3 ms·
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
by 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 agoBecause 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.