When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Flector · 2012-07-15 03:50 · Score: 5, Funny

...amongst their weapons are fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.

Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by segin · 2012-07-15 03:55 · Score: 0

...amongst their weapons are fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to the (opium) pipe.
FTFY.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by iamgnat · 2012-07-15 04:29 · Score: 2

Oh god! They didn't put him in the comfy chair did they?!?!?! The poor soul..
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by cpu6502 · 2012-07-15 04:32 · Score: 2

I think the GP meant a fanatical devotion to Pope Jobs.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:43 · Score: 0

Err, that would be Pope Cook. In that the Pope is the head of the religion founded by a certain deity.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Zemran · 2012-07-15 04:47 · Score: 0

It all makes me glad I'm not an American...
Land of the free (free to do as you are told)

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by maxwell+demon · 2012-07-15 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, the most interesting paragraph was this one:

But there was one point that really stuck with me. He told me that when you start working at one of the stores, you have to sign an agreement that you won’t talk about it. First you go through training, and you can’t talk about what you did for training. Then you go through an initiation where you follow an experienced employee, and you’re not allowed to talk to any customers. Finally, when you are a full-fledged employee, you are absolutely restricted from representing Apple in any way outside the store. If you post an identifiable comment as an employee, you will be fired immediately.
That really sounds like some religious cult.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Bing+Tsher+E · 2012-07-15 05:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

The Young Steve Jobs went on a pilgrimage to India in his 20's. People act like they are being ironic when they refer to the cultlike nature of the Apple organization. Jobs knew exactly what he was doing.
The way Apple crassly and commercially manipulate this stuff, it's surprising more spiritually minded people don't call out Apple for it. Then again, Jobs studied under Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi who was the same huckster cult operator who hooked in on the Beatles.
Jobs set up Apple to be sort of a Moonie outfit. Quite literally cultilike.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:20 · Score: 0

It is not that bad yet when he still can talk about the experience afterward.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Sarten-X · 2012-07-15 05:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

...so it's like any other company? For a while I worked at a large corporation covering many roles, and I noticed the same air of secrecy, but upon asking, I was given reasons for it.
All training is confidential, because certain statements are easier to convey in an informal setting, but the public would get agitated by them. One training video I watched was incredibly sexist. All the food service jobs were depicted by women, and the operations were handled by men. The video was made in 1970, so it's pretty easy, in an internal setting, to just not care. Another training session included the statement of "don't do X, because it is offensive to group Y". Someone could take offense that group Y was being singled out as being troublesome. Rather than scour every piece of training material, and remake it whenever yet another term is deemed offensive, the training is just declared confidential, and (good) managers start each training session with the phrase "This stuff is really old and a little politically incorrect. Sorry about that."
During the shadowing experience, you're still considered as being in training. You don't know everything, and even if you do know something, there's a good chance you'll screw up the protocol the company wants you to follow. Maybe there's an easy fix for a broken Apple product, but it only works for certain models. A helpful eager newbie might tell the customer the fix, which could void their warranty and make things worse, while an experienced staff member knows to just escalate such issues to someone who can find the appropriate solution for the model.
Once your sales training is complete, you're a salesman. You're in the sales department, not PR. You might hear rumors of a product the company doesn't want to announce yet, so you're not allowed to talk about it. If someone has a major injury on your sales floor, you aren't allowed to speak to the press about it, because you aren't likely to say just the right thing to align with the company image, and you probably don't have all the facts of the situation, anyway.
The first rule of being a corporate minion is that you do not talk about being a corporate minion. You assume you aren't the all-seeing all-knowing god of the world, and you say only what the manager tells you to say, which has been decided by the various committees that are higher up than you are, who are working with a big-picture view of what the company as a whole wants to say to the world.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by jd2112 · 2012-07-15 05:31 · Score: 2

He's dead, It's Saint Jobs now.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by MightyYar · 2012-07-15 06:11 · Score: 2

Yeah, this guy was so shaken up by his horrible treatment that he went to the Apple Store the next day to replace his Mac!
Sheesh.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by JonySuede · 2012-07-15 06:48 · Score: 1

who was the same huckster cult operator who hooked in on the Beatles
However John Lennon was not dupe , John on acid and bad trip:

It got like that, but then I stopped it for I don't know how long, and then I started taking it again just before I met Yoko. I got the message that I should destroy my ego, and I did, you know. I was slowly putting myself together round about Maharishi time. Bit by bit over a two-year period, I had destroyed me ego. I didn't believe I could do anything. I just was nothing. I was shit. Then Derek [Taylor, Apple press officer] tripped me out at his house after he got back from L.A. He sort of said, ``You're all right,'' and pointed out which songs I had written: ``You wrote this,'' and ``You said this,'' and ``You are intelligent, don't be frightened.'' The next week I went to Derek's with Yoko, and we tripped again, and she made me realize that I was me and that it's all right. That was it; I started fighting again, being a loudmouth again and saying, ``I can do this. Fuck it. This is what I want,'' you know. ``I want it, and don't put me down.''

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:20 · Score: 0

During the shadowing experience, you're still considered as being in training. You don't know everything, and even if you do know something, there's a good chance you'll screw up the protocol the company wants you to follow.
This seems reasonable to me, although there are some places that take a complete opposite approach. I've had two different neighbours turn to finding random retail jobs when they had some difficulty trying to find jobs more related to their profession. They both at some point applied for a job at Old Navy, where the hiring process amounted to a brief group interview, followed by the manager sending the prospective employees (not even trainees yet) out to the floor to help customers. They didn't shadow any actual employees, and when they asked, "What do we do since we don't know where everything is and don't know details of current sales?" the response was, "We want to see how you think on your feet." It is annoying enough dealing with an employee that doesn't know anything about the store, but I wonder what the customers would have thought if told they were given a non-employee that was purposely uninformed.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-07-15 07:40 · Score: 0

One training video I watched was incredibly sexist. All the food service jobs were depicted by women, and the operations were handled by men. The video was made in 1970, so it's pretty easy, in an internal setting, to just not care.
Yeah, 'cause Apple Stores have been around since, like, forever...
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Howitzer86 · 2012-07-15 07:48 · Score: 1

Is it strange to think like this without the acid trip helping it along?
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by fredprado · 2012-07-15 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

As all Apple customers he has battered wife syndrome...
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Anubis+IV · 2012-07-15 09:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

That really sounds like some religious cult.
Sounds like every NDA ever to me.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by spire3661 · 2012-07-15 09:35 · Score: 1

Hallucinogenics dont provide anything you dont already have. Consider them a distorted lens to look at reality.

--
Good-bye
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Sarten-X · 2012-07-15 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative

I did not say I worked at an Apple store. I worked at a large multi-industry multinational corporation that recently celebrated its 100th anniversary. I'd assume the Apple training videos don't date from 1970, but I'd also assume the same reasoning applies for the confidentiality: They'd rather not waste the time and money remaking their training materials whenever someone on the Internet finds something they don't like.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by tjhart85 · 2012-07-15 10:09 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Likely for the same reason people keep buying Microsoft products; If you have hundreds (maybe thousands) of dollars in software invested, you don't want to have to repurchase it all for another OS (if its even possible).
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by KGIII · 2012-07-15 10:17 · Score: 1

Not so strange really but I think that some people aren't able (or willing) to engage in such introspection on their own. I will include a disclaimer... I am, personally, a huge fan of engaging in recreational hallucinogenic drug usage regardless of the legality. I have, I believe, consumed about every type of hallucinogen and seriously wish that the drugs (quite specifically LSD for this purpose) were currently available for psychotherapy research in the United States. So, no, I don't believe it is unusual or odd to think like that without the use of drugs, I'm of the opinion that there are many who can't or won't think that way.
Much in the way that common sense is not so common, it seems introspection is an oft overlooked asset. I could, and am willing to, elaborate (complete with digression) but it would be a wall of text and such seems like a waste. If you'd like I'm happy to continue on but it is probably enough to simply narrow it down to two of my favorite thoughts on the subject at hand and perhaps some minor digression.
There is no such thing as a bad trip. There are only more interesting trips.
I tried tripping once, for about ten years, I decided I didn't like it so I stopped.
The last is not really true, but is fairly close to the truth. I used to engage in recreational hallucinogenics extensively, zealously, and for extended periods of time. It is, for example, quite possible to sleep while still tripping. I worked while tripping. I was in public functions while tripping sack even. I have driven countless miles while tripping balls even (don't do that, really). As an additional example, I have worked in a FACTORY on rather dangerous equipment (heel nailing in a shoe shop way back when we made shoes here in America) so while this may seem an appeal to authority I think I'm qualified to opine on the subject.
So, yes, a wall of text is available if you're interested in further thoughts on the subject of your thought processes as compared to normal and as compared to those who use hallucinogenic drugs.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by JonySuede · 2012-07-15 11:51 · Score: 1

not that much, talk to many depressed peoples and you would have a lot of, more or less articulate, but similar to the first part of his discourse, responses. Also talk to anyone who overcame depression and you would have an answer similar to the last part, the important part of that citation:

I was me and that it's all right. That was it; I started fighting again, being a loudmouth again and saying, ``I can do this. Fuck it. This is what I want,'' you know. ``I want it, and don't put me down.''

