Apple Store Artist Raided By Secret Service

An anonymous reader writes "Artist Kyle McDonald wanted to create something that captured people's expressions as they stared at computers. So the 25-year-old artist installed a program on computers in two New York Apple Store locations that would automatically take a photo every minute of whoever was standing in front of the computer. McDonald then uploaded the photos to his Tumblr blog, 'People Staring at Computers,' made a video with the photographs, and set up 'an exhibition' at the Apple stores to show what he had found. Within days, the Secret Service, which investigates computer crimes, had raided McDonald's house, seizing his two laptops, two flash drives and iPod."

Comments

nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

art cannot be the new terrorism for justfying anything.

Re:nice!

[ATMAvatar]

Urination in public is already covered under existing law. If they so choose, authorities can charge you as a sex offender, which is about as bad as being labeled a terrorist.

Re:nice!

[Mister Transistor]

So are all the other bullshit applications of the "Terrist" label these days. They used to call the crimes murder, disturbing the peace, espionage, sedition, arson, being a public nuisance, criminal misadventure, etc. Now we have this new sweeping generic "we don't like you or what you did" set of vague terrorist laws that conveniently allow anyone suspected (not even convicted!) of doing anything the establishment doesn't like to be disappeared permanently or held indefinitely. I agree with OP, this is seriously fucked up, what's next?

Re:nice!

[swalve]

The word terrorism doesn't appear in the article anywhere.

Re:nice!

[mldi]

Kinda reminds me of everybody being accused of being a communist back in the day.

Re:nice!

[bostongraf]

art cannot be the new terrorism for justfying anything.

I don't see the word "terrorism" any where in either TFA or TFS.

Double standards

[Joce640k]

Where were they when that school in Merion installed spycam software on all the pupil's laptops to record them in their dormrooms?

Re:Double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a completely different situation. The issue is that the artist had no right to install software on a machine without the permission of the machine's owner. The school in Merlon installed (admittedly disgusting) software on computers they owned.

Re:Double standards

[pietros]

looking at the recordings

Re:Double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple store leaves computers open and accessible to anybody who walks in the door.

Potential customers are either allowed to use them or theyre not.

Re:Double standards

[Joce640k]

The issue is that the artist had no right to install software

Ah...it was the installation of some software that was the problem.

Thanks for clearing that one up. The entire country was certainly at risk and getting the Secret Service involved was definitely the right thing to do. There's no way a local policeman could have reprimanded him.

PS: I read the article before posting (hey, it's the way I roll!) and it mentions something about him asking permission before doing it.

Re:Double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a slight difference between installing 'spy' software on the school's computers that are being handed over for use by students and installing it on someone else's computers without their real knowledge. From TFA and others, he obtained permission to take some photos: not do a little impromtu- and really questionable from a legal view- IT work undercover.

The first is, from a property standpoint, legal. The school was installing software on computeres it owned. The second is not. The guy was installing software on somone else's computers without permission. Neither are ethical actions, with both being questionable from a privacy viewpoint, but the latter is the one that's gonna get the more 'thorough' response from law enforcement.

Re:Double standards

[tapo]

Then am I allowed to install a keylogger? By your logic, it's the same thing.

Re:Double standards

[DJRumpy]

Yes it mentions 'something'. It says he asked a few customers if he could take their pictures, although admittedly, he didn't ask all (per the article).

McDonald protested that he had gotten the permission of a security guard to take photos in the stores, that he had asked several customers for permission to take their photos (though certainly not all of them), and that taking photos of people in a public place is mostly allowed anyway.

The store, although publicly accessible is private property (privately owned business). The machines on which he installed the software are also privately owned (although publicly accessible). They certainly don't have a sign that says "Install whatever you like", and the article makes no mention that he asked permission to install such software. In short, he broke the law, and installed software which 'spies' on people without their consent.

Re:Double standards

[cob666]

Then why doesn't Apple lock down their computers so nothing can be installed on them. I understand that this guy crossed a line but it should be between him and Apple.

Re:Double standards

[No Grand Plan]

You can, but according to one article (possibly this one, I didn't read it) they wipe every computer in the store nightly.

Re:Double standards

[amiga3D]

I think the problem I have with this isn't that he got in trouble, it's that the Secret Service showed up. Normally you would think the local police would handle this kind of thing but here we have the feds getting involved. That automatically moves it into toontown level stupidity. He's liable to serv a concurrent life sentence for every violation when they get around to making an example of him. Can't they limit themselves to finding Bin Laden's minions and leave this kind of stuff to the locals?

Re:Double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck if they "owned" those laptops? It's irrelevant to the discussion.

The point of all laws is to prevent harm. Granted, most laws nowadays seem to exist to create advantages for some asshats while causing harm for everybody else (like copyright), and so those laws are actually crimes themselves, but you know what I mean.

Installing the software alone did no harm.
The harm that was done in both cases, was the massive invasion of privacy.

And the additional harm that was done in this case, was the secret service* attacking that guy, instead of, you know, the local police doing a normal investigation!

Conclusion: There are no good guys in this story. There are two sides, and both are bad.

* Oh well, the merger of secret service and police is always the first indicator for a proto- fascist totalitarian state. So how I see it, this is the equivalent of the first SS raids.

Re:Double standards

[Z00L00K]

So the simple way for this dude would have been to ask the storekeeper about permission. If given permission then it would have been sufficient to display a sign saying "camera monitored area". (every area today is in reality camera monitored - by mobile phones at least - so soon it may be easier to say when an area isn't.)

In that case it may only have been a fact to concern about the people in the pictures, but as long as it's for artistic purposes there is some room. If the pictures were for commercial purposes a shitload of additional permits would have been needed.

Re:Double standards

[qwertyatwork]

No I didn't read the article before posting. +1 slashdot points. The reason it was the secret service was probably due to jurisdiction. I had my house raided by the secret service in 1988 when I was phreaking calling cards. I had a lawyer tell me the reason it was the secret service was because the calling cards put it in their jurisdiction. I can't remember the exact reason, but something along the lines of calling cards are a promise of pay, or some other legal mumbo jumbo.

Re:Double standards

[The Dawn Of Time]

So you don't actually know what the Secret Service is, right? That's what you're saying your actual, real problem is.

Re:Double standards

[AngryDeuce]

You can, but according to one article (possibly this one, I didn't read it) they wipe every computer in the store nightly.

Complete BS. They'll wipe and reinstall whenever someone borks a display model (rare, but it happens), and they keep software updated for the most part, but they don't do full wipes every night. [source: many friends working in the Apple Store]

Re:Double standards

[ColdWetDog]

So you don't actually know what the Secret Service is, right? That's what you're saying your actual, real problem is.

Nobody knows what the Secret Service is. They're secret. Sheesh.

Re:Double standards

[Billly Gates]

"The entire country was certainly at risk and getting the Secret Service involved was definitely the right thing to do. There's no way a local policeman could have reprimanded him."

I am aware that comment was made out of sarcasm, but I feel the secret service got involved probably because of this. It has been a decade since I lived in NYC, but the FBI does have an office there and it is likley, they purchased some of these laptops or an employee noticed it, or perhaps the DHS is trying to track down anyone who installs spyware to find any criminals/governments. Macs are used by government employees and this is a very big deal to them. It seems silly like an overeaction, but I have read comments on other news sites of people getting a brand new laptop out of the box at BestBuy that has not even been connected to the internet yet, uninstalling anti virus software and disabling Windows Update. I wish this was news so HP, Dell, or whoever can get a Sony style PR nightmare. Only this would correct the problem.

I fully support the DHS and secret service to find out what flash ram products are infected and where they are coming from. Keep in mind this guy did something illegal and it is not like they are busting into your home and seizing things without a warrant, but still spooky.

Re:Double standards

[Billly Gates]

Apple stores are notorious for people walking in with Ipods and downloading MAC office to them and walking out. One of the advantages of not using a registry or downside in the case for Apple is the ease of installing and uninstalling programs.

This alone would make me want to lock them as piracy does cost Apple money. My guess is when they are out of boxes they sell the display macs for a discount just like retailers do. When I worked at OfficeMax, I wrote down the password and gave instructions how to uninstall the kiosk program which locked them. It was pretty easy, but hey it was 11% cheaper and some technical folks like us here on slashdot know how to add/remove programs once given the password.

Re:Double standards

[wvmarle]

The store may be privately owned, but I've always considered the open areas of a store "public area". The door is open, anyone may walk in. They can not restrict it to "whites only" for example.

However for making recordings, like CCTV, at least where I live the premises must have a conspicuous sign informing visitors that such recordings take place - I'd wager that's the same in the US. This photo-taking may well fall under such video surveillance. Though as it's a shop selling expensive stuff I wouldn't be surprised if they have CCTV installed already. So for that matter I think his argument on being allowed to take photos is valid. Whether he should ask explicit permission to publish them, that's another matter, I really don't know. If you take a photo on the street and someone happens to be walking around in the background, you're fine. But in this case the person is the subject of the photo.

And then the installation of software: he apparently didn't ask permission for that, and if so, that's stupid. While those display computers may provide access for people who want to play with them a bit, and there probably are not written rules posted with them what you can and what you can not do with them, common sense should prevail here. Installing your own software on such computers without explicit permission is a bridge too far.

Re:Double standards

[wvmarle]

More sensible: wipe and re-install them every night. Or every few hours even, depending on how heavily customers tinker with it and try to change settings. As an Apple store you'd likely want your display models to look like Steve Jobs wants them to look.

Re:Double standards

[DJRumpy]

This person also doesn't own the property, and he didn't inform all of the customers that he was photographing them. It doesn't matter if an area is publicly accessible. They could close the doors at any time and boot you out, hence the difference between a public street, and a privately owned business should be immediately obvious. You are there on the business owners sufferance. It is unmistakably private property.

Re:Double standards

[thetoadwarrior]

You would be dumb enough to use personal information on a public laptop in a shop?

Re:Double standards

[JohnRoss1968]

"it was the installation of some software that was the problem."
I dont remember the secret service raiding SONY for their root kits they installed on who knows how many computers with out getting permission.
The US Federal Government... The Best Politicians Money Can Buy.

Re:Double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely untrue. The computers at Apple Stores have Deep Freeze on them, and they do indeed wipe themselves and re-image nightly. Source: I worked at an Apple Store and installed the images.

Re:Double standards

[Caraig]

That's the odd thing about all this: They SHOULD have no ability to install software. They're set up to not allow that sort of thing to the walk-bys. When you walk up to a computer in the Apple Store, you are not logged in as an Administrator.

Re:Double standards

[Runaway1956]

A lot of people are that dumb. Why not a slashdotter?

Re:Double standards

[hedwards]

I'm sorry, but this wasn't legal, I'm not aware of any part of the country where it's legal to wiretap computers without a warrant. I get the feeling that was the case and if so whatever security officer he claims granted permission would also have some explaining to do.

Re:Double standards

[X0563511]

Indeed. I'm at a loss as to where the Secret Service comes into this. That's not 'their thing' - if anyone was to rape his rights, it should have been the local PD or FBI.

Re:Double standards

[cheekyjohnson]

So clearly the secret service needs to raid his house.

Re:Double standards

[greenbird]

They certainly don't have a sign that says "Install whatever you like", and the article makes no mention that he asked permission to install such software. In short, he broke the law, and installed software which 'spies' on people without their consent.

Wrong on so many levels. First they are publicly accessible machines on display specifically for public like people to use. So unless there was a sign saying "do not install software on these computers" I don't see how he did anything wrong. Second you need to show me the law that states it's illegal to install any software on private computers put out in public for use by the public. The only possible criminal case would be if he bypassed some sort of protection that was designed to prevent people from installing software. Otherwise at worse there might be a case for civil tort. Third unless you're a cop (being facetious here) it's not spying to take pictures of people in a public space. There is no expectation of privacy. And yes a privately owned store that allows the general public in is a public place.

This appears to be another case of a police agency bending a law that was intended for complete other purposes and that the people were assured that it would not be used this way when passed to prosecute someone because they simple didn't like what the person done. Just wait until PROTECT IP act gets passed. That one turns pretty much anyone who access the interenet into a criminal. But of course it won't be used to go after those people.

Re:Double standards

[UnknowingFool]

There is a difference between publicly accessible (like in all retail stores) and public land. An Apple store just like a MacDonald's just like any other retail or commercial space is not "public property".

They can not restrict it to "whites only" for example.

Laws which forbid discrimination are covered by the Commerce Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A private store like Apple can ask you to leave if you are shirtless or shoeless or are causing a disturbance.

If you take a photo on the street and someone happens to be walking around in the background, you're fine. But in this case the person is the subject of the photo.

Your argument is based on the supposition that the subject is in public. As I have stated above, an Apple store is private property. I'm pretty sure if you wanted to take photos in a Tiffany's, the store manager would ask you to leave. Some stores don't care but it's up to the store to allow you.

Re:Double standards

[node 3]

Apple store leaves computers open and accessible to anybody who walks in the door.

Correct. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with them.

Potential customers are either allowed to use them or theyre not.

Correct. But that's not a "do whatever you want" pass. Where do you get these silly notions?

Re:Double standards

[Stupendoussteve]

You ever used a Mac? Most Mac software does not use an installer. A .app is just a directory that you drag anywhere you want. Heck, you don't even have to remove it from the disk image to run it.

