8 ms·
When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide: 'People Staring at Computers'
- zheng 14y agoGood read. My biggest question is why didn't the artist just ask the apple store if it would be ok to install an app that took photos instead of asking if it would be ok to take photos? My guess is he knew they would say no, but I could be wrong. There is two sides to every story, but Apple doesn't come out smelling very good here.
- wkdown 14y agoI think what Apple did was right. They used the USC to take down images of people that were taken in an Apple store by Apple computers. If someone saw their image on his blog/project/whatever and was upset about it, they would go after Apple and not the artist. So they were covering their own butts. At the same time, they know he found a flaw and there was no damage done. Therefore, no reason to seek further prosecution.
- mirkules 14y agoThis one sentence really changed my perception of his story: "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." If he truly thought what he was doing was legal (or morally right), he wouldn't have had to do this. Instead, he chose to hide the fact he was installing software on Apple's computers.
- epoxyhockey 14y agoI once walked into a semi-fast food restaurant and kindly asked if I could take a photo of their menu board. The employee said 'no' with no additional explanation given. Ever since then, I've taken similar photos -without asking- and no one has ever questioned me. It seems like the phrase, it's better to ask for forgiveness, applies to the situation. I feel that when you ask an employee for permission, they automatically assume that you are up to something negative. They are usually not in a position of authority to grant you access to anything anyway. Now that you asked for their permission, they feel like they are personally responsible for whatever you do with the photos. The easiest way for them to CYA is for them to say "no."
- rurounijones 14y agoI agree that is it usually the path of least resistance but "Ask for forgiveness" is much harder when you are having to ask forgiveness from high priced corporate legal rottweilers and the secret service who want to nail you to a wall. For things like restaurant menu boards I wouldn't be worried. Installing apps on computers I do not own (and owned by a very large corporation) without explicit permission? Not so much
- GauntletWizard 14y agoBut what constitutes installing an app? If I sit there at a python prompt, is that "Installing an app"? If I write some applescript there and then, is that "Installing an app"? If I grab something for free from the Mac App store, is that "Installing an app"? Every one of those is a just and reasonable thing to do. I'd even say the most clear definition, Downloading an app from an external website and executing it, is pretty clearly in the allowed list - These machines exist to demonstrate Apple computers, and Installing an app is a not entirely unheard of action after purchasing. There's a reasonable expectation that Apple could prevent it if they wanted, and that the 'harm' done to them is virtually zero - They re-image their machines all the time. So where is the boundary? Obviously, in this case, it's where people started feeling creeped out by it... but this was by no means a secret service investigation. This was a high-school level prank, and it saddens me that we live in a world where people would take enough offense - where people are so mistrustful of one another - where people are so litigious, that federal law enforcement is called in after such.
- rurounijones 14y agoYou are correct, defining it in a manner acceptable to legal types would be very very hard. However the fact that he felt he needed to hide what he was doing by using tumblr etc makes me feel that he knew there was a line (however blurry it might be) and that he was crossing it.
- bradleyland 14y agoI never really understood why Kyle was so confused about the negative reactions. For someone who tried to be so in tune with people's feelings, he seemed to be missing something incredibly obvious: violation of expectation. Yes, when you're in public you have no legal expectation of privacy. However, when you're using a computer at an Apple store, you're also not expecting that the webcam is snapping photos of you that will be posted online. What he misses entirely is that what constitutes "legal" is not entirely congruent with social norms. Especially as it relates to what will happen to us in public. Legality defines the hard boundaries of our social expectations. We normally set those boundaries at a point where someone is "harmed". The broad social contract is that we won't trample all over each other, physically or emotionally, so we establish laws at the boundaries. Cross the boundary and you face punishment. For example, it's not illegal to take photos of people on the street, yet US society has a love-hate relationship with the paparazzi. They're not breaking the law, but there are plenty of people who... uh... strongly dislike them. Kyle crossed over in to the same territory. Not illegal, but definitely hanging out on the fringes of socially acceptably behavior.
