Slashdot Mirror
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."
Where were they when that school in Merion installed spycam software on all the pupil's laptops to record them in their dormrooms?
No sig today...
Installing kitchens is a crime now??? I"d better call my cousin and warn him!
No sig today...
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.
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
* 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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
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!
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.
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.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
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...
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
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.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
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
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".
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."