Re:Double standards

[LordLimecat]

Thanks for clearing that one up. The entire country was certainly at risk and getting the Secret Service involved was definitely the right thing to do.

You do know the Secret Service has multiple roles, right?

There's no way a local policeman could have reprimanded him.

Why is it a problem which branch of enforcement got him? Did the secret service break some law or violate some principle here? I dont get it. According to the article...
A Secret Service spokesman told the BBC that the investigation was taking place under US Code Title 18 /1030 which relates to 'fraud and related activity in connection with computers.'
So apparently thats why the Secret Service got involved. Seems a stretch to call it fraud, but then Im not familiar with that bit of law.

PS: I read the article before posting (hey, it's the way I roll!) and it mentions something about him asking permission before doing it.

Which should work out well for him if it turns out to be true; the article doesnt mention whether that was confirmed, or whether they gave him the permission.

Re:Double standards

[node 3]

Then why doesn't Apple lock down their computers so nothing can be installed on them.

Because Apple *wants* people to be able to do pretty much anything they want on the display Macs. If you are having trouble with some software, you can bring it in and run it. However, they don't want you leaving anything permanently running.

I understand that this guy crossed a line but it should be between him and Apple.

What's Apple supposed to do alone? They contacted the pertinent authorities.

Re:Double standards

[westlake]

I had a lawyer tell me the reason it was the secret service was because the calling cards put it in their jurisdiction. I can't remember the exact reason, but something along the lines of calling cards are a promise of pay, or some other legal mumbo jumbo.

Look before you phreak.

Today the agency's primary investigative mission is to safeguard the payment and financial systems of the United States.

Since 1984, the Secret Service's investigative responsibilities have expanded to include crimes that involve financial institution fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, electronic funds transfers and money laundering as it relates to the agency's core violations.

US Secret Service

The USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, mandated the U.S. Secret Service to establish a nationwide network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) to investigate and prevent attacks on financial and critical infrastructures in the United States. As such, this mandate expanded on the agency's first ECTF -- the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force, formed in 1995 -- which brought together federal, state and local law enforcement, prosecutors, private-industry companies, and academia.

The network prioritizes investigations that meet the following criteria:

Significant economic or community impact,
Participation of multiple-district or transnational organized criminal groups,
Use of new technology as a means to commit crime.

United Sttates Secret Service

Re:Double standards

[biodata]

I thought they were there to run software on as part of your appraisal as to whether to buy one or not. If you are an artist it makes sense to run software relating to your art. I don't know whether he has any plans to upgrade his existing Apple setup or not, but going into the shop to have a play is the point isn't it? They don't make you sign anything relating to what you can and can't run, and it doesn't seem as though anything improper was done here - no fraud, impersonation, malicious code designed to do harm. If the people going into the shop didn't realise computer watches you in America as well as Soviet Russia, then they learnt something. No crime I can see.

Re:Double standards

[Belial6]

The artist also had no rights to use models without getting a release.

Re:Double standards

[mrmeval]

He asked the door mat (security guard) for permission to use computers belonging to the Apple stores. Since he did not have permission of the computer owner he triggered this law.

Since an Apple store is not a public place and he did not have the stores permission, the people he photographed who did not give their permission now have a civil right to sue him pursuant to the law.

If he's affiliated with any college/school/museum or business they both may be guilty of conspiracy to commit a violation of the law if they facilitated his act in any way.

The government need your stupidity and your money and they will get it.

Re:Double standards

[Belial6]

The security guard also does not have the right to absolve the artist from getting signed releases from his models.

Re:Double standards

[node 3]

I thought they were there to run software on as part of your appraisal as to whether to buy one or not.

Correct. That is one of the things they are there for.

If you are an artist it makes sense to run software relating to your art.

But it absolutely *does not* mean using it to make your art. He most certainly wasn't just "testing the software".

I don't know whether he has any plans to upgrade his existing Apple setup or not, but going into the shop to have a play is the point isn't it? They don't make you sign anything relating to what you can and can't run, and it doesn't seem as though anything improper was done here - no fraud, impersonation, malicious code designed to do harm.

The fraud was leaving software operating without permission in order to do something Apple most certainly does not want customer to do, which is spy on other customers.

If the people going into the shop didn't realise computer watches you in America as well as Soviet Russia, then they learnt something. No crime I can see.

That's some seriously messed up logic. You may as well say, "if people walking into dark alleys don't realize that's where you get mugged, they learnt something. No crime I can see."

The software he ran amounts to wiretapping. It is not generally legal to wiretap someone else's computer. This guy wiretapped Apple's computer. That's a crime, and at the very least makes sense to investigate.

Re:Double standards

[DavidTC]

Asking a security guard if you can take pictures in a store is not even close to being the same as asking the store manager if you can install software on their display machines.

Indeed. This guy is an idiot. Permission to take pictures does not imply permission to install software on someone's computer to take photos.

However, while a lot of people are saying he didn't have 'permission' to install software, I don't see how 'installing stuff' is any different than using the computer any other way. If the computers were open to the public, then he has a perfect right to use them for any (legal) purpose. Nothing prohibits him from continuing to use them after he walks away. Unless there's some sort of sign that specifics he can't install stuff, he can do anything (which is otherwise legal) with the computer he wants..

A lot of people are saying he didn't have 'permission' to install things, but I don't see how 'installing stuff' is any different than using the computer any other way. Unauthorized use of a computer requires that he was barred from doing. Were there any signs stating what was not allowed for him to do on those computers? Were there rules stating what he could do, thus implicitly putting other behavior our of bounds? Was there a password he got around? Did he vandalism the computer by rendering it non-functional? If the answer to those was 'no', then he's pretty legal.

And before anyone asks the obvious question, yes, a keylogger would be illegal. Those often count as 'wiretaps' and under state law you usually cannot install them on computers without explicit permission...and if you have them to collect logins and passwords, that's illegal no matter what.

But that doesn't make all 'installing software' illegal.

This appears to be why, in fact, he wasn't changed with unauthorized use of a computer. Because he was authorized. I don't understand what he was charged with, though.

Also, he didn't need anyone's permission to take their photo. You can photograph anyone in public (Or even private, unless they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the fact this was private property doesn't change anything.), although there might be 'likeness rights' issues if you attempt to use them in an advertisement.

Re:Double standards

[Professr3]

There are laws specifically against stealing. There are not laws specifically against installing software on computers available for public use.

Stealing directly (and provably) perpetrates harm. Photography (even by automated means, using equipment provided to the public) in a public place, given that there's no expected privacy in public, does not directly or provably perpetrate harm. If he took pictures of "someone who shouldn't be photographed," the mistake is theirs, not his.

Your argument is fallacious, and the fact that you're posting as AC suggests that you already know it is.

Re:Double standards

[Professr3]

Signed releases are only necessary if the photographs are A) identifiable and used for commercial purposes, or B) in a place where there is an expectation of privacy.

Re:Double standards

[Belial6]

These were full face photos of people. The person claimed to be an artist, and thus it was for commercial purposes. The people did not know they were being photographed, and had no reason to think they would be on private property while in the Apple store. The fact that the software was hidden shows that the artist believed the people had an expectation of not being photographed. All that being said. No. your criteria is wrong. You cannot legally just start using peoples images without their permission.

Re:Double standards

[Joce640k]

Indeed. This guy is an idiot.

Thanks, but I was never in doubt about the 'idiot' part. It's the "Secret Service" part that bothers me.

The thought that posting photographs of random people on a blog can earn you a visit from the Secret Service "within days" should worry you.

Re:Double standards

[Miseph]

The Secret service got involved because it's their jurisdiction: computer crimes. As for raping his rights... I'm not really convinced that he was within his rights to take closeup photos of people without their consent or even knowledge then very publicly post them.

If anyone in the store gave him permission to do this with the full knowledge of his plan, I would imagine that this person is going to lose their job... so if you're looking for a crap job in NYC, I'd keep an eye on the Apple Store.

Re:Double standards

[neonKow]

You would be dumb enough to use personal information on a public laptop in a shop?

You don't lose your rights to privacy because you are dumb. In fact, there are arguments that the state of computer security right now is such that you can't avoid doing something unsafe with your personal information thanks to everything from social media to lack of awareness to limitations of technology. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply.

Re:Double standards

[mat catastrophe]

Overall, that's debatable. In this specific case, however, it's questionable that he had the right to do it. Had he set up something to take photos of people IN the store from OUTSIDE the store, he's totally clean. But, having something set up inside the store and having it take pictures that are up close and personal, is questionable but not absolute.

Re:Double standards

[DavidTC]

I'm not sure what 'within days' has to do with anything. I would hope the Secret Service is efficient enough to track down a blog 'within days' to its owner.

And it's the Secret Service because the Secret Service is in charge of certain types of frauds.

If it was a crime that was under the Secret Service's jurisdiction, I don't see why anyone would be surprised it was them that showed up, or that it only took them 'days'.

I just don't understand what sort of crime it was supposed to be. They appear to be claiming some sort of fraud, but that would seem to require he mislead someone at some point, and I don't see how he did that.

Was he stupid enough to walk up to someone and say 'I wish to use your display computers for a purpose that doesn't involve photographing people.' to get permission? I guess that might be fraud, if he were dumb enough to mislead people, instead of just keeping his mouth shut and walking up and using them without permission.

People have implicit authorization to use a computer unless there's some sort of obvious way that was revoked, like it requiring a password or in a non-public area or there being a sign.(1) And it was a fricking display model anyway, set out specifically to be used.

Perhaps they're trying to get him because he 'used' the computer when the store was closed, when he certainly didn't have permission to use it. I still don't understand how that's fraud, though. That just seems to be regular unauthorized computer access to me.(2)

1) Please be aware I will not argue this fact with anyone here unless they can produce evidence that they had an invite to visit this website, from the owners of the site, before they came here the first time. I'm sick of idiots who read the law and think 'unauthorized' means 'without explicit authorization', which would, in fact, render the entire internet unworkable, as you'd need permission to visit any website before you did so. (No, the website TOS can't help you, unless you can magically see that somewhere without visiting the website.) Regardless of what the law appears to say, you can access any computer unless your implicit authorization has been revoked.

2) This legal theory is a bit goofy anyway. If you break into a place, or just trespass past some 'employee only' signs, and use a computer, sure, that's unauthorized access. But if you're standing there in public areas of the store while they close the store, lock it, put up the closed sign, and leave, utterly ignoring you...you're not trespassing, you didn't break and enter, and you are entirely authorized to keep using that computer. The permission to get there changed around you, but they do have to explicitly tell you, someone who's already 'gotten past' where the signs are. That seems to be the analogy to what happened here.

Re:Double standards

[thetoadwarrior]

True you don't lose your rights but at the same time you should never be naive enough to think your rights are being protected because they're you're rights. Even if you argue the guy should be hung from the highest tree that's all well and good but there will be someone who will turn around and do something similar or worse after him so whether you have the right to something or not you shouldn't assume some public computer is safe to use with personal information. Certainly not one in a computer shop.

Re:Double standards

[jahudabudy]

It seems to be this law that he ran afoul of. I agree that "Fraud" seems to be the wrong term for unauthorized access to a computer, but that is what the law apparently wants to call it. I guess he defrauded the computer? Anyway, reading the statute, there seem to be a couple of clauses that might be applicable, if you kind of squint. 2c and 4, specifically. You would have to interpret the Apple Store floor model as a protected computer for 2c to apply, or a person's image to be an item "of value" for 4. I'm assuming they are considering his installation of software onto the computer to be the "unauthorized access", which may or may not be realistic. I have no idea where on the "bleeding obvious to kind of nebulous" scale it is whether or not you are allowed to install software on these floor models.

Some dumbass

[Anonymous Coward]

Installed a program on someone's else computer and now he's saying there's nothing wrong with this?

Re:Some dumbass

[ichthyoboy]

Maybe he really wants a job with Sony...

Re:Some dumbass

[Exitar]

Surely your argument will hold in a court!

Re:Some dumbass

[isorox]

Is there a policy at Apple stores that doesn't allow the customer to try the computers out? Isn't installation one of the things a prospective customer would want to see? I know as a Mac user, I'd show off the install feature since it's one of the best things about Mac OS X compared to other OSes.

Really? They've got apt?

Re:Some dumbass

[zippthorne]

No, he should've asked first. No matter what he was trying to do.

Firstly, as to your point, I'm sure they'd allow it if you brought in something that you needed to be able to run and wanted to make sure it would work ok. They'd probably help with the installation if there were any issues, too, (and offer that same help if you bought the machine). It's really in your best interest not to try to be clandestine and ethically shady about this sort of thing.

Secondly, they would probably want to wipe their machines afterward. You may inadvertantly or intentionally have brought in malware, or the software might have copyright issues that they don't want to have to deal with.

Finally, in this specific case, they'd probably be interested in the project and even help him out with it. I wouldn't have been surprised if they deployed the software to many machines across all the stores and cherry picked a bunch of pictures for the next Apple TV ad, set to Yael Naim music or something.

Installing stuff they don't know about, and which runs when you aren't even in the store? There's not even grey area there.

Re:Some dumbass

[Doctor_Jest]

I do. via fink. Works great. :) But dragging an icon to a folder (which is standard on OS X) beats the ever-loving snot out of Windows "installer"... or as I like to call it... "gee I hope this doesn't crater my PC" function.