--
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by bryan1945 · 2012-07-15 14:35 · Score: 1

Not a cult, more like a company trying to work like the government under a Secret clearance. Work as a military consultant and there's a whole lot of stuff you can't even tell your family.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by drkstr1 · 2012-07-15 18:36 · Score: 1

I am prepared for said wall of text.

--
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Simon+Brooke · 2012-07-16 00:45 · Score: 1

The real problem with C++ for kernel modules is: the language just sucks.
-- Linus Torvalds
I might just have to steal your signature.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Simon+Brooke · 2012-07-16 00:49 · Score: 1

He's dead, It's Saint Jobs now.
+1 Informative.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 02:43 · Score: 0

Interesting - battered wife syndrome could also explain Windows and Linux users.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by thefixer(tm) · 2012-07-16 04:09 · Score: 2

One voice of sanity in the room of a million typing monkeys. For this, I will continue to read slashdot for one more day. Thanks for reminding me there is hope.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by fredprado · 2012-07-16 06:10 · Score: 1

Only those that unconditionally defend their abusers. I have yet to see any user of OS, programs or any product with a fanatical devotion anywhere near that which Apple users have.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Vastad · 2012-07-16 09:24 · Score: 1

How about making a new friend who'd be interested in your point of view? Is there a PM in this thing?
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Sarten-X · 2012-07-16 14:35 · Score: 1

The quigglers are galorping slydoodles merfilly, while gormbars poktarafa pumph.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by KGIII · 2012-07-18 08:18 · Score: 1

There is no PM that I'm aware of... How does webslaver (strange I know and not at all what you're probably thinking - slave to the web and incorporating more) at the venerable hotmail sound to you? That is a .com address, of course...

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! by Vastad · 2012-07-18 17:53 · Score: 1

Thanks, I've sent along an email.

The Man does what he wants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 03:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Face it, it's game over for the man on the street. Big brother decides who will do what even if it's not against one of his laws. Anyone at anytime can be pounded on for anything.

Granted, it's still worth fighting the powers that be but not enough people are going to do it until there is little hope left. Today it would be relatively easy for the people to rise up in comparison of where we will be 10 years from now.

Oh, and if you think that choosing Mitt or Barak is going to change this or even slow it? Get your head out of your ass.

Re:The Man does what he wants by Dunbal · 2012-07-15 03:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yep I find it is amazing just how much crap people will put up with before they rise up. And it also makes you wonder about historical revoultions, and current revolutions, and get some insight as to just how bad life can be or could have been in those places. I think that in the case of the "West" it still has a long way to go, and can get much, much worse before people vote with their fists and pitchforks.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:The Man does what he wants by roc97007 · 2012-07-15 04:31 · Score: 2

So, hang on... Apple had no part in this?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:The Man does what he wants by ColdWetDog · 2012-07-15 04:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

Indeed. If you're terribly worried about an investigative organization politely knocking on your door, discussing your batshit insane (but nonetheless interesting) 'art' project that when, evaluated from a neutral point of view, contains enough hot button issues to get a dozen companies, agencies and lawyers all excited and you conflate this to the End of Civilization as We Know It, you, yourself, need to spend sometime in reality.
That, and try to stay away from posts with serious run on sentences.
Sorry, first cup of coffee time here.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:The Man does what he wants by couchslug · 2012-07-15 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

This guy was PLAYING Big Brother and using computers which did not BELONG to him.
The right to control what one OWNS is fundamental to liberty.
He didn't own the machines he exploited.
Shit on him and anyone like him be they Big Government or merely some wanker artist.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:The Man does what he wants by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-07-15 05:22 · Score: 1

Big brother decides who will do what even if it's not against one of his laws. Anyone at anytime can be pounded on for anything.
True. Big Brother didn't do a thing here, though, except investigate and then return his equipment. While the government is usually quite dickish, according to the article they only did what was somewhat "fair". The major inconvenience for the guy was having his equipment confiscated, but it seems it was returned in a couple of months.
Having said that, let me veer off for a second. Slashdot has quite a few pro and anti Apple people, and that's fine. I'm not one for Apple products, but I don't automatically assume you're demented if you buy an Apple machine. This guy being an exception. Regardless of whether he was right or not, he thought he was. And tried to cordially contact Apple, saying he'd take the project it off the internet if they wanted him to. Their response was to ignore him, then go over his head directly to his host. And send him what seems to be an automated e-mail asking him to take the site offline after they did it themselves. And, of course, they unleashed the FBI on him to take his computers away. Cold, brutal, uncaring and impersonal the whole way. And what does the guy do? Orders a new Macbook from them. Really, either he's the world's most forgiving person or it's a case akin to stockholm syndrome.
Me, I think it's Apple's right to push like that. But - and he even mentions it, being fully aware of the fact - it's incredibly hypocritical of them seeing as they did something similar themselves, and unnecessarily forceful. If they did anything like that to me, they'd never see my money again. Wouldn't hurt their bottom line on bit, but I'd feel like a black, gay, poor mexican godless communist donating money to the GOP.
Re:The Man does what he wants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:46 · Score: 0

Hey! I'm a black, gay, poor mexican godless communist, you insensitive clod! Don't force politics on me.
Re:The Man does what he wants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:50 · Score: 1

"Face it, it's game over for the man on the street. Big brother decides who will do what even if it's not against one of his laws. Anyone at anytime can be pounded on for anything."
If someone came up to my car, sitting in a public space, and decided to install a video camera on it to secretly record and transmit images, I'd be rather miffed. They have no right to do that. It's not "The Man" oppressing the fine artists of the world that is the problem here, it is that this guy is no better than a graffiti artist spray-painting across the front windows of a private business. I do have respect for graffiti artists that paint a boring concrete wall in a place that the art can be appreciated but won't otherwise do any harm. I'd be rather upset if they instead decided to paint the side of my car, and I'd want to sue their ass off for damages if they did. This effort wouldn't be "Big Brother" in operation. It would be me seeking justice for someone damaging my personal property. I don't know why the Secret Service would be involved, but the police and the courts sure would be.
Re:The Man does what he wants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:08 · Score: 0

Except if anyone else did this to any other store, I'd bet they'd only get the local police, MAYBE the state police. Hell, maybe even as you say: the FBI, but that's incorrect (even the title condradicts you).
The FBI is NOT the secret service. Secret service? That's some next-level crap going on. Where does protecting private stores fall into, when they specifically say on their website ( http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq2 )
- The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
- The immediate families of the above individuals
- Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries
- Children of former presidents until age 16
- Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
- Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
- Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President and
- National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
So explain to me how the SS were called in?
Re:The Man does what he wants by Admiral+Burrito · 2012-07-15 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

