3 ms·

>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

>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.
        angry_octet 5y ago
        You are correct, private property can be a public place. Stores are a definite example of this. Many people get very confused by what Private Property! means. By inviting the public into their store they have waived the requirement to have privacy in that space, unless they specifically inform you that photography is not allowed. The irony is that the visitors to the store can have no expectation of privacy. Even if you wear a giant sign that says 'no photos' you can and will be photographed. Publishing photos of specific individuals is more nuanced. It depends on the jurisdiction, if it is for news, artistic or commercial purposes (the latter is usually forbidden without written consent).
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.

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.
        angry_octet 5y ago
        You are correct, private property can be a public place. Stores are a definite example of this. Many people get very confused by what Private Property! means. By inviting the public into their store they have waived the requirement to have privacy in that space, unless they specifically inform you that photography is not allowed. The irony is that the visitors to the store can have no expectation of privacy. Even if you wear a giant sign that says 'no photos' you can and will be photographed. Publishing photos of specific individuals is more nuanced. It depends on the jurisdiction, if it is for news, artistic or commercial purposes (the latter is usually forbidden without written consent).

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.