If this has taught us one thing... it's that New Yorkers are some UGLY fuckers. :)

Re:Some dumbass

[noodler]

This reminds me of when i was a kid and joked around in department stores by writing little basic programs on ancient 8-bit home computers.
Usually the program was along the lines of:

10 PRINT "I RULE! ";
20 GOTO 10

The clerks didn't have a clue on how to break the loop so they had to reboot the thing once they noticed.

Needless to say, i'm still waiting for any service, secret or not, to come take my stuff.

Makes sense

[ccguy]

Probably they didn't want to ask him about this particular project, but maybe he setup something similar before? Maybe he's got some other interesting pictures of people together with location and timestamp. Bonus point for someone else's in the surroundings (or sharing the computer).

Or not, but well, they want to make sure :-)

Re:Secret Service??!?

[Joce640k]

Installing kitchens is a crime now??? I"d better call my cousin and warn him!

Wait a second

[hansraj]

So he had no idea when he came up with this project that he might get in trouble with the law even though he _thinks_ he is on the right side of the law? Either this guy is trying to make a point by getting in the grey area (FTFA, he is a consultant for EFF), or a moron. In either way, he is going to need a lot of luck.

Re:Wait a second

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, that's the land of the free and the brave for you. I stay in my socialist European hellhole, thank you very much.

Re:Wait a second

[Alef]

(FTFA, he is a consultant for EFF)

No, TFA says he is consulting with EFF, not that he is a consultant for EFF. He is asking them for legal advice.

Re:Wait a second

[hansraj]

My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

Re:Wait a second

[jpapon]

The only thing here that is possibly illegal is that he installed software when he wasn't explicitly authorized to... Of course, he wasn't explicitly prohibited from installing software either, and since the computers are there for public use with no conditions on how they can be used, I don't really see how Apple has any case against him.

Re:Wait a second

[jpapon]

It actually depends. I believe in most countries it is okay as long as the person isn't clearly the subject of the picture. So if you take a picture of the base of the Eiffel tower with people walking underneath it, you can publish it. On the other hand if you take a picture of somebody sitting on a bench in front of the Eiffel tower, you need to obtain their permission.

I also believe that in many jurisdictions they differentiate between displaying as a work of art and publishing something commercially for financial gain.

Re:Wait a second

[Mindcontrolled]

Yeah, there are regulations concerning the rights to your own picture. That is beside the point, though - If I pulled the same thing right here, I wouldn't have my servers seized and I damn sure wouldn't have the secret service come after me. Worst that would happen would be a cease and desist letter from someone depicted that didn't like it.

Re:Wait a second

[ColdWetDog]

Yeah, there are regulations concerning the rights to your own picture. That is beside the point, though - If I pulled the same thing right here, I wouldn't have my servers seized and I damn sure wouldn't have the secret service come after me. Worst that would happen would be a cease and desist letter from someone depicted that didn't like it.

That's a valid issue. We need to give these guys (and they're guys) in law enforcement some anti testosterone treatments (or just buy them some MacBooks, I suppose). Not everyone has a closet full of assault rifles and grenades. You don't need to deconstruct this guys hard drives at a molecular level.

Save you breath for truly important cases.

Re:Wait a second

[Caraig]

Except Apple has been silent. According to the article, the Secret Service got involved on its own. If Apple had been pressing charges, the FBI would be the ones busting down his doors and raiding his house.

Re:Wait a second

[DannyO152]

Didn't read the article, mea culpa, but how was he going to receive the photos his program took? How can Apple assume that photos are all that his application does and nothing else is transmitted or a control channel isn't opened? The Secret Service is the federal agency for investigating credit card fraud, so, they're called in, you betcha, to verify that idiot, self-entitled, privacy-hating, condescending artist is the reality and not the brilliant disguise.

Re:Wait a second

[hedwards]

I take it you haven't been following the European reaction to Google's WAP fiasco, because I doubt very much that he'd be getting better treatment over there. I get the feeling that doing it over there would result in some crazy huge fine for violating privacy rights.

Re:Wait a second

[hedwards]

His best course of action was to consult with an actual attorney before doing this. Afterward his best course of action was to keep his mouth shut unless he's got an attorney present.

Consulting with the EFF is pretty low on the list of things to do in a situation like this.

Re:Wait a second

[LordLimecat]

Wait, what? Some guy breaks law, enforcement goes after him. Farewell freedom?

Can you explain that bit for me?

Re:Wait a second

[LordLimecat]

Im not sure you know what the Secret Service IS. Its original task was to combat counterfeiting, and its role has varied over time. In this case, the link is apparently that computer fraud is something that falls into the Secret Service's jurisdiction.

Sounds to me like you assumed their role was "dealing with matters of high national security", which isnt quite the case.

Great exposure

[stormguard2099]

Geez, you can't really ask for any better PR than having your project mentioned on national news. As long as he stays out of jail (go EFF!) then he'll come out on top in the end.

Re:Great exposure

[inKubus]

Not to mention Apple stores getting mentioned as well............. it's all marketing, nothing to see here.

Re:Great exposure

[westlake]

Geez, you can't really ask for any better PR than having your project mentioned on national news. As long as he stays out of jail (go EFF!) then he'll come out on top in the end.

He can bask in the glory of his fifteen minutes of fame.

The civil and criminal consequences of his actions will keep him otherwise occupied for the next three to five years.

A final word of advice:

The EFF is a brass band and a law professor who - twenty years out of the game - still thinks he would have made a hot-shot trial attorney.

Re:Great exposure

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Go EFF? If they defend a guy who sets up a surveillance camera in public, they can go to hell.

He's a developer of OpenFrameworks

[Haven]

A creative coding suite... I hope the SS doesn't impede my C++ art.

It's like a gallery of stereotypes

[Kagetsuki]

I like how every shot he posted has some sort of stereotypical nature about it. It's like characters in a movie or something. I also find it interesting how many people look angry?

Re:It's like a gallery of stereotypes

[wvmarle]

Next time you ride the subway look around. Look at the facial expression of the people you see around you. How many are looking happy?

OK riding the subway is no fun you say. True. Still someone should be happy for whatever reason? So happy that they're still smiling when training for sardine-to-be-canned?

Now redo this experiment on the streets. Still you just won't see many smiles around. For some reason people are not happy, are never happy. They look neutral at best, many look negative. Angry, bored, depressed - anything but happy. \

You see the same in these images. Smiles are rare.

Re:It's like a gallery of stereotypes

[Isaac Remuant]

Have you ever recorded yourself with a webcam while working? You most invariably will look either angry or serious (when too focused) or stupid when you laugh, stare or leave your mouth somewhat open.

Anyway, the apple photos are a bit more extreme, they look like they're in pain. I think it's the price tags. =P

Re:It's like a gallery of stereotypes

[Grygus]

If you live in a large city for any length of time, you will notice that people leave you alone if you look a little angry. Friendly-looking people get approached for directions, donations, and crazy diatribes. Once the novelty of those things wears off, most people adopt a more neutral or angry expression to discourage unwanted interaction.

They shouldn't have gone after him...

[CFBMoo1]

* Public place
* Got permission
* Glorified art project

Seriously, what a waste of tax money.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[MichaelSmith]

* Got permission

It sounds like a security guard gave him permission to take a few shots in the store, not to install webcam software on their laptops.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also an apple store is not a public place, it's private property that's open to the public which is MUCH different than say a park.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[nurb432]

They are quasi public unless they are listed as a 'private club'.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[AAWood]

But people aren't, by using those computers, giving their permission for their photos to be taken and put online. Besides, what are you saying; that I should be legally free to do anything I want online, as long as I'm using a public computer?

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[stewbacca]

No, every Apple store is a public conveyance. They may be privately owned, but the mere fact they are a store makes them a public place.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[stewbacca]

Errm, I mean a public place...conveyance refers to transportation..not sure there's much of that going on in Apple stores.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[stewbacca]

The Supreme Court disagrees with your AC opinion:

“A privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”

While the wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.

Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[shoehornjob]

People don't have a reasonable right to privacy when they are in a public place like the apple store or the mall etc. If they didn't want to be photographed they should have stayed home. Welcome to surveilance nation where there's a camera around every corner.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[cob666]

A store is not a 'public place'. It's is privately owned. You can't be asked to leave a public park but you can be asked to leave a store. You can take pictures in a public place but you need permission to take pictures of the inside of a store (the exception being you take pictures of the inside of a store FROM a public place.)

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[jpapon]

By walking around in public you automatically give your consent to let people take pictures of you and publish them wherever they want.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[stewbacca]

This is not an issue of photography in a public place. The guy is in hot water for computer hacking or some nonsense. He is legally protected in that you can take pictures of people in stores without their consent as long as they are afforded "reasonable privacy" (you aren't photographing them in the bathroom or locker room).

A store, while privately owned, is considered public space. You can take pictures of people inside a store unless the STORE clearly posts limitations against it. Apple doesn't do this in any of their stores. They MIGHT after this event, but they don't as of now.

So you've got it backwards..you don't need "permission", you need to be told you can't take pictures in a store.

I realize a lot of socially crippled folks hang out here, but you should know that I can take pictures of you walking around the mall all day long as long as the Mall doesn't ask me to stop. YOU can't ask me to stop. Well, you can, but I'm immune to your buffed out Night Elf Paladin talent tree spells.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[canajin56]

No. Anything that isn't government property is private property. In a public space you are free to do "things deemed reasonable" such as "reasonable speech". In private property that is open to the public, such as a store or a mall, you are not free. The freedom you have is "you may enter without permission" but you have no freedom with regards to anything else. For example, an Apple Store can forbid political speech, they can forbid soliciting, they can forbid skateboards and rollerskates, they can enforce a dress code (no shirt no shoes no service), and they can forbid photography.

In fact, this very distinction is what bothers people so much about the privatization of parks. See, a city gets tired of paying for maintaining a city, so they sell it to a conservancy group. This lets the city enforce control that would be illegal otherwise. See, in a public space you can't just go escort all of the people under 18 out. But if it's private property, you can evict anybody you want! Keep those damn hobos and teens out of the parks, nice and legal. And you can arrest people for possessing a camera, too, damn phototerrorists. Best of all, you can forbid outside food so they have to go through the local food vendors! Even better, in a privatized town square you can censor the speech all you want. If somebody is complaining about the city, you can arrest them for trespassing.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[Registered Coward v2]

While the [Supreme Court]wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.

Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.

As you pointed out, it was a 1st amendment ruling so your argument that a "shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules" can't do that does not follow from the ruling.

|

I'd go so far as to say the ruling applies to 1st amendment rights in the common spaces of the shopping center, not individual stores. The SC likened shopping center to a town commons, so a store could stop you from exercising your 1st amendment rights to pass out literature in their store, for example.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[stewbacca]

Yeah all that except you are wrong...at least in California.

In 1979, the California Supreme Court [107 Cal.App.4th 109] concluded that “a privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”

Besides, this isn't about the photography (that's protected, even if you don't think so, especially since Apple didn't specifically prohibit photography), it's about the guy putting stuff on the computer.

And as for the park, you can write city ordinances that limit the hours, put age limits for unsupervised teens, and post "no loitering" signs. If you don't have the ordinance, you can't escort them out (or prohibit skate boarding, smoking, breast feeding, or anything else that is legal in public places).

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[naasking]

You can't be asked to leave a public park

Sure you can, by the police.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[ehynes]

You're citing a California Supreme Court decision which, although it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, is not relevant in this case (see http://www.davelippman.com/LawoftheMall.html.) That decision is also irrelevant here because the artist's actions occurred inside the Apple store, not in the (possibly) public space outside the store.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[lbgator]

The guy isn't in trouble for taking pictures. He is in trouble for installing software on someone else's machine. The AC was saying that Apple should have locked their computers down if they didn't want people installing software. The discussion of permission for photos misses the point of the discussion.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[kimvette]

And, you don't have to listen if you have the right to be there; you can ask "am I being detained, or am I free to go?" and if they are not detaining you and it is public property accessible to all, you have a right to ignore him and stay there.

. . . at which point the officer will continue to behave unlawfully and tase you.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[Caraig]

And it depends on what he means by 'security guard.' There's no uniformed 'Apple Store Security Corps' or anything like that. Was it a mall cop? Was it a security guard the store had hired? (Sometimes they do that.) Was it the greeter standing by the door? Any way you cut it, the security guard will NOT have permission to do this. The store manager would. TFA says he went on to give a presentation at the store later, though, so maybe he did have the manager's permission? It's hard to tell from the article. Either way, it doesn't sound like Apple's pressing charges, but that the Secret Service undertook this on their own.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[jedidiah]

Don't you kind of assume that you will be under survelliance when you are in the the Apple store or any other store for that matter?

The store is going to have cameras trained on you trying to prevent and catch shoplifting.

The only difference here is that the data is going to some guy that doesn't work for Apple.

Otherwise, the situation is pretty much normal. It's been like this for decades already. Merchant survelliance is nothing new by a long stretch.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[westlake]

The Supreme Court disagrees with your AC opinion

The California Supreme Court disagrees.

The US Supreme Court decision was more constrained:

In American constitutional law, the Pruneyard decision is famous for its role in establishing two important rules:

under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers

under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.

In refusing to follow Pruneyard, the state supreme courts of New York and Wisconsin both attacked it as an unprincipled and whimsical decision. In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights also considered and refused to follow Pruneyard in a United Kingdom case.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

I think a distinction can be made between the interior of the stores that border the commons and the commons itself.