This guy was PLAYING Big Brother and using computers which did not BELONG to him.
Yeah, and all those people wandering around Apple stores STEALING processor cycles should all get the same treatment! /sarcasm
Those machines are obviously there for people to play with, and as far as I know there is nothing saying what they can and can't be used for. Using the webcam to capture images is not necessarily any less legitimate than using the web browser to browse web sites.
People are bizarrely schizophrenic about being photographed. His program is basicly the same as CCTV. CCTV has been around for ages, recording everone day after day. I'd bet there are even a few CCTV cameras in the Apple stores in question. Nobody cares. It's just easier to ignore it. But when you see your own face staring back at you from some computer screen somewhere, everything changes.
People are totally in denial about the death of privacy, and they're just itching to shoot the messenger, because there's nothing else that can be done about it at this point.
Re:The Man does what he wants by EdIII · 2012-07-15 09:15 · Score: 2

I agree with what you are saying, but also keep in mind that according to the article he actually obtained permission from Apple employees to do what he was doing.
His observations and ideas are quite interesting if you read them. How he went about obtaining the data he needed may have been undesirable from a certain point of view. They were already being recorded on camera, but may not have expected to be recorded on the web cameras themselves.
I absolutely don't like it, but I know that I have no privacy and will be recorded when I walk into pretty much any store that is out there today.
I'm having a hard time seeing just what exactly he did wrong here since he did obtain prior permission for at least some of his activity. Apple is not blameless here. Some of their employees participated in these actions and acting like that never happened while involving the authorities is akin to accusations of rape since computer fraud, damage, and unauthorized access never actually happened.
Re:The Man does what he wants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 09:22 · Score: 0

how is that any different than being at a ball game and the "kiss cam" comes on the big screen?
Re:The Man does what he wants by spire3661 · 2012-07-15 09:40 · Score: 1

Wait, you respect Grafitti artist for altering someone else's property. Nice logic fault there. Its not up to the graffiti artist to decide what art goes where, they are criminals, flat out.

--
Good-bye
Re:The Man does what he wants by westlake · 2012-07-15 10:24 · Score: 1

People are totally in denial about the death of privacy, and they're just itching to shoot the messenger, because there's nothing else that can be done about it at this point.
But someone did do something about it.
Which is why the Secret Service was knocking on his door.
Re:The Man does what he wants by jedidiah · 2012-07-15 12:46 · Score: 1

If the guy was "violating" anything then these were matters for the local police, the FBI, or even the civil courts.
The Secret Service has no business in any of it.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:The Man does what he wants by bryan1945 · 2012-07-15 14:43 · Score: 1

Can't believe I'm standing up for Apple, but-
Did those employees have the actual authority to let the guy use the machines this way? Remember, these machines were still owned by Apple, not the employees. Unless I get in touch with Legal first, no way am I letting a guy play an art project on systems like that, even if I'm the store manager.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:The Man does what he wants by EdIII · 2012-07-15 15:01 · Score: 1

Did those employees have the actual authority to let the guy use the machines this way? Remember, these machines were still owned by Apple, not the employees
There is no such distinction. An employee represents the interests of Apple. If you were to come onto company property and ask a representative of that company if you could perform some action, than it is the company that approves it through the employee.
Otherwise you could never trust anything anybody in a company ever says to anyone. How could vendors operate? According to your logic even a written receipt from an employee is meaningless since you make the distinction between Apple and an employee of Apple, which is tenuous and vague at best.
Apple is not an entity that can speak for itself you know. Some employee somewhere will have to speak on its behalf.
That is why I am confused since according to the article, employees of Apple did indeed allow this to occur and were even complicit in some of the actions. Other Apple employees disagreed with it after the fact, but attempting to act like "Apple" never approved it is false, and then making statements to law enforcement that such approval never existed either is undoubtedly improper.
Also according to the article, the Secret Service never pursued any charges and dropped its investigation which would seem to support that idea that there was no basis for any charges under 18 U.S.C. 1030.
Re:The Man does what he wants by roc97007 · 2012-07-15 18:06 · Score: 1

My ilk? You got all of that out of nine words? ... Hmm.... you have an iphone, don't you?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:The Man does what he wants by Maritz · 2012-07-16 04:16 · Score: 1

Genuinely massive sentence but congratulations you just about pulled it off. Nice to see someone who can place a comma or two, or three.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:The Man does what he wants by catmistake · 2012-07-16 08:36 · Score: 1

I'm having a hard time seeing just what exactly he did wrong here
First of all, by his own account, the artist did not ask permission to do what he did. His dishonesty was that of omissions, as he never asked permission to install software on computers that did not belong to him.

I didn’t want to break the law. I was prepared to make people a little uncomfortable
Secondly, what seems obvious to me, is that what he was in fact guilty of is computer tresspass and computer vandalism. The benign nature of what his intent was should not detract from the fact that he intended to make people unconfortable... which I think is fine if the artist had a public exhibit, but to do this in a private commercial business is tremendously naive.
What I find most troubling in the artist's own account is no comprehension that he might have done anything wrong, and with no detectible emotion he shows absolutely no remorse. He premeditated his actions by finding the precise laws, thus he must have known that others might not approve of his actions, that whatever his intent, he was coming very close to something that to him was obviosly illegal.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:The Man does what he wants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 04:35 · Score: 0

There is no such distinction.
There most certainly is. I work for a company, and I'm granted extensive access to their confidential source code - I have the power to hand copies of that source code out to anybody in the world who wants a copy, with trivial ease.
But I don't have the *actual authority* to do so. If my boss decides he wants to Open Source the code, HE doesn't have the actual authority to do so, either. The actual authority to authorize things like this rests with the legal team (who provide advice and options), and the executives and board (who make the strategic decision of whether or not open sourcing our code base is something we want to pursue).
Even in smaller disclosures, I don't have the authority to make the call. Just a few months ago, I had to provide a copy of some of our source code to a third party vendor of a memory analysis tool we use in-house that was crashing when analyzing the binary produced using their tool and our code. Before I could do that, I had to get authorization from my boss, and a review of the disclosure terms by my company's legal team. And that was sharing code with one small group of people outside our company who needed the code to diagnose and fix a problem in their own tool that was being triggered by the tool instrumenting our code.
There is a difference between "employees of Apple," and "employees of Apple who are authorized to make a decision about appropriate use of the computers and other hardware in their store." The latter is a subset of the former, and any suggestion that "any apple employee can authorize any old thing he wants to," is both stupid, and false. If he didn't get approval from somebody who is *authorized* to approve it, then it was not authorized.
Re:The Man does what he wants by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-17 04:46 · Score: 0

I like how you stopped reading at question #2 on the FAQ.
Try number 6:

Under Title 18, Section 3056, of the United States Code, agents and officers of the United States Secret Service can:
[...]
Investigate fraud in connection with identification documents, fraudulent commerce, fictitious instruments and foreign securities and
Perform other functions and duties authorized by law
Or, from their Criminal Investigations page:

Criminal investigations can be international in scope. These investigations include: [...] identity crimes such as access device fraud, identity theft, false identification fraud, bank fraud and check fraud; telemarketing fraud; telecommunications fraud (cellular and hard wire); computer fraud; fraud targeting automated payment systems and teller machines; direct deposit fraud; investigations of forgery, uttering, alterations, false impersonations or false claims involving U.S. Treasury Checks, U.S. Saving Bonds, U.S. Treasury Notes, Bonds and Bills;[...]
You think secretly installing software on someone else's computers, using that software to take photos of hundreds of people, and upload them to some remote server wouldn't reasonably make you suspicious that some identity theft or other fraud might be going on?
Re:The Man does what he wants by bryan1945 · 2012-07-18 22:21 · Score: 1

Well, as a lower-ranking member of a consulting firm, I have no authority to sign contracts for projects. I have no authority to give test projects/hardware out to possible clients for a test spin. I have no authority to speak to the news media. A McDonalds cashier can't sell the store. Shall I go on?
Employees of different levels have different levels of responsibilities and authority. I really don't understand how you missed this rather obvious point.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

He was surprised?! by EGSonikku · 2012-07-15 03:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

He can call it art, most human beings would call it creepy as hell, and last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units. And what if Apple had sold any of these display units? Then you'd have hidden spy equipment inside people's homes, snapping photos and emailing this guy. Also I doubt he programmed in the stores hours, so you could have them snapping photos of employees before and after business was open when they do have an expectation of privacy.

So yeah, if you are doing mass installs of spy software, you can expect a knock on your door.

