4 ms·

Good 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 w

by zheng 14y ago

Good 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 ago
I 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 ago
This 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    But 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 ago
      You 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.

by zheng 14y ago

wkdown 14y ago

I 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 ago

This 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 ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  But 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 ago
    You 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.