I do not like deception. Using bait used to draw subjects to the hidden camera. Public performance without the knowledge or consent of the participants. This does have the look or smell of "free speech."

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[stewbacca]

Yes, I neglected the California bit. Photographers have the right to take pictures of people IN STORES anywhere doing anything unless the person being photographed has the reasonable expectation of privacy (in the bathroom, doctors office, etc.). People shopping in a store are not reasonable expected to have privacy, by being in public in the first place.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[AAWood]

Except that my point (at least, the one we're now discussing) was that he was focusing on the issue of the installation whilst ignoring the issue of the rights of those being photographed. So by claiming by bringing this up that I'm missing the point, you're missing the point. Besides, I did go over my thoughts on that aspect in my second point. Which, funnily enough, you also missed.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[Vegeta99]

Who was your law professor?

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[lbgator]

Huh? The AC was "ignoring the rights of those being photographed"? The AC was focusing on the installation issue for two reasons: 1) that is what the artist is being charged with and 2) he was responding directly to MichaelSmith. If the AC had mentioned the privacy concern he too would have been missing the point of the discussion.

Also, I didn't address your second point because it was too big of a straw man. Since you insist though... no one is arguing that you have legal immunity while using a public computer. That's just so far from a reasonable point that it doesn't even merit a response. If the artist had done something clearly illegal (child porn for instance) there would be no question that he had broken a law. He didn't do anything CLEARLY illegal though. Restating the AC's original point: if you have admin rights to someone else's computer and you install (benign) software on it then you are an asshole, not a criminal.

Let me summarize for you:

• MichaelSmith: the artist didn't have permission to install software on the Apple computers
• AC retorts: the artist had implied permission, therefore he's not in violation of section 1030 of USC 18
• AAWood: 1) what about PRIVACY? and 2) are you arguing that anyone can film child porn with Apple computers?
• Me: Donnie you're out of your element!

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[webdog314]

While it is true that you can take someone's picture in a public place, USE of that picture is another matter. As soon as he publicly posts that picture associated with his name as photographer, then he opens himself to lawsuits regarding personal likeness. This is why the press has you sign wavers. They don't want something coming back at them later for any reason.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[AK Marc]

A store is not a 'public place'. It's is privately owned.

It's both. When you hang an "open" sign out and invite the public in, you have deliberately extended the "public place" of the outside into your privately owned land. You don't have to do that. Plenty of stores (plenty still being a tiny minority, but at least thousands if not more - I haven't seen anyone put up numbers) only serve people invited. There are a number of gun stores that operate that way. And I've seen jewelery stores that keep their doors locked during business hours, you have to ring and they have to let you in. But the court cases are clear, if you hang an "open" sign out and have unlocked doors and expect to have people wander in and look at your stuff and hopefully buy stuff, then your store is a public place.

You are free to not operate your store in that manner.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[ChrisMaple]

California's 1979 decision quickly resulted in a lot of complaints from owners and customers being accosted by loudmouths. As a consequence, the unlimited-free-speech-in-a shopping-mall soon became "you can harangue only in this haranguing zone." Some stores even have lines painted on the sidewalk that the pests have to stay within.

Re:They shouldn't have gone after him...

[mat catastrophe]

As I posted above, it's not exactly a public place and there is (IIRC) a limited expectation of privacy *within the store itself*, however anyone outside the store could take pictures of the people inside and that would be acceptable. /I should really take a refresher course in media law. it's been over a decade.

Proportionality

[Teun]

It seems to me the legal concept of proportionality is out of the window even before a court has looked at it.

When the Apple store is so upset about someone installing a reasonably innocent piece of software on one of their publicly available computers that they need the Secret Service to handle it I get serious doubts about both the Secret Service's and Apple's sound judgement.

Re:Proportionality

[Goaway]

Secretly taking pictures of people without their concent is "relatively innocent" now?

Re:Proportionality

[DMFNR]

My problem with this is that after reading the article I couldn't see anything stating that the Apple store was upset. I want to know if this was sanctioned by the store itself. All I can garner from the article is that he asked permission of a security guard, which probably isn't authorized to give permission to install software on the computers, but it also says that he was in the store during the project asking a few of the people being photographed their permission. You mean to tell me that not a single one of these people went up to a sales representative and said, "hey, there's some creepy guy telling me your computer took a picture of me and he wants to use it in an art project?" I just cannot believe that nobody in that store was aware this was going on, and then the guy goes and holds a little art exposition right in front of the store! I'd think at some point during this project someone would have called the police if they thought something was wrong, and I also think the local police department would most likely go out and arrest this guy themselves rather than be like, "holy shit Jim, we're going to have to call up the Secret Service on this one".

I really do agree with some of the above posters that there has to be something else going on her. I don't want to start going in to some of the crazy (and unlikely) scenarios that went through my mind after reading this, but there just has to be more to this story. Who hasn't opened up QBasic on a computer in K-Mart back in the '90s and made it print "fuck you" over and over. So now this is such a serious crime the Secret Service would be involved?

Shit, maybe we didn't get Osama and he's actually walking around New York and he was looking for a new Mac Book Pro and this guy got a picture of him and now the SS has to put Kyle away for good lest any of these photos leak.

Re:Proportionality

[stewbacca]

It has always been "overtly innocent" to take pictures of people in public.

IAAP (I am a photographer).

Re:Proportionality

[ncohafmuta]

and see, if he would have just applied for press credentials beforehand, he could have claimed freedom of the press and been fine.

in response though, yeah, it's relatively innocent, in the grand scheme of things. we've become such a bunch of whiny and weak people in this society. ooo, he took a picture of me, ooo the camera stole my soul. grow a backbone. it's a freakin' picture.

Re:Proportionality

[jpapon]

In a public place, yes, it is innocent. The issue isn't whether it was a crime to take the pictures (it isn't), it is whether it was a crime to install software on the Apple Store's computers. That's why he was taken in by the Secret service, he's being charged with violating 18 USC section 1030 "The computer fraud and abuse act".

Re:Proportionality

[hexagonc]

Except that this wasn't in the public. This was on Apple's private property. Also, it appears to have been done at least partially without people's consent under conditions that they would not have expected to be photographed. You might not mind having hidden cameras taking pictures of you and posting them on the internet without your consent but a lot of (most?) other people do.

Re:Proportionality

[jpapon]

As has been stated several times already, when you open up your private property to the public and allow anyone to come in and shop, it becomes (legally) a public place.

Re:Proportionality

[stewbacca]

Except that this wasn't in the public. This was on Apple's private property.

Apple's private property would be Apple's offices. Their retail stores are not afforded private property status because, imagine this, they are a store and invite the public in.

Also, it appears to have been done at least partially without people's consent under conditions that they would not have expected to be photographed.

The law states that you can’t photograph somebody who has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” By being in an Apple Store, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, unless you rent the place out for a private viewing, or you are in the bathroom.

Re:Proportionality

[jonbryce]

But not using someone else's camera, without their knowledge.

Re:Proportionality

[bugg]

The secret service typically won't be involved unless there's $5,000 worth of damages; and to get to that figure they generally need someone complaining that the response to the exceeding of authorized damages was >= $5,000. I'd be surprised if the Apple store hadn't complained.

Re:Proportionality

[hexagonc]

Citation please for applicable laws that state that private property rights go out the window for retail stores. If that was the case then an Apple employee couldn't ask a customer to leave because obviously an Apple employee would have no authority in a public place. Clearly, this is not what you meant when you said that Apple's "retail stores are not afforded private property status. . . ." Also, I wasn't making a point on whether anyone's privacy was legally violated. My point was about what their expectations about privacy are likely to be on a private property owned by Apple, regardless of whether it is open to the public or not. Because the premises were under the authority of Apple, it affects how you expect other members of the public that are in that retail store to behave, it affects who you complain to if another member of the public is harassing you with a camera, it affects where you expect surveillance cameras to be and it affects your expectations on how that surveillance footage will be used. My point was about how members of the public would expect other members of the public to behave on premises owned by a private company.

Re:Proportionality

[hexagonc]

I don't think this is as black and white as you think. In what legal sense are retail stores "public places"? A public place owned and operated by Apple (a private entity) falls under different laws than a public place owned and operated by a municipal, state, or Federal authority; not all public places are made the same. My point had to do with who gets to decide what the rules for acceptable behavior on the premises are. Photography could be deemed unacceptable behavior on a public place under private control even if similar photography would otherwise be okay on publicly owned and operated grounds. This is why museums and theaters can have no photography rules. My claim is that people in retail stores operated by Apple probably expect a higher standard for privacy with respect to covert surveillance by other customers than they would expect in most other public places.

Re:Proportionality

[stewbacca]

“a privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”

Rules that stores, while privately owned, operate as public spaces and they can't just make up their own rules because they own the place.

(California law....your state/country might vary)

Re:Proportionality

[Goaway]

A shopping center is quite different from a store.

Re:Proportionality

[DMFNR]

The whole thing just struck me as odd, especially after reading up a bit on the Secret Service and what their role in federal law enforcement is. As I thought, their primary duties are security for government officials/dignitaries/property, and treasury issues (ie. counterfeiting). If the facts that are presented in the story are all there is, then I don't know what the hell to think of this. WTF are the Secret Service doing the NYPD's job? Is this a part of this whole new "War on Hackers" thing we got going on? If anything, it just seems wasteful to have them out dealing in these kinds of things. It's like the FBI showing up to arrest me for shoplifting. Another thing that bothers me about this is the SS (used just for abbreviation purposes, not for any connotations it might bring with it) going outside of its main areas of responsibility. Separation of powers is important in any government organization, and I'm seeing more and more federal LE organizations going outside of their usually well defined boundaries. This is my problem with everything falling under the blanket of the DHS. It seems like it's a free-for-all out there with every organization trying to grab what it can, maybe in an attempt for publicity and in turn funding. Maybe this is the way they want it, with so many different federal divisions blurring the lines of responsibility, it becomes a hell of a lot harder for the public to single out a single org as being a bad apple. Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass.

I'm sure there has to be something more to this story, it just doesn't add up to me.

EFF?

[lyinhart]

So he's consulting the EFF (not working as a consultant for them like someone else though). I'd be very disappointed at the EFF if they side with this guy. He installed software that most of the passerbys didn't know about. The software was used to take pictures of them, most of whom did not give their explicit permission. And he published the pictures on an Internet site for the whole world to see. Given how the EFF takes the bigs to task for their written license agreements and violations of privacy, taking this guy's side would make no sense.

Re:EFF?

[scorp1us]

Well places like shopping malls, though they are privately owned, are deemed pseudo public spaces, because your presence is obvious. He didn't do anything really. Now doing it in a private residence however, this would be illegal. But it was an open-to-the-public store. Extremely creepy yes, but not illegal.

Re:EFF?

[david_thornley]

There's more than one question here, though.

Was what he did wrong? (I'd say so.) Was it illegal? (Could be - ask a lawyer.) What shade of illegal was it (tort, misdemeanor, felony, whatever) if it was? Was the Secret Service raid justified? What should have been done?

There's this current of Slashdot thought that says that, if you're doing something wrong, measures taken against you because of it are right. That attitude really isn't compatible with the rule of law, and doesn't work well with a free society. I'm not supporting the guy in what he did, but I'm not supporting the Secret Police^WService in what they did either, and he may well have a good case against them and what they did.

Re:EFF?

[mjtaylor24601]

I see your modeling release and raise you a Paparazzi ;-)

Re:EFF?

[Antisyzygy]

presenting photos of people publicly without seeking permission from the person(s) in the photo is where it gets debatable unless the subject happens to be a person of general public interest (e.g., a politician, celebrity, etc.) or the event in the photo is of public interest.

Just another hypocrisy of America.

Re:What the fuck is a "Tumblr blog"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't care enough to type a 6 letter query into google and wait less than a second for an answer, but you do care enough to type a 173 character post complete with an f-bomb into Slashdot, to which a useful reply might possibly come up in minutes, hours, or even not at all?

Re:Secret Service??!?

[webmistressrachel]

You can relax. I think he means "counterfeiting". :-)

Spying on Apple customers?

[Sponge Bath]

How dare he? That's Steve's job. Blessed be the name of the Steve.

Re:What the fuck is a "Tumblr blog"?

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's a very different situation. Using "iPhone" in that manner does add a significant amount of information to such a description. It gives us deep insight into the owner's sexuality (likely metrosexual or homosexual), lifestyle/culture (likely a hipster), financial backing (likely a trust fund or a rich daddy), and financial common sense (totally lacking; will waste money frequently).

That doesn't work for "Tumblr", though. Fuck, many of us here hadn't heard of it until now, and still have no idea what the hell it is, or what it connotes.

Idiot artist

[Lillebo]

Lol, just watched the video montage he did of the stunt. Some minutes into the video, after showing a couple of hundred faces, he ponders "Would people look different if I showed them how the computer sees them?" - or in other words "Would people react differently if I showed them I was taking pictures of them?"

As predicted - most did. Next he says "Most just hit escape".

Couldn't help but laugh at his naivety. Of course people would hit escape - they don't want their picture taken you twat!

Re:Idiot artist

[TrekkieGod]

Lol, just watched the video montage he did of the stunt. Some minutes into the video, after showing a couple of hundred faces, he ponders "Would people look different if I showed them how the computer sees them?" - or in other words "Would people react differently if I showed them I was taking pictures of them?"