- hollerith 14y agoYeah, Kyle seems to be missing some sort of social intelligence that most people possess -- or maybe career incentives make him choose to ignore or rationalize away what his social intelligence is telling him about how people are going to react. EDIT: removed sentence that probably overstepped HN norms around meanness.
- keithpeter 14y agoReminds me of Walker Evans http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=52629 http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=... Evans organised publication of the images in book form, which I suppose would render the publisher liable if any of the passengers wanted to seek any form of redress (they did not). In this case, Apple was the unwitting publisher with no editorial involvement, hence the action seems reasonable.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Terretta 14y agoAll the new traffic lights in our area have webcams pointed directly into the windshield of drivers stopped for the light. To what end, I don't know. But drivers on their way to the Apple store don't seem to mind their pictures being taken. It seems Kyle's mistake was in publishing the results of surveillance. We don't care if we are watched, because we don't have to form a belief in the reality of the images stored. We do care if we see ourselves published, because that makes the reality of being watched undeniable. Consider for comparison the TSA body scanner images being seen to be seen by agents at the scanner, versus not seen being seen by agents in a room. Passengers were not ok with the first, but ok with the second. These examples offer a roadmap to a happily ignored surveillance society.
- joezydeco 14y ago"All the new traffic lights in our area have webcams pointed directly into the windshield of drivers stopped for the light. To what end, I don't know" They could be webcams but the more common explanation is that they are visual sensors to detect cars in the turning lane, replacing the old wire loops in the pavement: http://www.plan-bravo.com/lefty.html http://www.plan-bravo.com/lefty.html
- Terretta 14y agoYour explanation makes sense given most of the lights in question, but some have no turning lanes, such as at crosswalks. Perhaps bureaucracy has them required at all new lights regardless. Either way, government at work. :) // Cool link, thanks. Shared with cyclist friends.
- joezydeco 14y agoWell, some are pointed at the driver. Sometimes with interesting results... http://boingboing.net/2008/10/27/german-traffic-cops.html http://boingboing.net/2008/10/27/german-traffic-cops.html
- ams6110 14y agoThey are not just to detect cars in the turning lanes but to detect whether cars are waiting for the light, and how long the queue is. This (supposedly) helps optimize traffic flow. I have my doubts as to whether it works any better than fixed timers. The claim that they are cheaper and easier to maintain than in-ground wire loops does seem believable.
- andreyf 14y agoMy biggest surprise is that nobody at the Apple store noticed that the camera lights were on for all (most?) of the computers in the store... wouldn't that be kind of obvious?
- eridius 14y agoThey could have just assumed someone's been leaving PhotoBooth running.
- biafra 14y agoIs it possible to have the built in camera record without having the green recording indicator lid up? With or without modifying the device driver for the camera?
- showerst 14y agoI believe that it depends on the model, but after some of the early trojans figured out how to do this years ago, the light is now hardware-wired in some webcams. http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6758/can-webcams-be-turned-on-without-the-indicator-light http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/6758/can-webcams...
- gee_totes 14y agoGreat article. I never thought about how much time I spend expressionless in front of the computer before. Maybe I'll add a mirror to my desk to make faces in throughout the day.
- UnFleshedOne 14y agoWhy? There is no reason to make faces if nobody sees them. Unless you think your face muscles get weaker?
- xbryanx 14y agoInterested in another of Kyle's wacky projects (mentioned in the article)? Check out the year of his life where he logged ever single keystroke on his computer to Twitter. Yep...all of it. http://twitter.com/keytweeter http://twitter.com/keytweeter
- spot 14y agoalmost all. big difference. but yea, great project.
- sneak 14y agoSomebody's a total jackass (and obviously hasn't watched the Don't Talk To The Police video). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- puerto 14y agoIt's pretty clear why Kyle hasn't anticipated this kind of reaction to his project. After exposing his whole life online during his previous projects, he obviously lost kind of sensitivity most people have about their own privacy. He studied some laws and rules and decided it's OK, but it would be better if he asked some of his non privacy-stunt-artist friends what do they think about his idea. His story nicely shows how our ideas of ethics are influenced by our own personality and behavior, not just out environment.
