purposes by Apple et al. that the project was at least partially intended to highlight is significantly more offensive and wrong to me than the project itself.
- yupper32 5y ago
  > I don't see a major functional difference between installing the spyware and taking the pictures with an open browser tab, a Facetime call to yourself, or a long lens from outside the store. That's troubling. How would you react if I installed spyware on one of your devices that constantly took pictures of you, but only when you were out in public? Do you think I should face any sort of punishment? If you're not on my side of the argument with that example, then I think you really need to take a step back and think about all this.
  - SirSourdough 5y ago
    My devices are not open to public use, so it's likely you would have to significantly invade my privacy to do that. There's no expectation that you are allowed to do any computing on my devices. You're already allowed to browse the internet, use Facetime, take pictures, etc. on the computers in an Apple store so the line where inappropriate use begins is a lot less clearly defined. Would a Facetime call made from an Apple Store computer that captured the faces of people walking through the store behind you be offensive or illegal? I don't think so, so where exactly is the line? Capturing a singular moment in a person's life in a fixed context is also significantly different to me than capturing the entire story of their public life. What you are proposing has a tracking component that the OP's project did not, so I don't see it as an apples to apples comparison. I don't think people should generally face punishment for taking pictures in public, and if you took my picture each time I went to a particular store without stalking or harassing me, and without using the pictures for malicious purposes it's hard for me to see that as criminal or particularly wrong even if it's not entirely comfortable. At the very least it's a common and legal practice for stores to do so via their security systems, so I'm reluctant to villainize art that points that surveillance out as opposed to the actual surveillance itself. To be clear, I'm not saying that installing spyware can't rise to the level of being wrong or illegal, I just don't see this example as very egregious. Your example would be much more insidious.
IggleSniggle 5y ago
Oh you mean like adware? Or research conglomerates, like the barely regulated credit bureaus? using a camera API on a website would have had the same effect in this scenario. Installing it as a binary does change the narrative, but that’s just our own conditioning in this case, given that all the goals of this project could have been achieved without doing that. The spyware comes pre-installed on your computer, it’s called a web browser. And when somebody else visits a public computer, you are subject to the whims of whatever website they left running before you visited. Edit: Obviously installing spyware is wrong, ethically and legally. What’s less clear to me is, if Apple allowed folks to install arbitrary programs to “try out” computers at the store. If that was explicitly allowed, then Apple is to blame for that one, not this dude.
- yupper32 5y ago
  > Obviously installing spyware is wrong, ethically and legally. Why bother writing this post if this is your view? You know damn well there's a difference between a web browser preinstalled on a Macbook and someone installing their own spyware. And yet, you write a post against my point of view.
  - IggleSniggle 5y ago
    Because in this particular scenario there’s zero functional difference, even if in the only slightly more general, there is an absolutely huge difference. In the specifics of the implementation, the ethical details are the same. In the more general, quite different. And that’s sort of the point. It may be unethical art, but it’s no more unethical than what’s happening across millions of websites and billions of devices. It’s not more unethical than the work of countless corporate ad (and otherwise) engineering hours focused on the Wonder of the World that is surveillance capitalism.
Aeolun 5y ago
I don’t think this form of art is possible without some level of ‘doing things without anyone knowing’, but I also kind of agree that I would be unamused if it happened to me.
- yupper32 5y ago
  Then you shouldn't do this kind of art! It's official, people have gone absolutely wild in this thread. You can't just do whatever you want in the name of "art". How you got that idea, I have no clue.
  - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
    Maybe you're not into art much, but that's one of the main points of it - to challenge preconceptions and make the viewer reflect on things. The entire art history is filled with examples of artists getting accused of being immoral or doing illegal things. When you do political art this is almost unavoidable, actually. Is the art of Ai WeiWei wrong? The Chinese government alleges he's broken the law. How about Banksy, that guy's a criminal, right? Could the whole point of this artwork be to make us reflect on current laws and societal attitudes regarding data gathering?

hulitu 5y ago

Well, google does it also and i think they wouldn't do anything illegal (like stealing user data in blatant violation of GDPR for example).

simion314 5y ago

>That's illegal! Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras? Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case?

