3 ms·

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 lon

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.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  I think you misunderstand OP? They agree that taking pictures of people without their permission is bad, it’s the ‘installing software’ to do it that’s irrelevant. It would be just as bad if you did it with a telelens from outside the store.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    > it’s the ‘installing software’ to do it that’s irrelevant No it's not! That's actually the main thing that's really really bad! What are you all not understanding? You're intentionally installing spyware on someone else's computer! And then remotely controlling that computer later!

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.
Aeolun 5y ago
I think you misunderstand OP? They agree that taking pictures of people without their permission is bad, it’s the ‘installing software’ to do it that’s irrelevant. It would be just as bad if you did it with a telelens from outside the store.
- yupper32 5y ago
  > it’s the ‘installing software’ to do it that’s irrelevant No it's not! That's actually the main thing that's really really bad! What are you all not understanding? You're intentionally installing spyware on someone else's computer! And then remotely controlling that computer later!