Yeah, he seemed to imply that the way people "stare at their computers" is an unnatural thing, and that showing to them what they were doing would wake them up to the fact that they were zombie-staring at a computer and cause them to change their ways. His interpretation of people hitting escape is that they were mindless automatons who were not enlightened by his demonstration.

Sometimes the artistic types over-think things and don't realize reality is far simpler. If you take the actions of somebody driving a car without considering the actual car movement, it looks stupid. They're holding a wheel, staring to the front of them, sometimes turning their heads, sometimes turning the wheel, sometimes pressing a pedal. It's only when you associate the actions with the results of the action that it all makes sense. They're looking at traffic, they're turning the car, they're accelerating or braking. To look at someone staring at a computer or a book without also showing what they're looking at is an incomplete picture and offers no insights.

Found it.

[david_g17]

I knew one of them got on camera: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnujmrWHlA1qmuig5o1_500.jpg

Re:Found it.

[MichaelSmith]

The secret service? Maybe. This guy looks more like a wannabe secret service guy.

The freaking SS? Really?

[pianophile]

Seems excessive. Why not simply write the guy a ticket for some petty misdemeanor, and uninstall his software? Does the SS really not have anything better to do than go after this guy?

Re:The freaking SS? Really?

[s0litaire]

You never know!

an undercover or other SS agent might have been caught on camera browsing apple products while he should be working...

Next thing he knows his picture is splashed on a little knows blog that hardly anyone will see.
His bosses fill their panties in fear that he's been outed and raid the poor students place to get the stuff off line before anyone sees it...

causing the incident to be widely know and all the images seen by thousands of people who out of all them their will be one who say's "Hey didn't i go to SS training with that guy?" or "I thought he was dead"

Then those "eco-friendly commie unionist terrorists" the GOP are warning us about and the SS were infiltrating, set off a nuke at Mt Rushmore...

Re:He got what he deserves

[Hatta]

If you don't want to be photographed in stores, you should work with your representative to make it illegal. What's happened here is that a guy doing something entirely legal is being intimidated by the authorities. No matter how much you value your privacy in semi-public places, you can't be in favor of that.

Re:Devil's advocate

[gl4ss]

didn't this guy read about googles troubles with that? if he had real permission and wanted to do it non-guerilla, he should have left a note at the computer and a button "take my picture" - of course 99.99% of the art in his piece is that people don't know they're being photographed, otherwise it's very non-artsy.

He asked a security guard for permission?

[Dachannien]

It sounds like he asked some rent-a-cop if he could take people's pictures, and then gained access to computers in the Apple Stores to take these pictures without the permission of someone who actually had authority to grant that permission. The article is pretty scant on details, though, and only really tells things from his side, so it's hard to tell what really happened at this point.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[Rockoon]

The devices on display are set up explicitly so that the public will have access to (and in fact are encouraged to explore) their features, which includes the webcam on them.

This to me sounds like implicit permission to use the cameras, as well as implicit permission to install software. Any legal line this man may have crossed is beyond the act of simply using the camera, or installing software. He had implicit permission to do those two things.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[sg3000]

It sounds like he asked some rent-a-cop if he could take people's pictures, and then gained access to computers in the Apple Stores to take these pictures without the permission of someone who actually had authority to grant that permission. The article is pretty scant on details, though, and only really tells things from his side, so it's hard to tell what really happened at this point.

That's probably what he did, and I think he's trying to just cover his tracks. I think he was hoping for a "ask for forgiveness rather than for permission" situation.

He should have gone to the Apple Store manager, told them explicitly what he wants to do: "I'm going to install software on all the Macs in this store, which will randomly take photos of your customers and upload the photos to my website, which I'll then display publicly for my art project." Then when they said, "no," go find something else to do with his time.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[Duradin]

The tragedy of the geek tragedy of the commons is that they don't see the tragedy.

In other words, geek abuses resource, thinks he's in the right because he wasn't explicitly told no for his exact situation, film at 11.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[sg3000]

The devices on display are set up explicitly so that the public will have access to (and in fact are encouraged to explore) their features, which includes the webcam on them.

This to me sounds like implicit permission to use the cameras, as well as implicit permission to install software. Any legal line this man may have crossed is beyond the act of simply using the camera, or installing software. He had implicit permission to do those two things.

I doubt that. You can use the webcam on them to take photos (using Photo booth, etc.), but to suggest that a customer is implicitly allowed to install software that surreptitiously photographs other customers and then displays them in public is ridiculous. If what you suggest were the case, then that would mean Apple is implicitly allowing people to install keyloggers or similar malware. Just because Apple didn't post a sign saying, "don't install surveillance software, malware, worms, viruses, trojan horses, etc." doesn't mean that people should assume they are allowed to do that; common sense says otherwise.

Apple is providing its store guests with computers to use for reasonable purposes. I can't think of any way that what he was doing could be considered to be reasonable. In fact, it was closer to harassment (for Apple's customers) and spying (and repeatedly, since he admits he had to repeatedly return to reinstall the software after it was erased). Thus, his newfound trouble with law enforcement.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[Billly Gates]

Just because they are setup for customers to eye them does not give permission to install software. You have no permission to drive a car at a dealership too, but the sales person is nice and lets you do for a given few miles. Apple needs to lock these down and I have a feeling they do not because they sell the display units when inventory is low and do not want customers complaining when they get home. ... and Steve Jobs comment from 1997 was correct then. IE was a great browser over Netscape and the Mac version trounced the PC version. Safari and Firefox of course are better but they did not exist then.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[Rockoon]

I doubt that. You can use the webcam on them to take photos (using Photo booth, etc.), but to suggest that a customer is implicitly allowed to install software that surreptitiously photographs other customers and then displays them in public is ridiculous.

You need to learn how to read. You begin with doubting what I said, and then explain why something I didnt say is not implicit.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[sg3000]

I doubt that. You can use the webcam on them to take photos (using Photo booth, etc.), but to suggest that a customer is implicitly allowed to install software that surreptitiously photographs other customers and then displays them in public is ridiculous.

You need to learn how to read. You begin with doubting what I said, and then explain why something I didnt say is not implicit.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying: I thought you were saying he had permission to install his software because Apple lets its visitors install software. Obviously you weren't saying that, so we are likely in agreement.

Re:He asked a security guard for permission?

[Rockoon]

You still need to learn how to read.

Re:He got what he deserves

[MichaelSmith]

What if he installed audio bugs in the stores and streamed the signal on line. Would that be entirely legal?

overkill much?

[Flush1]

That is quite the bit of overkill... secret service really? Quite the waste of tax dollars.

Re:He got what he deserves

[Hatta]

That would probably fall foul of wiretapping statutes. But there's no such statute for visual information. In any case, he's accused of unauthorized computer access, not wiretapping. Quite obviously ridiculous, since Apple allows people to use their computers. Unless you have to agree to terms of service before you use a computer in an Apple store, there's no case against this guy.

Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[bledri]

• Artist Gets Raided By Secret Service For Apple Store 'People Staring At Computers' Project
• Apple Store webcam “artist” raided by Secret Service

The potential penalty is absurd, but if you: Install software without permission on 100 machines at two stores that each take and upload a picture to your personal server every minute. Return every day, for several days, doing so since apple wipes the machines every day. Remotely trigger the software to show a slide show of your making (calling doing so "arranging an exhibition"), what the hell would you expect? No charges have been made yet, I hope he does not do jail time, but he deserves a smack upside the head.

Ideally Apple should lock down the DVD drives and USB ports at the stores, requiring an admin to mount a drive, though I have no clue how to do that.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[stewbacca]

Ideally Apple should lock down the DVD drives and USB ports at the stores, requiring an admin to mount a drive, though I have no clue how to do that.

The goal is to sell hardware, not lock it down. Unless you are trying to sell a computer to a guy wearing a tin-foil hat, why would you want to lock it down to potential buyers?

Besides, you can muck with Macs at the Apple store using the free wireless much easier.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[houghi]

I agree that what he did was wrong. However this should not be something for the secret service.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal is to sell hardware, not lock it down. Unless you are trying to sell a computer to a guy wearing a tin-foil hat, why would you want to lock it down to potential buyers?

I don't know, either, but they manage to sell millions of iPhones and iPads via that exact method.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[Woogiemonger]

Reality check here... what he did was really cool. Did you guys see the video? : http://vimeo.com/25958231 .. as a filmmaker, I find it's a huge pain for people to express themselves without worrying about where they can film, if there's someone's logo on something, if everyone in the film has given their permission, etc. Either you have the enormous cash required for production insurance, renting locations, securing official permission from every company with a visible product, funds to pay police for securing exclusive use of city property, payment for extras to populate your scene rather than just filming bystanders... or... you have to do something illegal and be subjected to some risk. I can see if there's a place/product/person displayed unfairly (libel), and if so, sure, take whoever to court and prove your damages, but you should not need permission to film/photograph whatever, wherever, and whoever otherwise.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[jedidiah]

Yes. The goal is to sell hardware. So you don't want buggered machines doing god knows what and offending your customers.

It doesn't even have to be malicious. One of your machines may have just gotten used by someone with a knack for breaking things.

Seems like Apple was following the Ostrich theory of systems security and IT management here: just stick their heads in a hold and hope all it all just works out.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[stewbacca]

Have you BEEN to an Apple store? They don't care one bit what you do to their machines. It doesn't seem to be hurting their business model in the least.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[slashqwerty]

Install software without permission on 100 machines at two stores that each take and upload a picture to your personal server every minute. Return every day, for several days, doing so since apple wipes the machines every day. Remotely trigger the software to show a slide show of your making (calling doing so "arranging an exhibition")

Who is to say he did not have permission? Apple sets the machines out, powers them on, and let's people use them. They don't post a sign detailing what you can and can't do with the machines. The fact that Apple wiped the machines every day shows that Apple knew people were changing the state. Rather than lock the machines down, Apple permitted the changes but reverted to a known beginning state at the start of each day.

Re:Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect?

[pho3nixtar]

Ideally Apple should lock down the DVD drives and USB ports at the stores, requiring an admin to mount a drive, though I have no clue how to do that.

What makes you think you're different from any given Apple store employee?

Video surveillance

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Did somebody take in account that said photos were shot in a public place which is under massive, visible and permanent video surveillance - like any major computer store? He did hardly invade anyones privacy, as everyone in the store was aware of being monitored. So what's his crime?

Re:Video surveillance

[bloodhawk]

It was not a public place, it was a store, as such apple actually has the right to refuse entry, ban photography and certainly refuse the rights of perverts to take privacy invading photos of people. I guess you think it is ok for people to install their own private cameras in the toilets or change rooms too?

Re:He got what he deserves

[stewbacca]

I can't believe you and I are the only 2 people in this entire thread who can see this for what it is -- legal pictures of people in public used for art. This guy should get a pro bono constitutional lawyer and sue his way into enough money for his next exhibition.

Re:He got what he deserves

[s0litaire]

I wonder if their is any "expectation of privacy" when you walk in to a shop and use device laid out for the public?

Re:He got what he deserves

[stewbacca]

What if he installed audio bugs ...

What if he murdered the first three customers in line?

But he didn't.

Taking pictures of people in public isn't illegal, but recording them with audio is. Murdering people is also illegal. Because this guy did something a lot of people on here don't like doesn't make it equivalent to placing audio bugs or killing people.

Re:What the fuck is a "Tumblr blog"?

[HelioWalton]

Here's a pretty good example, and not a goatse link either! Riker

Re:What the fuck is a "Tumblr blog"?

[AHuxley]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tumblr

Re:He got what he deserves

[jpapon]

Unless you have to agree to terms of service before you use a computer in an Apple store

That's what I was wondering about too... I've been inside Apple Stores MANY times, and I've never seen anything which tells you that certain actions aren't allowed on their computers. You can't do things that are illegal of course, but anything not explicitly illegal seems like it would be fair game.

Sony BMG

[betterunixthanunix]

A better question is, where was the secret service when Sony was caught installing rootkits en masse?

Re:Sony BMG

[Jawnn]

A better question is, where was the secret service when Sony was caught installing rootkits en masse?

Doing what their bosses paid them to do - look, (long and hard), the other way. Laws are for protecting corporations, not real citizens, you whiny elitist commie.

Re:Sony BMG

[Jawnn]

Flamebait? Seriously? Sigh...
Sarcasm is so hard for some people to grasp.

Scope

[zippthorne]

Yeah, that bugged me as well. I thought the Secret Service was only charged with going after counterfeiters, and the obviously related task of protecting the president from assassination.

Re:Scope

[Caraig]

Secret Service used to, and still does, get involved in a lot of computer, wire fraud, and electronic crime. Read up on the Steve Jackson Games raid sometime.

Re:Scope

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yeah, that bugged me as well. I thought the Secret Service was only charged with going after counterfeiters, and the obviously related task of protecting the president from assassination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#Expansion_to_electronic_crimes_in_the_wake_of_September_11.2C_2001

Admin Privs??

[jpapon]

I think the better question is how did this guy install software which accesses peripheral hardware (the webcam) without admin rights? I thought OSX was supposed to be so secure...

Re:Admin Privs??