yupper32 5y ago
The law absolutely applies. They just decided it wasn't worth their time. Can you imagine a world where the law didn't apply here? I could just go into an Apple store and install whatever software I want on their computers without the law applying at all?
- simion314 5y ago
  But the computer was opened for you, no TOS that says you can't install software or you can't open this website. I imagine a judge asking Apple why did you not block this "installation" ? did you allowed it or are you incompetent? This computers were setup for public use, no password or security measure so I do not see that is super obvious that the exact same laws apply here as for a private computer.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    If I allow you into my home, are you allowed to install a secret camera? If I allow you into my coffee shop, are you allowed to install a secret camera? No. Always no. Am I "incompetent" because my home or coffee shop didn't have sufficient security to stop you? No. But also, that doesn't matter. There's no password to walk into my coffee shop. That doesn't give you the right to install a camera.
    - simion314 5y ago
      I think your comparison is flawed, if I install a whiteboard on a public place and say to everyone, "please have a test" then can you complain if someone draw something you don't like on it? You did not made the person sign some contract on what he is allowed to draw or write. In this case Apple said , please come and test this machine, do whatever you want, use the browser, click around, and did not made the guy sign that "I shell not change the wallpaper to a cat or I shell not open this webpage and then allow it to access the camera etc..." You see Apple asked you to do whatever, if they did not want that they should have tell you or use those permissions things to not allow you to do it. Btw I am not convinced that this is completly legal but I am sure is not so clear as if it were the case someone hacked a private computer with bad intent and produced damaged.
      - yupper32 5y ago
        > I install a whiteboard on a public place You're already off. This was private property. > and say to everyone, "please have a test" then can you complain if someone draw something you don't like on it This would be more like bolting a camera to the whiteboard in your private place of business. And yes, sometimes comparisons fall apart.
        simion314 5y ago
        I think a place can be private property and at the same time a public place(not a public property) , but I am not a native English speaker so maybe this terms are not equivalent. But image the whiteboard was in a mall that is not owned by the government and people are encouraged to use it as they want. I agree that publishing those images of poeple without consent is the important part, the guy could have just use the browser and use some video chat app bypassing the install an applet part(probably this tech was not ready at that time). Still this issue is not something for NSA or other 3 letter agency to get involved in. In fact if this issue would have been handled by the normal procedure it might have be resolved with some punishment for the guy, but involving the big agency backfired.
hulitu 5y ago
> >That's illegal! > Any theories why nothing happened in the end if this is clearly illegal? Maybe because it was a public place, people were already recorded by at least Apple security cameras? So being a public place means that laws do not apply ? > Or maybe the law did not applied in this exact case? Of course not. Laws are for (poor) persons. When you are a corporation or have some money in your pocket, you can settle.
- simion314 5y ago
  >So being a public place means that laws do not apply ? I mean it was not someone private computer lost in a public place, it was a computer placed in a public place for people to use it to do whatever , the author says there was no TOS and he did not "hack" the device with some infected USB stick. It might be illegal but I don't think is so trivial to prove. So what should we learn from this ? 1 users can do shit you might not like with your public computer, maybe he can open a porn page, or put some port image as wallpaper, or install an app , so put a comptent person to lock down the devices as much as possible and reset them often to factory settins. 2 think 10 times before upsetting a giant, they have the serif,FBI,CIA,NSA in their quick dial , you might have trouble.
jonas21 5y ago
IANAL, but they were considering prosecuting him under Title 18, U.S. Code 1030 [1]. According to the law, simply accessing a computer without authorization is not a crime. You also need to do one of several other things -- one of which is causing "damage and loss" (see section (5)(C)). It sounds like the Secret Service was saying that he caused damage and loss because Apple had to remove his software from their computers. But perhaps the prosecutor disagreed or felt it would be hard to convince a jury. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
- simion314 5y ago
  From my understanding those computers were opened for people to use, the guy did not bypass any security measure and he did not accept any TOS. Those computers should (but who knows) be reset to factory settings periodically.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    Ah yes. When I let someone borrow my phone or computer I totally think they should be allowed to install whatever spyware they want. It's my fault I didn't have them accept a TOS.
    - simion314 5y ago
      And what law is your friend breaking? What if it was a webpage or applet ? I don't think is as obvious that is illegal but IMO the people wronged here are the poor Apple shoppers that become part of the art, the article is trying to justify why this is allowed (public place , already recorded by cameras) but who knows what a judge will decide. But this s not something for NSA/FBI to waste their time on.
  - jkepler 5y ago
    In the post he says that the apple computers all reset at midnight, automatically.

