11 ms·

This reminds me of a random, but chilling, scene in "Minority Report". The protagonist confronts a man he thinks is responsible for killing his child. The man

This reminds me of a random, but chilling, scene in "Minority Report". The protagonist confronts a man he thinks is responsible for killing his child. The man decides to reassure the protagonist by explaining how kind he was to the child, and made sure the child didn't suffer when he killed him. He's presenting it as though this is a legitimate defense for such an obvious violation. The part that sticks with me is the man's seeming sincerity in believing he's making a case for himself, "yeah I did this horrible thing, but I did it in the nicest way possible so it's really kinda big of me if you think about it" This post fills me with the same chills. The author's utter lack of culpability for such a viscerally gross violation and strange attempts to spin it as though he's kind of a good person for doing it in a slightly less terrible way than he could have otherwise done it... To be clear, he didn't go out and do a security research project with ethical standards in place. He made it clear how laughable he considers the concept of 'consent' (an ethical way to do this might've been to take people's pictures, then ask them if they were OK with sharing it right after. He doesn't consider such a process at all) Instead, he thought of an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent, for his own pleasure, curiosity, and amusement and decided to call it 'art'. There are more horrible ways he could have done the above, sure. But that argument to me sounds as hollow as the "but he didn't suffer" argument from the movie. Him expressing his own sense of magnanimousness and ironic sense of victimhood at the end of it... it really is a scary glimpse into the mind of such people. It's sad because it's very easy to misconstrue this as a "security researcher gets feds sent on him by apple" story, and I think lots of people are basically trying to frame it that way, but it's not that at all. To me, it's clearly "jackass doesn't understand consent, apple calls the feds, still a jackass, still doesn't understand". [Note: yes I know the character in the movie is revealed as a bluff shortly after, the scene sticks with me because of the character's apparent sincerity at the moment] [Additional Note: yes I know many of these companies also don't respect consent. Them not respecting it is not an excuse for everyone to behave the same way.]