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"

Re:He was surprised?! by Nidi62 · 2012-07-15 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise.
Try walking into a store and setting up a video camera on a self to watch customers and employees, and see what the store does. At the very least you will get thrown out, if not have the police called on you. Spying is spying, and the people he filmed never game him express permission to film them. Simply calling it "art" does not absolve him from any possible criminal liability.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:He was surprised?! by Nidi62 · 2012-07-15 04:23 · Score: 2

last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units.
FTFA, he checked and it was not against any TOS
Not against TOS != Not against any law

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:He was surprised?! by MacDork · 2012-07-15 04:39 · Score: 2

He can call it art, most human beings would call it creepy as hell, and last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units.
He was just doing it as a security measure. That's all.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:44 · Score: 0

The "hidden spy equipment" was merely the webcam already present in the devices. He merely installed an app that would take pictures on an interval when someone was in front of the machine and upload it to a web server. While it's still a bit creepy, it involved no tampering with the hardware.
The article mentioned that he captured a few employees after hours, and that he had explicitly excluded those from his project because the images were not captured in a public context.
It's true that someone bringing one of those machines home would be stuck with a computer that was effectively spying on them, though I question how often an Apple store sells its display units.
I'm not sure about the implications of this project, but it seems like Apple was a bit heavy handed. The article suggested that people often took pictures in the store. It also mentioned that the store allowed anyone in the store to run just about anything on their display computers. The only thing different here is that the apps continued to run in the background. He didn't break in after hours or hack through the store's connection or anything with such cliche evil intent.
Re:He was surprised?! by geekmux · 2012-07-15 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

He can call it art, most human beings would call it creepy as hell, and last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units...
Yeah, you're right. It's so much less creepy when Google drives down every single road in existence in custom-built vans, capturing every damn thing in a 360-degree view to build a feature in maps that we never asked for in the first place.
Re:He was surprised?! by yincrash · 2012-07-15 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

You don't need to give express permission to be filmed in public for noncommercial reasons.
Re:He was surprised?! by Zemran · 2012-07-15 05:13 · Score: 0

"and last I checked"
Where and when was this because there is no legal impediment against using a camera in a place that is open to the public and as for hidden!!! Are you really unaware that there is a camera above the screen of an Apple computer? In general you should expect a camera to be filming you in a store as most stores have cameras so it would be stupid to imply that you believe that you have an expectation of privacy. Running software on a demonstration computer? Errr, that is what they are there for...
You are right that he did not programme in the store hours but you are being picky there. Why would he? Generally, he was behaving like a college kid. Maybe he crossed a line and a policeman going round and telling him so would have been appropriate but no more. The rest is an unreasonable waste of public time and money as well as a gross infringement of his human rights. This is much more like a Soviet system than a society that respects people and supports the people.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:He was surprised?! by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 05:15 · Score: 1

FTFA, he checked and it was not against any TOS
I'm pretty sure that murder isn't specially mentioned in any TOS either. A TOS however clearly says that you must abide by "local, state, and federal laws". Installing software without permission and spying on people probably fall under government laws and not a TOS. Use some common sense.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:He was surprised?! by Bobakitoo · 2012-07-15 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

At the very least you will get thrown out, if not have the police called on you.
And that is the only thing they could do, also calling the police is excessive. Ask him to leave with his equipment, everything remaining will be taken to the trash. Unless he refuse to leave or become violent, there is no need to involve the police. Not much bad were done because this was a public space where there is no expectation of privacy anyway. Do something useful, go rage about all the other camera that is filming everyone, everywhere without anyone's consent.
I don't like being secretly filmed and I don't like his 'art' project, but this is clearly a case of abuse and intimidation, a symptom of police state and yet an other proof that fascism live on in America.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:19 · Score: 0

A shop is a private establishment.
Re:He was surprised?! by Gordonjcp · 2012-07-15 05:19 · Score: 1

And what if Apple had sold any of these display units? Then you'd have hidden spy equipment inside people's homes, snapping photos and emailing this guy.
I suppose the lesson there is that if you buy an ex-demo laptop - or anything else with user-modifiable software - then flatten it and reinstall as soon as you get it home.
And do that with your clothes on.
Re:He was surprised?! by pitchpipe · 2012-07-15 05:21 · Score: 1

He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise.
I was going to post about spyware being illegal or something like that, but then I remembered that corporations are spying on us all of the time.
Where the fuck is the government institution that I can call to go and raid their residences and offices? Oh yeah, I forgot: in our new Corporatocracy I am an ant, and they are giants.
Ants sometimes get stepped on; nobody really gives a fuck.

--
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Re:He was surprised?! by Bobakitoo · 2012-07-15 05:23 · Score: 1

INB4 'But Apple store is private property'. When you are open to the public it is public space even though it is privately owned. Public space and privately owned are not mutually exclusive.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:29 · Score: 0, Insightful

Public streets vs private property... Big difference.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

A shop is a private establishment.
No, it is not. Any private property that is open to the public is public space. If you don't like it, lock the door and put a sign that read 'private property, keep out'. Fuck off.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

"He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise."
I'm sure the terms of use also don't specifically exclude smashing the equipment with a sledgehammer or peeing on it.
Cars parked in a public parking lot don't have little signs saying "please don't slash tires" or "please don't mod my engine" either. It's implicit when it isn't your property that you aren't supposed to do such things.
On top of that, the law regarding photographing people in public is pretty clear. It's okay to do so, but you need to seek permission for most types of distribution of those photos. "Art" is not a "get out of jail free" card, and any real artist should know that when it comes to exhibiting their works if the people in them are identifiable.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:34 · Score: 1

He's just lazy and cheap. If he setup his own kiosk in a public place, paid for his own internet connection, and offered 15 minutes of free internet he could have captured all the faces he wanted without putting malware on Apple's computers. But that would have cost quite a bit more.
Re:He was surprised?! by ed1park · 2012-07-15 05:37 · Score: 3, Informative

He asked permission and they allowed him to do this. RTFA.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:40 · Score: 0, Insightful

At least Google is doing it from what is clearly public property, and they make a best-effort attempt to blur faces so that people are not identifiable. Anyone else could do exactly the same and it would be perfectly legal. What this guy was doing was not. At the very least he should be liable for civil damages if anyone in the pictures wanted to sue him for distributing their likeness without permission.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:41 · Score: 0

He asked the Apple employee if he could film so filing was clearly OK. That was all the permission he needed. Besides that he even states in the piece that lots of people film/take pictures in the Apple store. Apple clearly made no effort to claim copyright to any extent that would prohibit the taking of picture/video. If they had they should have made employees aware and posted signs.
He didn't exceed his authorization as the system was clearly on display for use. There were no passwords, the system had no lock downs which he exceeded, and he never disabled any piece of software such as the “freezer” program.
There also was no reasonable expectation of privacy. This was a public place even though it was private owned. Any place which the public generally has access to is a public place. This includes movie theaters, theme parks, and other locations which one can be banned from. A home is not a public place because the general public is not welcomed. A private club might not be a public place because it is exclusive to the members of said club.
The right to publicity generally would not apply here either. These pictures were of the general public and there was no intent to use (even in practice) any person picture publicly whom could claim such a right. Right of publicity applies to celebrities, actors, models, and so on. Not random people that nobody could name. If you brought a lawsuit the accuser would win exactly $0.
This is coming from a privacy advocate. I don't think there should be cameras everywhere (government or private). However this person (artist or not) was of no threat to any persons privacy. What is a threat to your privacy is all the store cameras, government cameras, and so forth which are all over the place. Your cellular phone is a privacy threat, your web browsing is a privacy threat, your credit/debit cards are a privacy threat, your drivers license is a privacy threat, your license plate is a privacy threat, your social security number is a privacy threat. This one little project is not a privacy threat.
Re:He was surprised?! by artor3 · 2012-07-15 05:43 · Score: 2

Two wrongs don't make a right. As I recall, Google did get in trouble for that in various countries, and has since started obscuring some images.
Re:He was surprised?! by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 06:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

He asked the Apple employee if he could film so filing was clearly OK. That was all the permission he needed. Besides that he even states in the piece that lots of people film/take pictures in the Apple store.

Asking to take pictures inside a store is not the same as asking an Apple employee to install secret software to take pictures of customers.