[DannyO152]

Why is this marked interesting? ~/Applications/ is on the path. "Installation" is copying the executable to a directory and "running" is invoking from the command line using a fully qualified path. Put an entry in the login items and the program will run again at account login. No admin rights needed as Unix lets a user control her directories and run programs. This security hole is found every where. It's actually considered a feature, as in, "I have the right to run whatever program I want on hardware I own."

As far as a program turning on the camera, getting the stream, and turning off the camera, this is provided by the apis and I would be stunned to find that any environment, OS X, Windows, Linux, etc., would require setuid for access.

Finally, at the end — no, scratch that — at the beginning of the day for any discussion of security, the moment unfettered physical access comes up, somebody does the "Game over, man." schtick.

As to the escalation to the Secret Service, this guy put software on all the computers that was transmitting data to a point outside the store. Maybe it was just photos, but what if it was also data which could be used for identity theft or credit card fraud or to put the store's Macs on his botnet?

Re:Admin Privs??

[mr100percent]

Quite likely he opened a flash page in the browser and then minimized it.

Re:Admin Privs??

[X0563511]

So? You know what the Secret Service is, right?

This was totally outside their normal realm. It's kind of like being in Canada and walking into your hotel room to find the London PD is going through all your stuff.

Re:Admin Privs??

[ceoyoyo]

That's one of the reasons OS X is more secure than Windows. As an ordinary user you can install stuff for your own use without admin rights. Which means you're much less tempted to run everything as admin.

Why shouldn't a user be able to access the webcam from their own account?

Re:Admin Privs??

[UnknowingFool]

According to wikipedia:

The USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, mandated the U.S. Secret Service to establish a nationwide network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) to investigate and prevent attacks on financial and critical infrastructures in the United States.

At the start of their investigation, the Secret Service had to ensure it was not staging for a larger attack. In this case someone was using Apple's computers but they didn't know who.

Re:Admin Privs??

[LordLimecat]

All OSX installations Ive seen are used by a single user, and many had no password, so the admin elevation prompt doesnt have a password (IIRC).

Re:Admin Privs??

[node 3]

I think the better question is how did this guy install software which accesses peripheral hardware (the webcam) without admin rights? I thought OSX was supposed to be so secure...

Secure from running software? This program didn't do anything it wasn't supposed to be able to do from a software security standpoint.

Re:Admin Privs??

[mysidia]

mandated the U.S. Secret Service to establish a nationwide network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs) to investigate and prevent attacks on financial and critical infrastructures in the United States.

At the start of their investigation, the Secret Service had to ensure it was not staging for a larger attack. In this case someone was using Apple's computers but they didn't know who.

Wait... a few Apple display model computers in two stores count as Financial/Critical Infrastructure? Since when?

Re:Admin Privs??

[UnknowingFool]

So the Service Service is omnipotent, knowing that it was just two Apple stores, that it wasn't part of a larger problem. And you know the Secret Service didn't check if any BestBuy stores were affected? I don't know if you've read the news lately but a lot of many different federal and commercial companies have been hit with hacking attempts recently. In this case it wasn't the case but the Secret Service couldn't have known that before hand.

Re:Admin Privs??

[dn15]

Since when was using a webcam something that should require admin access?

Re:What the fuck is a "Tumblr blog"?

[Unkyjar]

Let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Tumblr+blog+wiki

Re:He got what he deserves

[SpongeBob Hitler]

I wonder if their is any "expectation of privacy" when you walk in to a shop and use device laid out for the public?

The problem is that "reasonable expectation of privacy" goes back to the old film camera days where it is hard to perform mass surveillance. Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation to not have my every movement logged and uploaded for the whole world to see? For those of us who have had to deal with psychos in our lifetime, it would be nice not to have to worry about it made easy for them to hunt me down. And that doesn't even get into idea of overzealous police officers who disapprove of "those" people and want to find some excuse to have them arrested.

Creepy

[Flipao]

I wouldn't call sneaking software into computers one doesn't own in order to grab pictures of people, "Art". He's clearly in big trouble.

Re:Creepy

[PPH]

Next, you'll tell me that the camera I've got taped to my shoe isn't for 'art' either.

Philistines!

Very dubious grounds

[nibbles2004]

1.He installed unauthorized software on a computer not belonging to him, a security guard would not have the authority to give this person permission to do this, the Security guard i bet technically doesn't work for Apple, but will work for a security firm that has a contract with the store.

2.Yes in apple stores you can use the camera, but would you think it's ok for Apple to store those pictures and upload them to a public website, no i doubt you would

3.Technically he is not in a public space, he is in a apple store who can prohibit people from taking pictures, a lot of shops will not allow you to take pictures in there store.

4. It cannot be assumed people are aware there pictures are being taken, not everyone is computer literate and would notice things such as the camera light.

5.There is nothing against the law of taking pictures of people on a beach for instance and posting them on the web, one it's a public area, and also would tend to be more obvious carrying around a camera taking snaps.

6.there is very little difference legally had he set up a laptop in changing room and done the same thing

Re:Very dubious grounds

[10101001 10101001]

1.He installed unauthorized software on a computer not belonging to him, a security guard would not have the authority to give this person permission to do this, the Security guard i bet technically doesn't work for Apple, but will work for a security firm that has a contract with the store.

Um...the store is presumably the only one who could grant authority to install software on the computers in question, so presumably the security guard could be granted authority to allow/deny access to installing software just like the security guard is granted authority to allow/deny access to the store in general. I agree, it's much more dubious than gaining permission from a manager.

2.Yes in apple stores you can use the camera, but would you think it's ok for Apple to store those pictures and upload them to a public website, no i doubt you would

Google does it. Disney does (or least did) it (Splash Mountain). Security cameras in general are legal, and lots of those have been played on national television, be it to spot a criminal or simply because something "funny" happened. I have no idea how much permission was obtained from the people involved, though.

3.Technically he is not in a public space, he is in a apple store who can prohibit people from taking pictures, a lot of shops will not allow you to take pictures in there store.

A store is a public space until such point at which is marked/stated otherwise (Employees only signs or being asked to leave). Hence a nice "no pictures can be taken" sign or the security guard, if his job is to prevent people from taking pictures, would have been to say no to the artist's request and possibly deny him access to the building.

4. It cannot be assumed people are aware there pictures are being taken, not everyone is computer literate and would notice things such as the camera light.

Yep, it sucks to be in public where you never know if your picture is being taken. Feel free to have the law changed to that end. For example, there are various exclusions made for taking picture in public for decided private places, like banning cameras in shoes taking upward pictures.

5.There is nothing against the law of taking pictures of people on a beach for instance and posting them on the web, one it's a public area, and also would tend to be more obvious carrying around a camera taking snaps.

Telescoping lens, satellites, etc sort of remove that notion. Again, as much as it sucks, being in public means you're in public.

6.there is very little difference legally had he set up a laptop in changing room and done the same thing

Actually, there is. Again, it's a matter of expectation of privacy. A changing room is, by most reasonably people, considered a private space. A restroom in general is as well. Clothes provide privacy too. People could be said that they don't expect a computer with a camera to photograph them. But, they can't be said to expect that they can't be legally photographed in general standing in the same spot in the same way from a virtually identical angle.

It seems like point (2) is probably your strongest, given how much fuss there has been about Google Streetview, that I'm not sure if Disney is still releasing photos of park visitors, and the release of some but not all security tapes might be considered a special exception (that criminals might give up some right to privacy in committing a crime). Overall, I'd agree it's a dubious thing in the same way that security cameras are generally dubious. The artist's specific intents might have been more or less dubious than that, and hence there might be a case to be made, especially of the civil sort. But without some more specific information about a ban or a specific law in the State in question, I just don't see how one can claim an expectation of privacy and demand to not be photographed.

Re:Very dubious grounds

[AK Marc]

a security guard would not have the authority to give this person permission to do this

Sure he has the authority. He is a representative of the company (or a contractor thereof) and is thus authorized. If he should not give permission, then more training should be given so that he wouldn't enter into such agreements. All persons representing a corporation are equal. Getting a contract signed by the CEO or some secretary are both equally legally binding (presuming that neither is operating fraudulently at the time). It's not my job to verify that his job description does or doesn't include the ability to define permissions for photography or application installation. The security guard was asked for permission, and it was given. That is as legally binding as if the CEO himself were walking past at that moment and was asked the same question and answered the same.

Re:Very dubious grounds

[Duradin]

More than likely a guard is a contractor/employee of the mall, not a store in particular.

Re:Very dubious grounds

[AK Marc]

Likely, however that's still an "authorized" contractor of the store (via tenancy agreement and such).

Re:Very dubious grounds

[Duradin]

Something seems amiss when *ANY* business entity would get into a contractual arrangement where the mall janitor could declare a fire sale for your entire store.

Re:Very dubious grounds

[theNAM666]

Let's take these one by one:

>1.He installed unauthorized software on a computer not belonging to him, a security guard would not have the authority to give this person permission to do this,
>the Security guard i bet technically doesn't work for Apple, but will work for a security firm that has a contract with the store.

Well feces. I walk into the store. I ask the big guy with the badge if it's OK for me to take pictures of the merchandise. What do you want, me to call up the corporate office in Shanghai?

BOTTOM LINE: FAIL.

>2.Yes in apple stores you can use the camera, but would you think it's ok for Apple to store those pictures and upload them to a public website,
> no i doubt you would

You think Apple would get in legal trouble for it? FBI raid? C'mon.

To think of it differently, imagine that a bar posts pics of what's going on every 5 minutes on "check the bar out" .com. Problem.

BOTTOM LINE: FAIL.

>3.Technically he is not in a public space, he is in a apple store who can prohibit people from taking pictures,
>a lot of shops will not allow you to take pictures in there store.

Questionable. The shop can *ask* you to leave, but if they're in a state with public accommodation laws, they may not have the right to make you do so.

People have been arrested in "private" establishments based on "public" behavior laws such as public intoxication. A store operating in public is not private for purposed of "public space" laws just because of private *ownership*. And so on.

Looking at it the other way, if you take your iPhone into the Apple Store and snap a shot of your boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/collegue etc., with others in the background, and put in on Flick, do you think you should be arrested?

BOTTOM LINE: FAIL.

>4. It cannot be assumed people are aware there pictures are being taken, not everyone is computer literate and would notice things such as the camera light.

Who cares? Your photo is taken all the time. It's not your home or business. FAIL.

>5.There is nothing against the law of taking pictures of people on a beach for instance and posting them on the web, one it's a public area, and also would tend to be more obvious carrying around a camera taking snaps.

So? You fail to establish that the Apple Store is in any way substantively different than a public beach, or that there's an expectation of privacy at the Apple Store that's greater than the beach. If you take your clothes off and start humping a frog in an Apple Store, you think security can't photo it? Some guy in the store can'e?

That they have to have a 5lbs Nikon and make it obvious-- they can't use a lapel cam?

FAIL.

>6.there is very little difference legally had he set up a laptop in changing room and done the same thing

There's a big difference. There's an expectation of privacy in a changing room. You take your clothes off. It's entirely different.

FAIL.

Re:Very dubious grounds

[AK Marc]

Every business entity is already in a contractual arrangement where a minimum wage retail associate can do the same, so what's the difference if you have a security agreement that gives security guards the same power for "security" issues like taking pictures?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Flipao]

Faces on Street View pictures are blurred, you cannot be identified through them.

Idiot...

[netsharc]

I wish there's a poll option, who thinks he should be allowed to do this, and who thinks it was wrong. Because I think what he's done is wrong. What would be next, record the browser's history, filter those who visit Facebook, get their public images off their accounts, put them on a blog, and call that art?

If he was secretly taking pictures of girls to keep them and jerk off with them, would you be okay with that? Oh, sure, it's fine if he's an "artist", making an "art" project is it?

Re:Idiot...

[mjtaylor24601]

who thinks he should be allowed to do this, and who thinks it was wrong. Because I think what he's done is wrong

What he did may have been morally wrong (or maybe not, that's a bit of a subjective judgement), but the more important questions in my opinion are
1. Was it illegal?
2. Was it a sufficiently serious crime to justify the law enforcement response? Having the secret service raid his house seems like a bit of an over reaction to me.

If he was secretly taking pictures of girls to keep them and jerk off with them, would you be okay with that? Oh, sure, it's fine if he's an "artist", making an "art" project is it?

And what if he was camped out in front of Angelina Jolie's house waiting for her to take out the garbage? Would that be okay? Because as I understand it that happens all the freaking time Is it only a problem if he keeps the photos for himself, but it's fine if he sells it some some tabloid so that millions of other people can jerk off to it?

So...

[PrimeNumber]

I take it the only reason the fucking Secret Service is going after him is because he isn't a corporation or the government.
The groups the Secret Service don't go after:
1) Sony Corporation (rootkits caused actual *harm* to PCs)
2) School systems that install "uncle pervy" software on underage students computers.
3) Facebook installing (implementing) facial recognition capabilities *without* the consent of user.

We know a) He had permission. b) Isn't wealthy. It makes great headlines and he has limited resources to fight back & hasn't paid off a legislator -- that is the difference. Fuck Obama -- I thought we were going to get real change - more of the same old shit.

Re:So...

[PrimeNumber]

No you are missing the point. This has huge bearing on the actual problem. The real issue is that corporations & their paid puppets can do whatever they want. The rest of us have to pay taxes, follow the rules, and abide by the law - even if we think we have the I's dotted and T's crossed as this guy did, you still end up standing before the man. That, my cowardly friend, is the "actual problem".

