4 ms·

> 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 "violati

by 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.
    - gizmo 5y ago
      Everybody who enters an Apple store is already being recorded by hidden video cameras without their consent. Loss prevention. Unless you think being photographed in addition to being unknowingly video recorded is a grave privacy violation, I don't get your point.
      - berkes 5y ago
        > Unless you think being photographed in addition Author also emphasises that visitors are making photographs of the shop, and other visitors in that shop. Without consent. I'm trying to understand where the line lies. As I don't see it, but gauging by the heated reactions in the threads here, many apparently see a clear and obvious line.
      - merpnderp 5y ago
        Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence. The difference is security cameras announce their presence by being visible and obvious. Installing spyware on an Apple Store laptop to capture people’s images and upload them for your own amusement is not obvious, was never announced and most people would find gross and abusive. At the very least the security cameras come with liability if abused and cause harm to the customer.
        sellyme 5y ago
        > Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence. My understanding is that this is not a legal requirement and is rather something stores do solely to scare away potential burglars.
      - jameshart 5y ago
        Apple don’t post video montages of their security footage online and ask people to look at the faces of the shoppers and see if they can read some meaning into the lack of emotion on their faces. When you enter an Apple store you are trusting Apple implicitly with your safety and security during your visit. That they might take security video as part of that is a reasonable component of that trust relationship. Being forced to participate as a model in an art exhibit by a random third party with no relationship to Apple violates that trust. It’s no wonder Apple would have a concern. It’s not remotely comparable to security surveillance, and the artist doesn’t even seem particularly to be trying to draw that comparison, so I’m not sure why people are seeing this as about ‘always being on camera’.
  - atombender 5y ago
    Those cameras don't publish their recordings to the Internet, so your analogy is flawed. You can argue that such cameras are also violations of privacy, of course, but there's a big difference between recording and broadcasting — no matter if the intent of the broadcasting is good.
    - gizmo 5y ago
      Yes, there's a big difference. In one case it's an art stunt to draw people's attention to a social question, and in the other case maybe security employees are leering at customers through cameras for their own perverse enjoyment, but who knows because there is zero transparency or accountability.
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    The difference is you know those cameras are there and that they’re recording. It’s their single purpose for public safety. You don’t expect the laptop at Apple to be uploading your image to some sick weirdos “art project”.
i_dont_know_ 5y ago
I'll assume you're asking this genuinely. For the 'legal' part... you're generally not allowed to install whatever arbitrary software you want on other people's machines without some sort of consent, even in an Apple store. I'm not sure how much more elaboration this needs. For the 'moral' part... he's taking a small intimate chunk of a person's life without their knowledge or consent and putting it in a picture frame because he finds it interesting and enjoyable. The reason he gives for this is "art". There's not even slight consideration of the people involved other than he considers that intimate chunk of their life and likeness to be his personal medium for "art", the same way clay or watercolors might be to a less terrifying person. Again, there are far worse ways he could create 'art' via nonconsensual intimacy, but my point is that it's fundamentally amoral to use people in that way in the first place. What's interesting about this is that in this community we read about security researchers that do illegal (but generally not unethical) things, and about large companies that do unethical (but arguably not illegal) things. This guy does the worst of both and somehow people seem to be on his side.
- kcimc 5y ago
  Regarding the "legal" part, having looked into this quite deeply, I believe I was legally in the clear. Both in terms of of publishing the photographs and in terms of installing the app. Keep in mind this was 2011. To install the app today would require circumventing access control policies, but not at the time. If you do have additional elaboration on why you think it was illegal, I would be happy to learn more! Thanks.
neolog 5y ago
Parent didn't mean violation of the law, they meant personal violation.
- NotEvil 5y ago
  This ^. I am fine with the art. as long as either he asks permision saying that's tge same thing apple is dooing or if not blurring the faces of people when he goes to exbit them later.

by berkes 5y ago

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.
  - gizmo 5y ago
    Everybody who enters an Apple store is already being recorded by hidden video cameras without their consent. Loss prevention. Unless you think being photographed in addition to being unknowingly video recorded is a grave privacy violation, I don't get your point.
    - berkes 5y ago
      > Unless you think being photographed in addition Author also emphasises that visitors are making photographs of the shop, and other visitors in that shop. Without consent. I'm trying to understand where the line lies. As I don't see it, but gauging by the heated reactions in the threads here, many apparently see a clear and obvious line.
    - merpnderp 5y ago
      Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence. The difference is security cameras announce their presence by being visible and obvious. Installing spyware on an Apple Store laptop to capture people’s images and upload them for your own amusement is not obvious, was never announced and most people would find gross and abusive. At the very least the security cameras come with liability if abused and cause harm to the customer.
      - sellyme 5y ago
        > Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence. My understanding is that this is not a legal requirement and is rather something stores do solely to scare away potential burglars.
    - jameshart 5y ago
      Apple don’t post video montages of their security footage online and ask people to look at the faces of the shoppers and see if they can read some meaning into the lack of emotion on their faces. When you enter an Apple store you are trusting Apple implicitly with your safety and security during your visit. That they might take security video as part of that is a reasonable component of that trust relationship. Being forced to participate as a model in an art exhibit by a random third party with no relationship to Apple violates that trust. It’s no wonder Apple would have a concern. It’s not remotely comparable to security surveillance, and the artist doesn’t even seem particularly to be trying to draw that comparison, so I’m not sure why people are seeing this as about ‘always being on camera’.
- atombender 5y ago
  Those cameras don't publish their recordings to the Internet, so your analogy is flawed. You can argue that such cameras are also violations of privacy, of course, but there's a big difference between recording and broadcasting — no matter if the intent of the broadcasting is good.
  - gizmo 5y ago
    Yes, there's a big difference. In one case it's an art stunt to draw people's attention to a social question, and in the other case maybe security employees are leering at customers through cameras for their own perverse enjoyment, but who knows because there is zero transparency or accountability.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  The difference is you know those cameras are there and that they’re recording. It’s their single purpose for public safety. You don’t expect the laptop at Apple to be uploading your image to some sick weirdos “art project”.

i_dont_know_ 5y ago

I'll assume you're asking this genuinely. For the 'legal' part... you're generally not allowed to install whatever arbitrary software you want on other people's machines without some sort of consent, even in an Apple store. I'm not sure how much more elaboration this needs. For the 'moral' part... he's taking a small intimate chunk of a person's life without their knowledge or consent and putting it in a picture frame because he finds it interesting and enjoyable. The reason he gives for this is "art". There's not even slight consideration of the people involved other than he considers that intimate chunk of their life and likeness to be his personal medium for "art", the same way clay or watercolors might be to a less terrifying person. Again, there are far worse ways he could create 'art' via nonconsensual intimacy, but my point is that it's fundamentally amoral to use people in that way in the first place. What's interesting about this is that in this community we read about security researchers that do illegal (but generally not unethical) things, and about large companies that do unethical (but arguably not illegal) things. This guy does the worst of both and somehow people seem to be on his side.

kcimc 5y ago
Regarding the "legal" part, having looked into this quite deeply, I believe I was legally in the clear. Both in terms of of publishing the photographs and in terms of installing the app. Keep in mind this was 2011. To install the app today would require circumventing access control policies, but not at the time. If you do have additional elaboration on why you think it was illegal, I would be happy to learn more! Thanks.

neolog 5y ago

Parent didn't mean violation of the law, they meant personal violation.

NotEvil 5y ago
This ^. I am fine with the art. as long as either he asks permision saying that's tge same thing apple is dooing or if not blurring the faces of people when he goes to exbit them later.