Apple clearly made no effort to claim copyright to any extent that would prohibit the taking of picture/video. If they had they should have made employees aware and posted signs.
This is not about copyright. This was about malware and invasion of privacy.

He didn't exceed his authorization as the system was clearly on display for use. There were no passwords, the system had no lock downs which he exceeded, and he never disabled any piece of software such as the “freezer” program.
No where was there permission to install. My neighbor leaves his garage door open sometimes. That doesn't mean I can borrow his tools without asking him first.

There also was no reasonable expectation of privacy. This was a public place even though it was private owned. Any place which the public generally has access to is a public place. This includes movie theaters, theme parks, and other locations which one can be banned from. A home is not a public place because the general public is not welcomed. A private club might not be a public place because it is exclusive to the members of said club.
And where are the rights of owners of the private place? You can take a picture inside a movie theater. I think they would mind it if you set up a web cam without their permission.

The right to publicity generally would not apply here either. These pictures were of the general public and there was no intent to use (even in practice) any person picture publicly whom could claim such a right. Right of publicity applies to celebrities, actors, models, and so on. Not random people that nobody could name. If you brought a lawsuit the accuser would win exactly $0.
No where was this mentioned about right to publicity. This was about spying and the rights of Apple and individuals.

This is coming from a privacy advocate. I don't think there should be cameras everywhere (government or private). However this person (artist or not) was of no threat to any persons privacy. What is a threat to your privacy is all the store cameras, government cameras, and so forth which are all over the place. Your cellular phone is a privacy threat, your web browsing is a privacy threat, your credit/debit cards are a privacy threat, your drivers license is a privacy threat, your license plate is a privacy threat, your social security number is a privacy threat. This one little project is not a privacy threat.
We do not have omnipotence or precognition. After the fact, this individual poses little risk. When Apple discovered the spyware, they could not have known what the intent was or who did it. Was this targeting the public or a person specifically? The artist also could have said it was for an art project but spies don't generally tell the truth about what they are doing.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:He was surprised?! by Wrath0fb0b · 2012-07-15 07:15 · Score: 2

You don't need to give express permission to be filmed in public for noncommercial reasons.
But you do need express permission to install software on a computer belonging to someone else.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:21 · Score: 0

IANAL but the word on the street is there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
Re:He was surprised?! by Dahamma · 2012-07-15 07:21 · Score: 1

Funny thing is, if *Apple* had installed the spyware this on their own computers and uploaded photos of customers to the Internet without their permission, how many lawsuits do you think would have been filed against them? And the bad publicity would have been 10x what they got for demanding this guy's photos be taken down...
Re:He was surprised?! by Geeky · 2012-07-15 07:29 · Score: 1

Seems art is a get out of jail, or at least lawsuit, card:
See the Nussenzweig vs DiCorcia case for precedence. Yes, different circumstances, but it's a photo of an identifiable person.

--
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
Re:He was surprised?! by Theaetetus · 2012-07-15 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

He asked permission and they allowed him to do this. RTFA.
No, RTFA. He asked if it was okay to take photos in the store. He never asked if it was okay to install software on the machines and have those Apple-owned machines take the photos. And certainly, he never asked about taking photos from every computer of every visitor to the store who used a computer and publishing them online. After all, if he really asked permission, would he have had to hide it:

I looked around to double check that there were no terms of service I was missing. If there were, and if it said anything about “installing applications”, I would have had to go back home and write an HTML5 or Flash version.
Or:

The app was maybe two megabytes, and took 15 seconds to download. Sometimes I would open another tab and load Flickr or Open Processing so I had an excuse if someone asked why I was comparing every single computer.
Or:

One of them got a little excited and tweeted about the pictures, not realizing the project wasn’t done yet. Fortunately, only a few people noticed, and it didn’t get much attention.
Or:

After the one-minute-exhibition ended, we made a staggered exit from the store and met at the Starbucks up the street.
Or:

If I were wiser, I may have split “People Staring at Computers” in two... The other piece would have been the in-store intervention. I’d use the same photo app, but they’d be uploaded directly to an anonymous photo host instead of my server. I’d replace the screensaver with an app that downloaded and exhibited these photos. Done properly, there would be no one to point fingers at, and people might be able to focus on questions about privacy and surveillance instead of arguing about art and intentionality. I wouldn’t be able to claim authorship of course, but I would be in a position to actually join the discussion and participate in the criticism.
None of that is the actions or sentiments of someone who "asked permission" for what he was doing. Rather, as he notes, he asked if he could "take photos in the store" and later if he could "shoot video". It's permission creep: a positive response to 'can I take a picture here' doesn't imply 'I can install hidden networked cameras and publish photos of thousands of pictures taken over the course of weeks'.
Re:He was surprised?! by bruce_the_loon · 2012-07-15 07:33 · Score: 1

On top of that, the law regarding photographing people in public is pretty clear. It's okay to do so, but you need to seek permission for most types of distribution of those photos. "Art" is not a "get out of jail free" card, and any real artist should know that when it comes to exhibiting their works if the people in them are identifiable.
Precisely, ethical photographers carry model releases with them and they get clearance from the people in their photos if they are identifiable and often if not. And you agree to abide by their decision if they don't want to give clearance.

--
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 08:10 · Score: 0

You do to have it displayed for anything other than "personal use"
IE I can take a picture of you in a public place.. while taking a photo of say the Apple Store entrance.. but I cannot use it for public exhibition without you giving your written consent.. This applies to everything except for news gathering institutions and even then it is not blanket permission just because you are CNN or ABC news.. there are limits..
But this is not even the crux of the issue that brought the Secret Service in.. what brought the secret service in was the installation of software on public computers that transmitted to a remote internet server.. which could easily be seen as a proof of concept for malware that was intended to released into the wild.. etc..
Re:He was surprised?! by westlake · 2012-07-15 08:17 · Score: 1

He asked permission and they allowed him to do this. RTFA.
Permission from who?
The store manager? Security? Apple corporate?
Permission for what?
To install spy cam software with email or wifi transmission on Macs in store ?
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 08:20 · Score: 0

Really? Almost everyone I know *loves* Google streetview, it's meant to show how roads and places look like in real life, nothing more. It's not a free but still great service! Feel free to use Apple maps (or don't) when they come out.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 08:40 · Score: 0

Right of publicity applies to celebrities, actors, models, and so on. Not random people that nobody could name.
[citation needed]
Re:He was surprised?! by RobertLTux · 2012-07-15 08:58 · Score: 2

WRONG a place with public access is still private property you can and in fact some places have LAWS (enforced by actual Police if needed) that are inside what is allowed by the general city laws.
You can
1 forbid weapons/guns
2 require certain language (no swearing ect)
3 require certain behavior
4 exclude non-service animals
5 just about anything else (certain things run afoul of nondiscrimination laws)
and if you violate these LAWS you can be BANNED from that property (and afterwards be jailed for trespassing if you do return)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Re:He was surprised?! by drkim · 2012-07-15 09:22 · Score: 4, Informative

He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise..
Except for, you know, the The Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:
Whoever--
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization...
--knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
--intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
--intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this section. Such authority of the United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General."
Re:He was surprised?! by drkim · 2012-07-15 09:24 · Score: 1

Microsoft has a store now....?
Re:He was surprised?! by spire3661 · 2012-07-15 09:43 · Score: 1

Yes, they are quite comical, esp when they are a few doors down from an Apple store. The Apple store is FILLED with people from open to close, the windows store is empty open to close.