Re:So...

[jamrock]

We know a) He had permission.

No, we don't. He only said he had permission, received from a security guard, who isn't authorized to give that permission. And I like how you managed to get your panties in a knot and turn this issue into an anti-Obama rant.

Re:So...

[westlake]

I take it the only reason the fucking Secret Service is going after him is because he isn't a corporation or the government.

Let me introduce the New York/New Jersey Electronic Crimes Task Force.

In 2006, the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force merged with the Newark Electronic Crimes Working Group to form the New York/New Jersey Electronic Crimes Task Force. This combined entity enhances cooperation between law enforcement and corporations in the greater New York and New Jersey areas to combat electronic crimes.

Investigations conducted by the U.S. Secret Service through the ECTFs include crimes such as:

Computer generated counterfeit currency
Bank fraud
Counterfeit checks
Credit card fraud
Virus and worm proliferation
Access device fraud
Telecommunications fraud
Internet threats
Computer system intrusions and cyber-attacks
Phishing/spoofing
Assistance with internet related child pornography and exploitation
CD/DVD piracy
Terrorism/terrorist financing nexus
Identity theft

We know a) He had permission.

Like hell he did.

The drives were imaged each night. He had to return to the stores each day to reinstall the software.

The only "permission" he clains to have had was from a security guard - there is nothing in writing from the management of the store.

Nothing in writing from those who were photographed.

The interior of a retail store is not part of the commons, not a public place under New York law.

Re:He got what he deserves

[SpongeBob Hitler]

I can't believe you and I are the only 2 people in this entire thread who can see this for what it is -- legal pictures of people in public used for art. This guy should get a pro bono constitutional lawyer and sue his way into enough money for his next exhibition.

So, if I follow you around, take pictures of your every move, and upload it to the internet, that would be okay??? Just because you are in public doesn't mean it's okay to have your every move tracked. Perhaps at this point in time it is technically legal, but that is not how it should be in a civilized society.

Re:What the fuck is a "Tumblr blog"?

[E IS mC(Square)]

Where did he mention Apple in there? If anybody seems to be insecure, it has to be you.

Yes, and I agree

[nten]

I went and installed a little FFT python TKinter script I wrote at the local store to see if it would run and what it would look like. I just plugged in my thumb drive and dragged over the script then ran it, so perhaps "install" is a strong word. I was so impressed with how the TKinter looked native on OSX I bought a macbook pro. I think my actions were completely legitimate. They have them there to try things so I did.

I don't think computer crimes is the right thing to go after him for. The machines are there for you to use and they don't have any conditions of use that you agree to. Taking pictures of people for a (seemingly) commercial endeavor without their permission should be the charge.

Re:Yes, and I agree

[hedwards]

I suspect that they'll go the wiretap route as it appears that he isn't even bother to deny that he wiretapped those computers. The computer charges are probably just what got the Secret Service involved rather than the local police or FBI.

Re:Yes, and I agree

[LordLimecat]

Im not terribly impressed with the charges (fraud? Really?), but then Im also no terribly impressed with the artist who doesnt see any issue with his actions and thinks that "i just want to focus on my work and not a court case" is sufficient justification.

Re:Yes, and I agree

[westlake]

I don't think computer crimes is the right thing to go after him for. The machines are there for you to use and they don't have any conditions of use that you agree to. Taking pictures of people for a (seemingly) commercial endeavor without their permission should be the charge.

Installation of software to secretly broadcast webcam or surveillance images to your blog is not a legitimate in-store demo. Lying to the store manager or security guard about the changes you will be making to their systems is unmistakably fraud and trespass.

Re:Yes, and I agree

[theNAM666]

No one said he lied. If Apple wants the systems secure, they should secure them. Did someone say dumbass?

Something similar

[brim4brim]

In a Pc World, they had a tablet for demonstration setup that anybody could use and you could go in and look at all the photos people had intentionally or sometimes accidentally taken of themselves. I don't see how this is much different or why anybody would care if somebody took a picture of them looking at a computer screen. Seems kind of odd to consider this a crime. If someone doesn't want their picture in his collection, surely they could email him and ask him to remove it?

Why are the feds involved?

[bradley13]

What he did was stupid, and almost certainly illegal. Fine.

What bugs me is this: why is this being investigated by a federal agency? Wehre are the local cops? This strikes me as another example of the ever-increasing expansion of federal powers.

1984 Irony

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

In 1948, George Orwell arrived on the cultural scene with his novel 1984. In it, citizens are watched at every minute and suspicious activity results in search and seizure by secret police.

In 1984, Apple computer arrived on the cultural scene with their 1984 television ad. In it, the Macintosh computer is introduced as a means to individual expression and freedom from oppression.

In 2011, Kyle McDonald arrived on the cultural scene with his People Staring at Computers art project. In it, he demonstrates the use of Apple computers to observe citizens every minute. Apple's complaint results in search and seizure by Secret Service.

The parallels go on and on ... the US is a country in a continuous state of war, school was caught using Apple computer technology to accuse a student observed eating pill-shaped candy in his home of drug use, there are certainly parallels between Bradley Manning's and Winston Smith's incarcerations, state secrets are sacrosanct and facts are routinely rewritten. Happy 1984.

Re:1984 Irony

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I think the mod accidently hit Interesting instead of Funny.

I think he took a pic of Elvis

[Cerebus 1a4h]

I'm just disappointed that the King is using a Mac.

It wasn't one of their computers

[YesIAmAScript]

He says the software would show the person's picture on all the machines at the store. So he must have installed it on a lot of their computers.

DVD and USB ports?

[YesIAmAScript]

Lock down the DVD and USB ports?

These computers are all on the internet. He didn't need to use the DVD drives or USB ports. Just go to a web page and download.

I don't know that you can actually lock down USB ports under Mac OS though, which is kind of dumb.

The Secret Service needs to be stopped, NOW

[Khyber]

The Secret Service is gaining more power than it needs. Its purpose was to originally protect our currency, then later on they got the added assignment for protecting the President of the USA. Now they handle computer tampering? That fell squarely within the scope of the FBI not a few years ago.

Watch your asses, America, and keep your iron sights trained on the S.S. They're going to become the new gestapo, and you need to be ready to stop them before they gain too much more power.

Meanwhile president is at risk

[heson]

Is not this a misuse of what should be Americas most elite Police? Or is it just a sign that the sky is not falling, the terrorists are on their knees in the mosques etc., "lets check the end of the priority list, look into some minor privacy intrusion, next up facebook."

Don't see "art" here

[Runaway1956]

I really don't see any art here. On the other hand, I certainly don't see any computer fraud, or criminal elevation of privileges, or anything that the Secret Service should be concerned about.

What I think happened is, he got one or more images of someone who isn't supposed to be seen. Someone in witness protection? A real terrorist? An agent having a bad hair day? I guess a million people could really study all those images, and fail to find anything. But, the Secret Service found something that bothers them.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[node 3]

I really don't see any art here.

Well, people say that about a lot of things. It's definitely a creative work, and aside from personal preferences, there really isn't much reason to say it's not art.

On the other hand, I certainly don't see any computer fraud, or criminal elevation of privileges, or anything that the Secret Service should be concerned about.

Computer crime. This was using computers unauthorized.

And the reason Apple would take this to the authorities is pretty clear. They don't want people to be worried that if they look at some of their computers, they are going to end up on some artist's web site.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[Stupendoussteve]

Uh... he installed hidden software that took pictures every minute and sent them to him, without the permission of the owner. Things like that tend to get you into trouble. Just ask this guy.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[Runaway1956]

Some of us have RTFA. The guy asked permission from the security people before installing. So - if the owner gives permission, he's in the clear, right?

And, why is it the Secret Service that is investigating this?

Re:Don't see "art" here

[Duradin]

I asked this guy walking by your car if I could take it and he said yes, I am in the clear, right?

Re:Don't see "art" here

[Stupendoussteve]

The guy asked a "security guard" (never seen one of them at an Apple store... but whatever) if he could take photographs in the store. That is not the same thing as installing spyware, which is essentially what he did.

Secret Service will handle things like credit card fraud, it may be possible they believed he was doing more than just taking photos.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[dwightk]

"McDonald protested that he had gotten the permission of a security guard to take photos in the stores, that he had asked several customers for permission to take their photos (though certainly not all of them), and that taking photos of people in a public place is mostly allowed anyway."

That sounds dodgy if you ask me. He asked some random security guard if he could take photos in the stores. If he had explained the software would the guard have said yes? If he had explained the software wouldn't he have mentioned that here instead of saying "take photos".

Re:Don't see "art" here

[shadowfaxcrx]

He didn't get the owner's permission. He got the mall rent-a-cop's permission. Big difference.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[RoFLKOPTr]

installed hidden software

But I thought Macs were immune to malware...

Re:Don't see "art" here

[Attila Dimedici]

He asked permission to take pictures, not to install software on the computers. The only person who might have had the authority to allow him to install software on the computers in the store is the store manager. While the involvement of the Secret Service may be overkill, he is clearly in the wrong. I may be wrong about the law he is being tried under, but if it is the one I am thinking of, it was definitely intended for cases like this one.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[webdog314]

And did he also get permission from every singe person the camera captured? If he didn't, he's screwed.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[AK Marc]

But the great thing about corporations is there is no such thing as an unauthorized representative unless that person is acting fraudulently. He asked a security professional responsible for security of the store about it, and was given permission. Likely the "owner" is a corporation, and thus any employee (or contractor) is as responsible as the "owner" himself.

Or are we going to get arguments that corporations get all the protections under the law with no responsibilities?

Re:Don't see "art" here

[onefineline]

It doesn't anything about him getting permission to install software on the store's computers.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[shadowfaxcrx]

No, that isn't true, especially if the security guard was employed by the owner of the building rather than the lessor of the building (Apple) - as is very often the case, especially in malls or downtown buildings where these stores were.

Additionally, just because a security guard tells you it's OK to do something, does not mean that any law against it is suddenly repealed.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[AK Marc]

No, that isn't true, especially if the security guard was employed by the owner of the building rather than the lessor of the building (Apple) - as is very often the case, especially in malls or downtown buildings where these stores were.

Are you asserting that there is no contractual agreement between the lessor and lessee?

Additionally, just because a security guard tells you it's OK to do something, does not mean that any law against it is suddenly repealed.

When the law is against "unauthorized" access and the access is then "authorized" then by golly it did just suddenly "repeal" the ability of that law to be used against the person in question.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[shadowfaxcrx]

I am asserting that the contract does not include "and building security can make business decisions for the lessor."

Re:Don't see "art" here

[AK Marc]

I'd concede that point and declare it irrelevant. "The building will provide security" is sufficient to arguably pass those powers on, and I'd assert that is in the contract.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[shadowfaxcrx]

"The building will provide security" is not synonymous with "The building will provide security, and our guard is authorized to make business decisions regarding your property."

You *might* have had a point if the . .erm. . "artist" had wanted to place his own camera in the store (although even then, security is supposed to keep people from breaking in, fighting, or stealing. They are not supposed to authorize any activity they feel like without checking with the store). But he didn't. The artist wanted to install a spy program on the store's computer. The manager is the appropriate one to make that decision, not the security guard.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[AK Marc]

"The building will provide security" is not synonymous with "The building will provide security, and our guard is authorized to make business decisions regarding your property."

But is it synonymous with ""The building will provide security, and our guard is authorized to make security decisions regarding your property." ?

Re:Don't see "art" here

[shadowfaxcrx]

I'm having trouble believing that you really think a building security guard should or does have the authority to authorize installing spyware on a tenant's computer.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[AK Marc]

What I personally believe is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm confused why you'd confuse my beliefs on what "should" happen when I've made it clear what my beliefs are on what "does" happen. The Apple store exists in a structure owned by someone else. Since few retail stores have their own security guards (even large ones like Best Buy don't, thought they have loss prevention personnel, though I think Wal-Mart does have security guards, but maybe that's a local or regional thing), we are apparently both operating under the assumption that the guard was not under the employ of the Apple store.

So there are two points of contention. Does the security guard have any authority on the security of the Apple store, and should a reasonable person think that a security guard in a store has authority over security matters? The first resolves strict liability (if the guard had authority and gave it, then he had permissions of some kind). If the first is false and the second is true, then he did not have permission, but believed that he did have permission. Why does that matter? Because most criminal laws require some mens rea, and if he believed he had permission when he did not, he would likely not be criminally liable. Though civil liability is unrelated to mens rea, and as such he could face civil suits even if he believed he had permission.

I agree that the security guard wasn't given explicit permission by the Apple store owner to personally authorize or disallow all software installations. However, that seems more like a straw man argument than looking at what actually happened and how that would be covered in the existing law. And, sadly, with regard to law, what "should" happen is usually unrelated to what does happen.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[shadowfaxcrx]

I see what you're saying. There's something we've both missed, however. A person shopping at the apple store has no reasonable expectation of immediate privacy - that is, they can reasonably expect that store security has cameras set up to catch shoplifters. However, it probably could be argued that they have a reasonable expectation that people won't be taking clandestine photographs of them and putting them on public display.

There's a couple of problems with this, not the least of which is that if the artist made any money at all off of this, he needed to get a release form from everyone he photographed.