SirSourdough 5y ago

I don't see a major functional difference between installing the spyware and taking the pictures with an open browser tab, a Facetime call to yourself, or a long lens from outside the store. It's hard for me to see those things as rising to the level of criminality on a publicly accessible computer in a public space, so it's hard for me to be offended just because installed software was used to achieve the same ends. Maybe if the intention was malicious it would be more offensive to me. The legal(?) surveillance both in stores and throughout our lives used for manipulative purposes by Apple et al. that the project was at least partially intended to highlight is significantly more offensive and wrong to me than the project itself.

yupper32 5y ago
> I don't see a major functional difference between installing the spyware and taking the pictures with an open browser tab, a Facetime call to yourself, or a long lens from outside the store. That's troubling. How would you react if I installed spyware on one of your devices that constantly took pictures of you, but only when you were out in public? Do you think I should face any sort of punishment? If you're not on my side of the argument with that example, then I think you really need to take a step back and think about all this.
- SirSourdough 5y ago
  My devices are not open to public use, so it's likely you would have to significantly invade my privacy to do that. There's no expectation that you are allowed to do any computing on my devices. You're already allowed to browse the internet, use Facetime, take pictures, etc. on the computers in an Apple store so the line where inappropriate use begins is a lot less clearly defined. Would a Facetime call made from an Apple Store computer that captured the faces of people walking through the store behind you be offensive or illegal? I don't think so, so where exactly is the line? Capturing a singular moment in a person's life in a fixed context is also significantly different to me than capturing the entire story of their public life. What you are proposing has a tracking component that the OP's project did not, so I don't see it as an apples to apples comparison. I don't think people should generally face punishment for taking pictures in public, and if you took my picture each time I went to a particular store without stalking or harassing me, and without using the pictures for malicious purposes it's hard for me to see that as criminal or particularly wrong even if it's not entirely comfortable. At the very least it's a common and legal practice for stores to do so via their security systems, so I'm reluctant to villainize art that points that surveillance out as opposed to the actual surveillance itself. To be clear, I'm not saying that installing spyware can't rise to the level of being wrong or illegal, I just don't see this example as very egregious. Your example would be much more insidious.

IggleSniggle 5y ago

Oh you mean like adware? Or research conglomerates, like the barely regulated credit bureaus? using a camera API on a website would have had the same effect in this scenario. Installing it as a binary does change the narrative, but that’s just our own conditioning in this case, given that all the goals of this project could have been achieved without doing that. The spyware comes pre-installed on your computer, it’s called a web browser. And when somebody else visits a public computer, you are subject to the whims of whatever website they left running before you visited. Edit: Obviously installing spyware is wrong, ethically and legally. What’s less clear to me is, if Apple allowed folks to install arbitrary programs to “try out” computers at the store. If that was explicitly allowed, then Apple is to blame for that one, not this dude.

yupper32 5y ago
> Obviously installing spyware is wrong, ethically and legally. Why bother writing this post if this is your view? You know damn well there's a difference between a web browser preinstalled on a Macbook and someone installing their own spyware. And yet, you write a post against my point of view.
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  Because in this particular scenario there’s zero functional difference, even if in the only slightly more general, there is an absolutely huge difference. In the specifics of the implementation, the ethical details are the same. In the more general, quite different. And that’s sort of the point. It may be unethical art, but it’s no more unethical than what’s happening across millions of websites and billions of devices. It’s not more unethical than the work of countless corporate ad (and otherwise) engineering hours focused on the Wonder of the World that is surveillance capitalism.

Aeolun 5y ago

I don’t think this form of art is possible without some level of ‘doing things without anyone knowing’, but I also kind of agree that I would be unamused if it happened to me.

yupper32 5y ago
Then you shouldn't do this kind of art! It's official, people have gone absolutely wild in this thread. You can't just do whatever you want in the name of "art". How you got that idea, I have no clue.
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  Maybe you're not into art much, but that's one of the main points of it - to challenge preconceptions and make the viewer reflect on things. The entire art history is filled with examples of artists getting accused of being immoral or doing illegal things. When you do political art this is almost unavoidable, actually. Is the art of Ai WeiWei wrong? The Chinese government alleges he's broken the law. How about Banksy, that guy's a criminal, right? Could the whole point of this artwork be to make us reflect on current laws and societal attitudes regarding data gathering?