--
Good-bye
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 10:32 · Score: 0

Try walking into a store and setting up a video camera on a self to watch customers and employees, and see what the store does.
Your analogy is inaccurate. The physical hardware was already installed by Apple. I'm not defending his use of spyware, just refuting the claim that it was against the TOS. The systems were open for public use without restriction, and re-imaged daily.
I realize this is Slashdot and all, but honestly I've never managed a negative score from paraphrasing TFA.
Re:He was surprised?! by theNAM666 · 2012-07-15 11:20 · Score: 1

Did you miss that the store has glass windows?
It was legal. You're a moron.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 11:27 · Score: 0

Actually it's perfectly legal to kick people out of your store for filming.
Re:He was surprised?! by swillden · 2012-07-15 12:28 · Score: 1

You don't need to give express permission to be filmed in public for noncommercial reasons.
But you do need express permission to install software on a computer belonging to someone else.
Cite?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:He was surprised?! by westlake · 2012-07-15 13:26 · Score: 1

The artist also could have said it was for an art project but spies don't generally tell the truth about what they are doing.
This "artist" could also be lying when he says he asked for permission to do anything. We only have his word on that.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 22:03 · Score: 0

Cars parked in a public parking lot don't have little signs saying "please don't slash tires" or "please don't mod my engine" either. It's implicit when it isn't your property that you aren't supposed to do such things.
I can put up tons of little signs that say "don't leave flyers under my wipers" - but they won't work and every single Gov agency will tell me to fuck off if I try to complain to them - because it's not against the law to leave a flyer on my car.... it is however already against the law to do those other things you mentioned.
If he didn't cause any damage to the Macs or harm to the people - and he had permission to take photos - then he didn't break any existing laws.
I don't like it - but unfortunately that's not enough to make something illegal - if it was umbrellas would be banned (or as i call them, eye-level spiky pokers).
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 22:06 · Score: 0

You didn't read that at all did you?

knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

--intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or

--intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage

He caused no damage - he's clear.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 01:38 · Score: 0

Actually, as far as I recall most (professional) photographers always ask permission before taking pictures of people (when possible of course, a warzone is kind of an exception).
Although the law in most western countries is not very clear on the issue, this is considered standard procedure at least as a form of not being a total jerk (it also may save your ass in cultures/places/etc where it is not socially acceptable.
Re:He was surprised?! by LanMan04 · 2012-07-16 03:50 · Score: 1

It's permission creep: a positive response to 'can I take a picture here' doesn't imply 'I can install hidden networked cameras and publish photos of thousands of pictures taken over the course of weeks'.
So can I assume you're not OK with Google Street View?

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:He was surprised?! by Theaetetus · 2012-07-16 03:57 · Score: 1

It's permission creep: a positive response to 'can I take a picture here' doesn't imply 'I can install hidden networked cameras and publish photos of thousands of pictures taken over the course of weeks'.
So can I assume you're not OK with Google Street View?
I'm not okay with Google Street View coming into my place of business and taking pictures of me and my colleagues without permission, no. But then, it wouldn't really be called "street" view, would it?
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 04:05 · Score: 0

> It's implicit when it isn't your property that you aren't supposed to do such things.
The thing is, he will never answer that question, and never be asked it. What a terrible piece of writing, wired are idiots for allowing this, and people who will read it and not realize his juvenile manipulative writing skills will draw more attention to his pathetic guise.
His actions in this, mostly afterwards, mostly this article, the lies, are what completely destroy his character.
Kyle McDonald is a liar.
Re:He was surprised?! by LanMan04 · 2012-07-16 04:10 · Score: 1

I'm not okay with Google Street View coming into my place of business and taking pictures of me and my colleagues without permission, no. But then, it wouldn't really be called "street" view, would it?
Ah, but you already gave them permission to do it (taking about Apple Store in this instance), you just have a problem with HOW the pictures are taken.
My comment was aimed at the fact that many people describe Google Street View as "permission creep", in that while public photography is legal, but no one "expected" a company like Google to take a picture of a huge percentage of the private homes in the US when such a law was enacted.
A similar argument is used against license plate readers on cop cars. Sure, it's OK for a cop to manually enter a license plate into a computer and check the status, because it requires EFFORT and can't be done on an industrial scale. But now there are plate scanners that literally run EVERY license plate within view. Is it still "OK" now that it's monumentally easy?

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:He was surprised?! by Theaetetus · 2012-07-16 04:24 · Score: 1

I'm not okay with Google Street View coming into my place of business and taking pictures of me and my colleagues without permission, no. But then, it wouldn't really be called "street" view, would it?
Ah, but you already gave them permission to do it (taking about Apple Store in this instance), you just have a problem with HOW the pictures are taken.
I understand your point, but I disagree... Street View is not permission creep because the public isn't asked for permission - rather, it's a question of legality and the balanced rights of the privacy of the person being photographed and the right of the photographer to record public information. Here (and in your hypothetical), the photographer has no such right, as it's not a public space - their sole claim is due to having explicit permission, except that they're going beyond the bounds of what was explicit.
Re:He was surprised?! by Maritz · 2012-07-16 05:04 · Score: 1

Glass Windows..? What is this sorcery..? ;)
I found the art itself to be a little bit pretentious, people don't pull expressions when there's no-one looking at their face, wow. Amazing insight there. Using peoples' images without their permission... Wouldn't bother me but I think some people could be touchy about that, so maybe he's a little in the wrong there.
That said I think it's a massive over-reaction to use the secret service. That makes Apple a touch creepier in my eyes. I guess the regular run of the mill police just isn't up to snuff for them, they need the guys with the sharp suits and shades.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:He was surprised?! by ed1park · 2012-07-16 07:30 · Score: 1

Please read the response I was replying to. He setup a video camera and took some video with permission and did not get thrown out. Reading comprehension is getting out of hand...
"We got situated in the store, double checked with an employee that it was ok to shoot video, and I triggered the slideshow by visiting a webpage from my iPod."
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 07:30 · Score: 0

Thanks for copying and pasting, now go back and RTFA and your pasted text. If he wasn't prosecuted it wasn't against the law. They had all the evidence of what he had done, so it isn't really a problem of lack of evidence - the reason he was never prosecuted was because what he did isn't illegal - even if it feels wrong.
Re:He was surprised?! by Theaetetus · 2012-07-16 07:48 · Score: 1

Please read the response I was replying to. He setup a video camera and took some video with permission and did not get thrown out. Reading comprehension is getting out of hand...
Agreed, and please read the response that one was replying to: "He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise."
The great-grandparent disagreed with that, and you pointed out that "He asked permission and they allowed him to do this. RTFA."
In context, you must agree that it's reasonable to assume that "this" referred to "installing software, spyware or otherwise."
Re:He was surprised?! by catmistake · 2012-07-16 08:18 · Score: 1

I must agree with your responses whole-heartedly. Though I think that the particular law sited did not quite apply (I think it has more to do with computer vandalism and trespassing), anyone defending the artist's actions on these points is quite obviously trying to cast Apple in the worst light possible: their reasoning is suspect and intellectually dishonest. After reading the artist's account I can only think that either he is a sociopath (as he indicated no understanding of why Apple or the individuals might have reason to not want him doing that, he expressed absolutely no remorse and in his account shows absolutely no emotion), or comes from a culture where he was never introduced to the concept of privacy or ownership of property. Neither of these things excuses the artist's action, and I think he got off easily... it could have been far worse in today's prosecutorial culture, and Apple legal being very thorough. I think perhaps it must have been Apple that acquiesced in seeking prosecution, and not that the EFF or his attorney's saved him from any litigation.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:He was surprised?! by drkim · 2012-07-16 12:07 · Score: 1

I guess it would hinge on how 'damage' is interpreted. It's not always physical damage.
The people photographed and displayed could claim damage in any number of ways (Wife sees picture of husband with girlfriend; boss sees employee at Apple store when he's suppose to be with client.)
Apple could claim damage in that they had to scrub and reload their machines.
And... the big one... Apple could claim damage to their reputation, as people may be less comfortable coming into the stores and browsing - knowing that they could wind up as an unwilling part of an art exhibition. (Cases have been built on less...)
Think of it this way: if he had installed a hack that flashed "Apple sucks!" every 10 minutes, on every machine, in every store, they would certainly claim damage to their reputation. This is a similar type of action, but to a lesser degree. But it certainly is a case Apple could make.
While on one hand, it's not worth Apple's time and legal fees to go after this guy, they may do it just to prevent this sort of behavior in the future.
Re:He was surprised?! by ed1park · 2012-07-16 12:11 · Score: 1

No. I was only responding to the parent. You really need to stop jumping on false assumptions. The parent stated that in a hypothetical scenario that if anyone setup a video camera, that person would have been thrown out. But in fact the "artist" *did* setup a video camera and got permission to record people in the store which indicates he did not RTFA. You need to relax and stop over analyzing and misreading simple things.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 18:02 · Score: 0