- whyenot 14y agoWhat was he expecting? Surely he must have realized that Apple would be upset that he secretly installed software on their computers to spy on their employees and customers. Surely he must have understood that many of his subjects would be weird-ed out as well. I don't understand what he thought would happen. He doesn't seem to have any empathy at all. Hopefully this encounter has woken him up a little.
- jibjaba 14y agoIf Kyle is being honest in this article he is a sociopath, no question about it. He obviously has major problems understanding social norms.
- AaronStanely 14y agoNo offense, but this author is an idiot. He should've given them nothing, and said nothing, and requested a lawyer. He did exactly what the secret service wanted him to do: to feel intimidated, scared, and willing to talk, since he's innocent, right? That is precisely what they want you to do. Next time, say nothing and request a lawyer.
- andrewcooke 14y agohow would that have ended up better than the outcome described here?
- mrbill 14y ago"art" is not an excuse for being oblivious.
- josephcooney 14y agoIf he thought what he was doing was 'right' (and that it was unreasonable for apple to send the secret service after him) why did he buy a new laptop from apple? That part to me seems the most insane.
- DeepDuh 14y agoThat's honestly something you will only understand after having used a macbook for some while. There's tons of stuff Apple does that annoy me, especially what comes out of their legal team. I always check out the new gear from other manufacturers. Nothing quite cuts it. Of course this is all subjective and depends on the characteristics about a laptop you value most. If it's pure performance or repairability they aren't right for you.
- gits1225 14y agoThe melancholic nature of the article and the easy going attitude of the author really made the article different and original for me. I really liked reading and thinking about the points raised in it. But really, all it was, was revealing the one obvious aspect of human nature: how we react to objects. Here its a computer. When someone had your password, it’s not just that they could access any information, but that they could become you. When people send you an email, there is an expectation of privacy. But most of the emails were from reporters and journalists. I wrote a form response and started replying to everyone, letting them know the EFF had encouraged me not to talk about it. This was a really difficult moment. I felt like everything was arranged in a way to keep discussion limited, to keep people working against each other instead of working together. Hundreds and hundreds of comments, on dozens of major blogs. I’m no stranger to publicity, but this was on a completely different scale. Everyone had an opinion and wanted to argue with each other. Yet I had to remain completely silent. The above quotes when left to ponder are really profound. Pointing the easy to notice things are indeed the easy to ignore. In the other comments, I started to notice a trend: people were trying to establish definitions. They were arguing about ethics and ontology (even though no one called it that). The project hit a nerve that made people uncomfortable enough that they had to share their opinions and argue their positions. If you’re at school studying art, philosophy, or politics, this isn’t a big deal. These discussions happen over lunch, or in the hallways. But this was happening on the internet. Everything and anything happens on the internet, and if there is no identity attached to the actions, the truer they become of the person, than in real life where people are bound to act by social commonsense. With “People Staring at Computers,” I saw something new: a massive audience engaged in a collective decision-making about the culture they wanted to adopt, in realtime, via comment threads strewn across blog posts and news articles Its not new. It started right when internet started. If some other way to mass communicate was possible before, it would have started then as well.
- crasshopper 14y agoSome of the things Kyle said and quoted seem relevant to an earlier HN discussion [1] titled I don't "get" art """ The Book of Tea[2]... requires a mutual understanding between the artist and the spectator: > The sympathetic communion of minds necessary for art appreciation must be based on mutual concession. The spectator must cultivate the proper attitude for receiving the message, as the artist must know how to impart it. And the success of “People Staring at Computers” is based on condemnation rather than mutual concession. In a way, inviting condemnation can be the most effective way of imparting a message. I think Duchamp understood the possibilities of condemnation as an alternative to mutual concession. He addresses this in his short essay, “The Creative Act“ [3]. He says once an artist gives their work to the spectator, it’s up to the spectator to make a decision about that work. """ Had this article come out at the same time, I think that discussion would have gone better. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124275 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124275 [2] http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tea.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tea.htm [3] http://www.iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html http://www.iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html