All that aside, the other thing we haven't nailed down is that, as you said, whether the security guard had the store's permission to authorize the installation of spy software on their computers, that permission, whether given by the guard or the store manager/owner, does not trump the law, and in most states at least, there are pretty clear laws about what you can and cannot do regarding taking clandestine photographs in a non-public (legally, the store is not public because it's private property) area.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[AK Marc]

I see what you're saying. There's something we've both missed, however. A person shopping at the apple store has no reasonable expectation of immediate privacy - that is, they can reasonably expect that store security has cameras set up to catch shoplifters. However, it probably could be argued that they have a reasonable expectation that people won't be taking clandestine photographs of them and putting them on public display.

The crimes that get the Secret Service involved don't include the shoppers. The courts have made rulings that you can't demand privacy in a public place just because what happened was unexpected (i.e. you are in the middle of a field and look around and see nobody, so you think the public place is private, but someone with a telephoto lens takes a photo). But if the means were extraordinary and/or unusual, then you would (i.e. a toe-mounted camera pointed up skirts on a subway).

The people in question sat down in front of a camera in a "public" place. There is no argument for privacy.

Of course, they didn't sign model releases. They gave no permission (well some did, but not all). So there are likely some civil actions that could be taken, but there was nothing criminal about the taking of the photos themselves.

All that aside, the other thing we haven't nailed down is that, as you said, whether the security guard had the store's permission to authorize the installation of spy software on their computers, that permission, whether given by the guard or the store manager/owner, does not trump the law, and in most states at least, there are pretty clear laws about what you can and cannot do regarding taking clandestine photographs in a non-public (legally, the store is not public because it's private property) area.

In most cases, the posting of camera warnings are to serve as a deterrent and prevent civil troubles. Few (if any) jurisdictions require posting of camera warnings in such places.

Again, back to the simple to ask but impossible to answer (at least with the knowledge we have) question of whether he had permission to install the software. If he did, it's clearly not a crime. If he didn't, then it likely is a crime (though "unauthorized access" of a computer made available for public use would likely be hotly debated in court if it got that far). If he took reasonable steps to identify an authorized person and asked them for permission, he didn't commit a crime, even if that person was not in fact authorized to make such a decision. However, I'm guessing he purposefully chose a security guard in order to ask someone who wouldn't ask any followup questions and likely wouldn't understand what he intended to do based on what he indicated he was going to do. That would mean that he deliberately chose someone he knew could not make an informed decision, regardless of authority, and demonstrates a near-fraud mentality. But again, such attributions of motivation are beyond what we are privy to. Sticking to what we know, he asked an authority and was given permission. But then, having convicted ex-admins of hacking for not giving up a password (regardless of what you think of the man, the charges and conviction stunk and is a horrible precedent), they'll charge him with whatever they want and will likely make it stick, if they so choose.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[shadowfaxcrx]

I think you're right in your last paragraph. Sadly, there's still a shocking (and inexcusable) ignorance of all things tech in the legal profession. When the judge doesn't know what the hell you're talking about, that increases the likelihood that he'll render a stupid decision.

I do agree with you that it seems overly excessive for the SS to get involved here. After all, they don't get involved with spyware that ends up on our desktops, which I would argue is a more heinous crime than that committed by the artist.

I do maintain, however, that getting authorization from someone who it should be obvious does not have the authority to authorize it does not give you a get out of jail free card.

Re:Don't see "art" here

[AK Marc]

I do maintain, however, that getting authorization from someone who it should be obvious does not have the authority to authorize it does not give you a get out of jail free card.

I agree with that. However, what's "obvious" for who does and does not have permission is not clear. Technically, a sales associate and a store manager have the same authority to grant permission. However, deliberately choosing to pick on an underling when a more senior person is available would speak to the intentions of the person asking for permission. If it was obvious that the person asked could not give permission, then the permission given is not valid.

Re:He got what he deserves

[stewbacca]

Yes, if by "ok" you mean "perfectly legal".

And in a civilized society, you get the laws changed you don't like. Personally I like the fact that photographers are free to take pictures of people in public, even if I'm one of those people.

Re:He got what he deserves

[UnknowingFool]

I'm sure you could commit bank fraud on their computers and any number of electronic crimes; doing on their computers does not make it any more legal because they didn't say you couldn't do it. Some common sense would dictate that those are not your computers and you can't install software to take pictures of their patrons because you feel like it even if Apple never said you couldn't

Re:He got what he deserves

[UnknowingFool]

We get it; we disagree with the notion that inside an Apple store is "public". Outside on the sidewalk, in the mall halls may be constituted as public in some regards; inside the store is another matter. I'm pretty sure that if you were causing a scene in an Apple store, Apple is well within their rights to ask you to leave. Also as for taking pictures of people; I'm also certain that taking pictures of the public areas that have people in it is legal. It's more of a grey area to target people specifically especially if there is a question as to whether the space is public.

Re:He got what he deserves

[stewbacca]

There is no gray area of taking pictures of specific people inside a store, because, a) it is completely lawful to take pictures of people in public, and b) the California court case I've cited a million times shows that being inside a store counts as being in public.

The only protection people have for privacy in a store is if they are in the bathroom, doctor's office, or any other place where reasonable privacy is to be expected. Browsing for a new Mac in an Apple store doesn't rate as "reasonable expectation of privacy".

With that, Apple is fully within their rights to have me leave their store, as long as it isn't for one of the protected classes of race, gender, religion, etc.

How many are guilty of this?

[freelunch]

Remember when you'd go to a Radio Shack, Kmart, etc, and they'd have "personal computers" on display? Atari 400's, TRS-80's, etc. Oddly, they were often sitting at the basic prompt.

10 print "Kmart sucks!!!!!!"
20 goto 10
run

Competition exists in US government

[bussdriver]

"I was the man who made the Secret Service the blah blah blah computer security blah blah blah I brought jobs to X..."
Translation: Appoint me to that position! Vote for me! (not that voters are smart enough to recognize actual accomplishments - you can just invent them now.)

Multiple departments are trying to get a part of the action in future computer related enforcement-- its not just about funding which in some cases makes them money for having more responsibilities; its more about promotion within the system... It can also help later when they jump ship to be a lobbyist or work in the private sector. Greed/profit is not a direct factor but the competition motives are still there; sadly actual competence is less important-- too good and you get into political trouble; too bad and you "need to spend time with the family" with a high paying consulting gig for some politically connected wealthy prick.

ICE is a great example of this going too far; although, that may be for some legal/political abuse of the system and not because ICE wants to expand in that area.

The really bad thing with technology is they come steal ALL your technology which can hold the information they are looking for and you never get it back (maybe after years - probably never without paying a lawyer.) Having other information existing on these devices means you lose your digital life just for being investigated (not even formally charged.)

This seems to be "unreasonable searches and seizures" of the 4th. Too bad unreasonable hasn't been updated to modern times. They can copy your data in an afternoon and give it all back to you later.

As far as this guy; without actual permission he is in trouble. Watch the video, especially the end part and ask yourself if any store manager would allow something like that to be done-- looks like a virus or a buggy computer and it stops the customer from trying what they want in addition to possibly negative impact of his experiment.

Everyone here is wrong on this.

[7-Vodka]

The way I see it he did two things and both of them are perfectly legal:

1. Use computers that were made available for him to use by the apple stores
2. take pictures of people in public places

Taking pictures of people in public places is legal many times over, it's not even worth discussing.
Using the computers that were put there for public use, is completely legal as well. He did not sign any contract saying what he would or would not do on them, there was no agreement signed that he would not install software on them. They're just offered up for public usage and installing software is such usage.

I don't see anything legally, ethically or morally wrong with what he did. In fact, I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the thugs who broke into his house and stole his equipment.

Re:Everyone here is wrong on this.

[mkiwi]

I don't see anything legally, ethically or morally wrong with what he did. In fact, I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the thugs who broke into his house and stole his equipment.

You are part of what is wrong with America. Litigation is not the answer to every grievance.

Re:Everyone here is wrong on this.

[StripedCow]

Taking pictures of people in public places is legal many times over, it's not even worth discussing.

Yes, but wait until the fashion industry starts lobbying for new copyright laws, like the music industry has done. Then it will be legal only to take pictures of naked people :)

Re:He got what he deserves

[UnknowingFool]

There is no gray area of taking pictures of specific people inside a store, because, a) it is completely lawful to take pictures of people in public, and b) the California court case I've cited a million times shows that being inside a store counts as being in public.

The problem again is you've started with the supposition that being inside the store is "public" and then use it to say that a person can take photographs in it in a circular argument. Many here disagree that an Apple store or any retail location is "public" in the first place. Your California case may not apply as it says areas like shopping malls which are private cannot forbid free speech based on First Amendment rights of assembly in the common areas. Pruneyard gave groups and individuals the right to ask people to sign peitions, pass out fliers, etc in the common areas of the center. It did not address (1) that right extends to the individual stores within a shopping center and (2) photography was never addressed. Certainly you can ask someone to sign a petition in the hallway, you can't do so inside any particular store without their permission.

In the Photographers's Right by Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law says this about photography and private property:

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations.

In essence you can take pictures outside their store but must have their permission to do so within the store.

Re:He got what he deserves

[jpapon]

That's why I said

You can't do things that are illegal of course, but anything not explicitly illegal seems like it would be fair game.

Obviously bank fraud is illegal, regardless of who's computer it is committed on. If I let you use my computer, and don't give you instructions on what you're not allowed to do, I can't sue you because you installed a piece of software (unless that software does something illegal). There is nothing illegal about taking pictures of people in a public place.

it's

[foxx1337]

biutiful!

Re:Good one

[R3d M3rcury]

I would hope he doesn't go to jail.

Personally, I think he broke the law. While he can argue that he "received permission to take pictures," how he was taking the pictures was not fully disclosed and I think that's what is ultimately his downfall.

However, he didn't really do it someplace where there was an expectation of privacy (like a bathroom or changing room) and there was no malicious intent. Personally, if I was in the jury box, I'd let him off.

Another possibility: actual/potential VIP visit

[jasomill]

Chances are the project simply spooked someone with the authority to open an investigation, sothey opened one.

On the other hand, consider: along with its investigative duties, the Secret Service may be tasked with protecting certain individuals when they visit New York. As far as I know, Prince Sultan is hospitalized, but it's not as if he travels alone; perhaps some spoiled Saudi kid wanted an iPad. Moreover, for obvious reasons, New York is not an entirely unpopular destinationfor important foreign officials.

With that said, given Apple's international cachet, it's certainly not inconceivable the project caught the "watchful eye" of the Secret Service for reasons unrelated to computer fraud or financial crimes —"location and disposition of CCTV cameras" may simply be a "checklist item" for a Secret Service protective detail conducting a site survey, thus it's conceivable that the Secret Service was drawn into this "by accident," more or less, and felt they had a responsibility to investigate. The "computer fraud" angle might just be a convenient cover story; they needed a warrant for "off the record" reasons, and, given that one can at least argue that store computers were used in an "unauthorized" fashion, this happened to be "good enough for the judge," and, more importantly, "for the record."

Conceivable "bad timing" aside, I do suspect "arguable creepiness" probably plays as large a part in this case asany "honest" legal and ethical issues.

Deserved it

[kelemvor4]

He was using a mac. Got what he deserved if you ask me.

How long before this is a Law & Order/CSI epis

[LordRobin]

I can see it now: Spycam software installed at computer store captures image of mob capo on the run. Artist found murdered. Stuff practically writes itself.

------RM

There's some confusion over the public / private

[Whuffo]

People here are getting confused about the public or private status of an Apple Store. It's not an either / or question; there's a third category for places like an Apple Store where they invite the general public to enter; by doing so, they give up some of their private property rights.

The computers on display are demonstration units and the general public is invited to use them. No limits are placed upon that use, and as long as you don't destroy or steal the computer the store has lost nothing.

Was photographing people in the store illegal? Not really; they are in a public place and have no expectation of privacy. And that security guard is presumably employed by Apple - and that makes him an agent of the corporation and his assurance that photography was OK can be treated as if it came from Apple corporate.

What it looks like is someone didn't like their picture being taken and complained; somehow the Secret Service got involved and they just faked a complaint so they could arrest the artist. Typical police state stuff; identify the culprit then find a law to charge him under.

What would be really interesting would be to know who actually called the Secret Service, and what they told them. The real criminals here are yet to be identified.

Re:Some anon DUMBASS

[theNAM666]

I walk into an internet cafe and use a rootkit to install a keylogger, that's one thing. I use portable PhotoShop, that's another. C'mon. Insightful? C'mon.

Mod parent down.

Apple evangelists wailing and lamenting

[Andreas Otto]

You all have it wrong with your legal mambo approach. The reason for the SS marching in is more sinister. Mr McD has proven to the world, with his project 'People Staring at Computers', that Apple products are not only bought by pretty, sexy, hip, young and cool people. ...how dare he sully the image invoked by the advertisement and marketing department of the holy order of Jobs. Blasphemer to blessed relic of the bitten fruit!

The word Artist is used way

[Stan92057]

The word Artist is used way way to generously theses days. Some very popular so called Art sites think everything that is photographed,drawn,sprayed is art. Which is a bunch of BS. This guy is no artist theses of you who think he is don't try to convince me he is. :}

Re:He got what he deserves

[UnknowingFool]

There are many here that would disagree that in a retail store is considered "public". By definition, it is private property. Taking pictures of people in the store from the outside is acceptable as you are in public and the store has windows. Inside the store you have to get permission of the property owner.