Unless they password protect the computers and remove the install rights of the user account that they leave the computer running with then there is no protected computer involved... which pretty much negates your point completely.
Re:He was surprised?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 18:07 · Score: 0

And the fact that they leave the computers open for use without password protection and want you to use them also negates your first item of
" Whoever--
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization..."
The post above negates the rest of your point completely.
Informative? No. Misinformed? Yes
Re:He was surprised?! by dotar · 2012-07-16 19:54 · Score: 1

So, where did he cause damage, either to a computer or to anyone photographed?
Re:He was surprised?! by drkim · 2012-07-16 22:08 · Score: 1

And the fact that they leave the computers open for use without password protection and want you to use them also negates your first item...
Well, supporting my point is that the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may have been infringed is the simple fact that the Secret Service was called in to investigate. That would imply that someone, at some level, felt that the FCFAA was on the table.
If it was just Apple being pissed off, it would have remained a local police case (business dispute) or a civil action.
Using your brand of logic you could steal a car by justifying that "the owner wanted it taken because they left the keys in it." or hack an ATM because "...they should have sealed up that slot in the front if they didn't want me to insert a mag card spoofer."

Moron by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do you really need a law to know that this is wrong?
Just because something might be legal, doesn't mean it is right.
Change out "small Mom & Pop store" for "Apple store" and see how you feel about this guy's art project.
I don't require a law to say please and thank you, or to know that a business is a business, not a playground for your art project.

Re:Moron by LourensV · 2012-07-15 05:24 · Score: 2

I'll play devil's advocate for a bit, since most comments so far seem to boil down to "everyone involved is an idiot", "this is not art" and/or "privacy, privacy, privacy!". I do think there is some room for the opposite point of view. From reading the article (I know, I know), it seems to me that he's been thinking about privacy, the lack thereof in our modern society, and its implications, for quite a while. Moreover, he's put his money where his mouth is and experimented on himself, and writes about his experiences. It's made me think about what it would be like to be watched all the time. I'm interested in surveillance and security and these things, but I'd always thought about them in general terms and in terms of consequences to society as a whole, and not applied it so personally. So at least I learned something from this keytweeter project he describes. And I'm now wondering what I look like as I'm typing this. Is his art at the level of Van Gogh or Picasso? Probably not, but it does have social relevance going for it. And it sparked a shitstorm online, which is exactly what art is supposed to do: spark discussion and make people think. Some of the 99% who never even think about how much of their lives is watched and recorded did so now. Mission accomplished.
As for expectations of privacy: I work in a city full of tourists, and it's pretty much impossible to go anywhere in the centre without being photographed by them. Many of those photographs probably end up on the web, with at least a time tag. I'm going to be in some of them. I don't like that, but I recognise that we can't go and forbid the tourists from taking pictures and putting them online, so I'll just have to live with it. This particular Apple store had a big glass front, and plenty of people inside taking pictures of anything and everything. If I'd ended up being photographed and published on the web as part of the exhibition, I would have thought it pretty cool to be part of this. Visiting an Apple store is not typically something that people try to keep private (and doing anything private in a busy store where anyone can walk in and look over your shoulder seems rather dumb to me), and the photographs were selected by the artist, who presumably would have left out anything sensitive (and did leave out the shots of the Apple tech back in Cupertino).
In the end, in my opinion it's a somewhat interesting art project that generated some valuable discussion, and the privacy consequences are a storm in a teacup. Apparently the Secret Service agreed with at least the latter, as they gave him back his stuff and closed the investigation without charging him with anything.
Re:Moron by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 06:43 · Score: 2

Many people are crying overreaction to an art project but most people seem to forget that we don't have omnipotence. After the fact it was discovered to be an art project. When Apple discovered that someone had secretly installed software onto their computers, they couldn't have known that. The Secret Service investigating the intrusion couldn't have known ahead of time it was an art project.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Moron by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 11:08 · Score: 1

Your comments are excellent. You are only missing one piece:
This was not "public". This was a business. Not his business.
The customers were "in public". The business was not "public". It is a private business.
Re:Moron by catmistake · 2012-07-16 08:46 · Score: 1

The privacy violations here are a red herring. What the artist in fact did that is illegal was computer tresspass and computer vandalism. If you are stuck pondering the artist's intent, simply refer to his own account:

I didn’t want to break the law. I was prepared to make people a little uncomfortable, but I didn’t want to do anything illegal. That ruled out using private computers. I tried to think of a busy public space full of computers, and the Apple Store seemed so obvious.
The artist made a grave error in judgement. Any computer's owned by someone else are private computers. Though his violations are clear to most, the artist shows no comprehension of his illegal activity, nor any remorse for what he did, and it seems obvious to me that the artist got off easily... probably because Apple legal acquiesced, and not because the EFF or his attorneys prevented his prosecution.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Apple's now worse than Microsucks by cpu6502 · 2012-07-15 04:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait

" the artist who had the Secret Service raid his home at the behest of Apple, who was miffed with Kyle's surreptitious capture of people's expressions as they stared at computers in Apple Stores"

Holy hell. I didn't hear this story til now, but what the HELL was Apple (and Jobs since he was still in charge) thinking? A public facility is not only forbidden from discriminating against people based on race, sex, age, et cetera, but also forbidden from blocking people from recording (with camera, audio, pen-and-paper) what they witness in plain sight.

That's it. From this point forward when I hear someone waxing beautifically about hwo "great" Apple is, I will be linking to this story. And others. To show them how tyrannical the company has truly become.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:10 · Score: 0

The article is a bit hard to follow, but what appears to have happened is this guy asked for permission from an employee at an Apple store if he could take pictures inside the store. The employee said sure, no problem. So what does he do? He installs spyware on the demo machines inside the Apple store, which uses the built in camera to take pictures of people using the computers and uploads them to a publicly viewable web site.. Now this may have been "art", but the Secret Service called it something else. This isn't much different than installing a key logger on the machines as an "art" project (yes, "scare quotes" is intentional). Not really something good.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by hmbcarol · 2012-07-15 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course you can use YOUR own personal camera to record people in public. But you have no right to take over and use Apple's display computer cameras and use it to record people and upload to the web. This wasn't art, it was rude. We decry the loss of privacy in this country and yet when it's done for "art" some people are shocked that anybody could be upset.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by cpu6502 · 2012-07-15 04:15 · Score: 4, Informative

>>>the apple store is not a public facility but a private one
According to New York and most state laws, a private venue that has been opened to the general citizenry is no longer a private area. It is defined as a "public facility" and therefore has to abide by the state's non-discrimination, non-smoking, and other laws.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by cpu6502 · 2012-07-15 04:20 · Score: 1

Well yes. Obviously vandalizing the store's equipment is a crime. The guy should have been forced to pay the store's fees to wipe the Macs clean.
Nevertheless there are still TONS of articles I can link to about Apple's recent bad behavior. Just yesterday there was an article about Apple telling store owners to stop selling Samsung phones. Where do they get off doing that???