mighty_bander 5y ago
You're comparing a guy who took pictures of people in an Apple store to a child murderer? I have difficulty with this analogy.
berkes 5y ago
> such a viscerally gross violation How did you reach this conclusion? Because your entire response hinges on this being true. I highly doubt it is a "violation" in the first place, and certainly not a "gross violation", the courts decided that it was not, as you call it "an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent" (well, maybe amoral, as courts have nothing to say about that).
- arcturus17 5y ago
  It didn’t get to court, so this is not necessarily legal. Also GP is talking from an ethical perspective, and while I hadn’t thought too much about it on my first read, I do agree that the experiment is highly unethical.
- NotEvil 5y ago
  It is, he never asks people for there consent. Even apple does that (although in a never read privacy policy) but they do
  - gizmo 5y ago
    There are cameras on every street corner. At ATMs. In every store. On public transportation. I never consented to any of this. Art projects that confront people with the reality that they're being recorded and watched are vital to remind people that privacy still matters, and that we should struggle to regain some of the privacy expectations we've lost.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      Art projects still have ethics to them. He could’ve put a singular art installation somewhere for people to use and have their photo taken while they browse a specific art installation. Violating people’s privacy in order to remind them their privacy is important sounds like the sort of “I’m harming you for your own good” that abusers use.
      - 5y ago
CaptArmchair 5y ago
I agree with that assessment. To my mind, the act of capturing faces in and off itself isn't even the reason why he was investigated. Consent from members of the public is an entirely separate discussion. This boils entirely down to him not having formal consent from Apple. He simply walked into the store and quite literally installed a small application on each Macbook without Apple's consent. > I remember being a bit nervous on the first visit. > Not because I thought I was doing anything wrong, or because I was worried about getting "caught". It was more like stage fright. It was a performance, and there was no telling what would happen next. I had made preparations, and I was excited to see the results. > I walked into the store and pulled out my sketchbook. I made a map of the store, including all the tables, and counted how many computers were at each table. Each store has something like 50 machines. More than half were in use. I went to the first open computer and typed in a short URL to download the app. I looked around to double check that there were no terms of service I was missing. If there were, and if it said anything about "installing applications", I would have had to go back home and write an HTML5 or Flash version. > The app was maybe two megabytes, and took 15 seconds to download. Sometimes I would open another tab and load Flickr or Open Processing so I had an excuse if someone asked why I was comparing every single computer. In the process, I learned there are in fact some minor differences between Java on the different machines. > What was probably 10 minutes felt like 30. I looked at my sketchbook to make sure all the open computers were checked off, and decided that was enough. Hundreds of photos had already started pouring in. Before leaving, I sat on a bench for a few minutes to watch people. Thinking about their posture, their gestures, their expressions. Months later a friend would tell me, "those faces are synonymous with the faces we have when we are alone". We all really looked the same. I checked the upload page from my iPod to confirm that everything was running, and left the store. Moreover, at some point, one of those devices was being serviced by a technician. His application took pictures at that time. https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/ https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/ All of that in and of itself would have been enough to be considered "crossing red lines and boundaries". It's staggering how he believed that taking pictures of persons was the bigger legal liability he was exposing himself to. If anything, if he'd understood the importance of obtaining consent for using a publicly available terminal, the better option would have been taking his project to a public institution - public library, university, town hall,... - and have the application installed having up front legal consent and support from the collaborating institution.
whydoineedthis 5y ago
Taking selfies in an apple store reminds you of child murder? You consider these things the same, or even similar? Hrm, yeah, based on that I'm not going to consider your opinion very important.
- mighty_bander 5y ago
  By the fade-out of your comment, it seems your accurate assessment of this individual's bloviation is insufficiently self-important for the HN crowd. This is why I never post here. Worse comments than Slashdot.
skramble 5y ago
Did you read the commentary? >I'm not sure I would make this piece today, anyway. I'm increasingly critical of artwork that attempts to engage with the theme of surveillance by replicating systems of surveillance. How fruitful can a conversation be about consent and privacy, when an artist does not seek their subject's consent?
kcimc 5y ago
OP here. Thanks for taking the time to share the (scary) connection you made while reading. While this story has been picked up by security folks, I am definitely not a security researcher :) This project did help me to think more explicitly about security, founding a NYC-based group called "artsec" where security researchers and media artists worked together. One of the members was Samy Kamkar, who you may know for the infamous "Samy is my hero" MySpace worm. His case, also investigated by the USSS, actually went to court and ended with a 3-year ban from touching a computer. This is just to say that the relationship between "art" and "research" (and even "pranks") is not always clear. I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal. It is also undeniably art. I set out to make it as art, and it has been exhibited and written about as art. You can call it bad art, you can say it's similar to a prank, but unfortunately it's still art. Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves. I appreciate hearing your side. Thanks.
- philsnow 5y ago
  As a privacy enthusiast, I am very mildly (because I was not directly affected) annoyed that you undertook this project. I see your post discussing it as tacitly attempting to move the overton window in a direction you want it to go. > Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves. (from the article:) > What was probably 10 minutes felt like 30. I don't know if it "felt like 30" because the task felt boring or because you were concerned about being caught, but if it's the latter then I think you know that it was at _least_ on the far side of "ethical". > I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal. (from the article:) > After the one-minute-exhibition ended, we made a staggered exit from the store Also doesn't seem like you really thought it was totally legal if you left the store that way. Most people in this thread are addressing the legality/morality of installing an app on all those computers in the Apple Stores, but what about the unauthorized use of all those people's likenesses? I'm not familiar with New York state law, but in a lot of states, you can't use photos of people commercially without their consent. You make a living from art projects. Maybe you didn't make any money from this art project, so you didn't directly profit from the use of these photos, but I would think a reasonable person would see your online portfolio as an advertisement or promotion of your services. In the original article you talk about how it should have been alright to take the photos: > I tried to think of a busy public space full of computers, and the Apple Store seemed so obvious. Apple Stores are quite clearly not "public space", they are private spaces that they allow most members of the public access to. If the photos were taken with a telephoto lens through the glass walls, they'd be totally in the clear (though IANAL). Still creepy, but legally in the clear.

mighty_bander 5y ago

You're comparing a guy who took pictures of people in an Apple store to a child murderer? I have difficulty with this analogy.

berkes 5y ago

> such a viscerally gross violation How did you reach this conclusion? Because your entire response hinges on this being true. I highly doubt it is a "violation" in the first place, and certainly not a "gross violation", the courts decided that it was not, as you call it "an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent" (well, maybe amoral, as courts have nothing to say about that).

arcturus17 5y ago
It didn’t get to court, so this is not necessarily legal. Also GP is talking from an ethical perspective, and while I hadn’t thought too much about it on my first read, I do agree that the experiment is highly unethical.
NotEvil 5y ago
It is, he never asks people for there consent. Even apple does that (although in a never read privacy policy) but they do
- gizmo 5y ago
  There are cameras on every street corner. At ATMs. In every store. On public transportation. I never consented to any of this. Art projects that confront people with the reality that they're being recorded and watched are vital to remind people that privacy still matters, and that we should struggle to regain some of the privacy expectations we've lost.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    Art projects still have ethics to them. He could’ve put a singular art installation somewhere for people to use and have their photo taken while they browse a specific art installation. Violating people’s privacy in order to remind them their privacy is important sounds like the sort of “I’m harming you for your own good” that abusers use.
    - 5y ago

CaptArmchair 5y ago

I agree with that assessment. To my mind, the act of capturing faces in and off itself isn't even the reason why he was investigated. Consent from members of the public is an entirely separate discussion. This boils entirely down to him not having formal consent from Apple. He simply walked into the store and quite literally installed a small application on each Macbook without Apple's consent. > I remember being a bit nervous on the first visit. > Not because I thought I was doing anything wrong, or because I was worried about getting "caught". It was more like stage fright. It was a performance, and there was no telling what would happen next. I had made preparations, and I was excited to see the results. > I walked into the store and pulled out my sketchbook. I made a map of the store, including all the tables, and counted how many computers were at each table. Each store has something like 50 machines. More than half were in use. I went to the first open computer and typed in a short URL to download the app. I looked around to double check that there were no terms of service I was missing. If there were, and if it said anything about "installing applications", I would have had to go back home and write an HTML5 or Flash version. > The app was maybe two megabytes, and took 15 seconds to download. Sometimes I would open another tab and load Flickr or Open Processing so I had an excuse if someone asked why I was comparing every single computer. In the process, I learned there are in fact some minor differences between Java on the different machines. > What was probably 10 minutes felt like 30. I looked at my sketchbook to make sure all the open computers were checked off, and decided that was enough. Hundreds of photos had already started pouring in. Before leaving, I sat on a bench for a few minutes to watch people. Thinking about their posture, their gestures, their expressions. Months later a friend would tell me, "those faces are synonymous with the faces we have when we are alone". We all really looked the same. I checked the upload page from my iPod to confirm that everything was running, and left the store. Moreover, at some point, one of those devices was being serviced by a technician. His application took pictures at that time. https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/ https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/ All of that in and of itself would have been enough to be considered "crossing red lines and boundaries". It's staggering how he believed that taking pictures of persons was the bigger legal liability he was exposing himself to. If anything, if he'd understood the importance of obtaining consent for using a publicly available terminal, the better option would have been taking his project to a public institution - public library, university, town hall,... - and have the application installed having up front legal consent and support from the collaborating institution.

whydoineedthis 5y ago

Taking selfies in an apple store reminds you of child murder? You consider these things the same, or even similar? Hrm, yeah, based on that I'm not going to consider your opinion very important.

mighty_bander 5y ago
By the fade-out of your comment, it seems your accurate assessment of this individual's bloviation is insufficiently self-important for the HN crowd. This is why I never post here. Worse comments than Slashdot.

skramble 5y ago

Did you read the commentary? >I'm not sure I would make this piece today, anyway. I'm increasingly critical of artwork that attempts to engage with the theme of surveillance by replicating systems of surveillance. How fruitful can a conversation be about consent and privacy, when an artist does not seek their subject's consent?

kcimc 5y ago

OP here. Thanks for taking the time to share the (scary) connection you made while reading. While this story has been picked up by security folks, I am definitely not a security researcher :) This project did help me to think more explicitly about security, founding a NYC-based group called "artsec" where security researchers and media artists worked together. One of the members was Samy Kamkar, who you may know for the infamous "Samy is my hero" MySpace worm. His case, also investigated by the USSS, actually went to court and ended with a 3-year ban from touching a computer. This is just to say that the relationship between "art" and "research" (and even "pranks") is not always clear. I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal. It is also undeniably art. I set out to make it as art, and it has been exhibited and written about as art. You can call it bad art, you can say it's similar to a prank, but unfortunately it's still art. Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves. I appreciate hearing your side. Thanks.

philsnow 5y ago
As a privacy enthusiast, I am very mildly (because I was not directly affected) annoyed that you undertook this project. I see your post discussing it as tacitly attempting to move the overton window in a direction you want it to go. > Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves. (from the article:) > What was probably 10 minutes felt like 30. I don't know if it "felt like 30" because the task felt boring or because you were concerned about being caught, but if it's the latter then I think you know that it was at _least_ on the far side of "ethical". > I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal. (from the article:) > After the one-minute-exhibition ended, we made a staggered exit from the store Also doesn't seem like you really thought it was totally legal if you left the store that way. Most people in this thread are addressing the legality/morality of installing an app on all those computers in the Apple Stores, but what about the unauthorized use of all those people's likenesses? I'm not familiar with New York state law, but in a lot of states, you can't use photos of people commercially without their consent. You make a living from art projects. Maybe you didn't make any money from this art project, so you didn't directly profit from the use of these photos, but I would think a reasonable person would see your online portfolio as an advertisement or promotion of your services. In the original article you talk about how it should have been alright to take the photos: > I tried to think of a busy public space full of computers, and the Apple Store seemed so obvious. Apple Stores are quite clearly not "public space", they are private spaces that they allow most members of the public access to. If the photos were taken with a telephoto lens through the glass walls, they'd be totally in the clear (though IANAL). Still creepy, but legally in the clear.