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by jo_ham · 2012-07-15 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property.
2) he wasn't using his own equipment, he was installing software on Apple's machines.
3) Apple doesn't "forbid" you from using your own cameras and recording equipment in their stores to "record what they witness in plain sight", it just frowns on you effectively installing hidden cameras to capture people's images without them knowing.
Yes, highly "tyrannical" of a private business deciding that installing hidden camera and spyware software on computers owned by them in a place of business owned/rented by them without asking permission (of either Apple or the unsuspecting customers) and trying to handwave it away with a "it's not mentioned that this sort of behaviour is explicitly forbidden therefore it's ok" was something it was not happy about.
Mmm. I'm sure Apple is quaking in its boots that an Apple hater is thinks their decision to put a stop to a guy secretly recording its customers using its own display computers with spyware is a bad one.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-15 04:23 · Score: 0

Wow. Somebody really wants to start posting at +2. Heh.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:27 · Score: 0, Insightful

yeah and none of those laws give you the right to install your own equipment or your own spyware inside the facilities infrastructure. you can take pictures with your own equipment on your own person. you cant install random cameras throughout any facility you want to or bug their computers. are you retarded or just stupid ?
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:31 · Score: 0

what has "apples recent bad behavior" have anything to do with the topic under discussion ? stop deflecting.
you can point to micro$hits long history of bad behavior and sony's rootkits as more examples of corporate bad behavior. it has nothing to do with this discussion. he was in the wrong, did \some breaking and entering of apples private property and got a minor bitchslap. end of discussion.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by __aagbwg300 · 2012-07-15 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's it. From this point forward when I hear someone waxing beautifically about hwo "great" Apple is, I will be linking to this story. And others. To show them how tyrannical the company has truly become.
Ok, I'm with you on the privacy thing. You know Apple has security cameras at their stores, so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. But take a minute and think about what this guy did - he wrote literal spyware. Specifically, he wrote a program, secretly installed it on a computer he didn't own and used that program to relay information back to him. If he did that at my office, on my equipment (ok, the company equipment) I'd lose my mind. I'd call the the cops, FBI, and yeah, sure, the secret service.
Wired, you suck. I think this guy did some creepy, messed up stuff and you gave him a free pass because it was in the name of "art" and you can sell magazines by dumping on [Apple/HP/Microsoft]. Let's pick his brain for a moment:

The next week, I got some pings from Apple in Cupertino. I looked through the logs and tried to reconstruct what was happening. I saw a few pings from one computer, a few from another. Sometimes multiple copies of the app were running. I even had a vague sense of when they took their lunch break.
What if this guy wasn't an artist? What if worked for a competitor who was trying to get a headcount at a certain store? Would that change the story? I love art as much as the next man, and sure, it's an interesting idea, but the but the guy has earned what he's received.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Bob9113 · 2012-07-15 04:49 · Score: 1

We decry the loss of privacy in this country and yet when it's done for "art" some people are shocked that anybody could be upset.
It is a poignant question, isn't it? You have done a good job with the above statement of pointing out the hypocrisy from one perspective. Another worth a bit of exploration is the legal perspective.
Cell phones, network providers, and cloud services spy on people's most intimate activities, even when they have a far more reasonable expectation of privacy than people in a retail store, yet the law ignores them. This guy does it and calls it "art", and the law sees him (at the behest of one of the most powerful oligarchs) as deserving of Secret Service investigation.
I think both are wrong; this for-art spy and the for-profit spies. I think that they both deserve to be investigated, with the amount of federal investigative resources applied being in direct proportion to the number of people spied upon. If the law holds Verizon blameless for tracking me everywhere I go and recording every website I visit, but it brings in the Secret Service over a few photographs of people in a retail store, there is something going wrong. There is a red flag here and it is our duty as citizens to get on our soapboxes and bring it to the government's attention.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by ColdWetDog · 2012-07-15 04:52 · Score: 1

The article is a bit hard to follow, but what appears to have happened is this guy asked for permission from an employee at an Apple store if he could take pictures inside the store. The employee said sure, no problem. So what does he do? He installs spyware on the demo machines inside the Apple store, which uses the built in camera to take pictures of people using the computers and uploads them to a publicly viewable web site.. Now this may have been "art", but the Secret Service called it something else. This isn't much different than installing a key logger on the machines as an "art" project (yes, "scare quotes" is intentional). Not really something good.
Yes. This is 'art' like Christo's stuff is art. The main difference is that Christo has managed a reputation and hired his own lawyers to invade public and private spaces. As TFA pointed out artists often like to push the envelope to get people to notice. Well, he certainly did that..... Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 04:56 · Score: 1, Interesting
According to New York and most state laws, a private venue that has been opened to the general citizenry is no longer a private area. It is defined as a "public facility" and therefore has to abide by the state's non-discrimination, non-smoking, and other laws.
What? A store is private unless it is owned by government facility. Then it may be considered public. As for discrimination, by the Commerce Clause, all businesses selling to the public must abide by appropriate laws. Selling to the public does not make a private store public. That's why many stores can throw you out for having no shirt or shoes. They can't throw you out because you are not Caucasian.
Regardless, you missed the point:
- The artist installed software without the computer owner's permission (Apple).
- The software took pictures of people secretly.
- The artist did not have the people's permission.
Tell me which one of the above three acts is okay with you.
Many stores that have CC recording normally have disclaimers telling you that you are being recorded. That was not this case.
--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-07-15 04:57 · Score: 1

Now this may have been "art", but the Secret Service called it something else.

No, they didn't. They investigated for some time and found no evidence of any law being breached. That's why the guy wasn't prosecuted. It's in TFA.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:58 · Score: 0

"It is defined as a "public facility" and therefore has to abide by the state's non-discrimination, non-smoking, and other laws."
So what? It doesn't matter if it is a "public facility" (whatever the hell that means for a privately-owned business), it would not absolve a supposed "artist" from getting permission before distributing or exhibiting their artwork. In *genuine* public places, like a city street, you can photograph all you want, but if people are identifiable in the photo, you need permission to distribute (i.e. you may hold the copyright on the photo, but you can't distribute it without getting a model release or similar waiver). There are exceptions for such things as public figures and news events, but I don't see how any of that would apply in this case. This "artist" should get his ass sued off by every person in those photos.
From the article:
"I didn’t want to break the law. I was prepared to make people a little uncomfortable, but I didn’t want to do anything illegal. That ruled out using private computers. I tried to think of a busy public space full of computers, and the Apple Store seemed so obvious. I read “The Photographer’s Right” to make sure it was ok to take the photos:"
For someone who "didn't want to break the law" and supposedly read some of the guidelines regarding public photography, he sure is clueless. He ruled out "using private computers". What the hell? The fact that a computer is sitting in an ostensibly (and very debatable) "public space" does not make it a public computer in the sense that he could do whatever the hell he wanted to it.
To use the inevitable car analogy, this idiot thinks that he can open the hood of a car and mod the engine if it is sitting in a "public" parking lot, as if any piece of equipment left unattended in such a space acquires "public property" status and is something he can fiddle with as he wishes. What a moron. I suppose next he'll go to the local public park and start cutting down "public" trees.
Hello? "Public" does not mean it is your personal property.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:10 · Score: 0

People don't EXPECT privacy at an Apple Store.
How many people log into Facebook and such on Apple Store computers?? For all anybody knows Apple is key logging and screenshoting everything you do!
Besides, is this seriously a privacy issue? He's not collecting personal info, just pictures. It's not like security companies are not out there RIGHT NOW trying to te store security cams to your personal info.
This is a harmless kids prank... Move along....
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by jo_ham · 2012-07-15 05:14 · Score: 0

People don't EXPECT privacy at an Apple Store.
How many people log into Facebook and such on Apple Store computers?? For all anybody knows Apple is key logging and screenshoting everything you do!
Besides, is this seriously a privacy issue? He's not collecting personal info, just pictures. It's not like security companies are not out there RIGHT NOW trying to te store security cams to your personal info.
This is a harmless kids prank... Move along....
Wow.
I'm not even... I don't know... the stupid... it burns...
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Zemran · 2012-07-15 05:17 · Score: 1

The store is open to the public, they would have trouble selling to them if it was not.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Zemran · 2012-07-15 05:21 · Score: 1

Although I agree that it was rude and morally wrong, I cannot accept that the SS were a reasonable response. He was just behaving like a college kid and a beat officer (sorry, that shows my age) would have been an appropriate response. Have a word with him rather than waste thousands of $$$ on something that would not run against a good lawyer. I think he must have snapped someone with their mistress and the wife saw it.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Bing+Tsher+E · 2012-07-15 05:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Naw, Apple isn't quaking in their boots.
They should be nervous, though, that people are more and more noticing the subtle stench that they emit.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:29 · Score: 0

"1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property."
Just because something is privately owned, doesn't mean it can't be a public space. The Apple store is open to the public, so it is a public facility.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by cpu6502 · 2012-07-15 05:30 · Score: 1

>>>What? A store is private unless it is owned by government facility.
Well. You're wrong. There are many categories in the law, but to boil it down to the largest 3: Private, public, and public facility. "Private" is your home or business or farm. "Public" is the government which is collectively-owned by the people.
And "public facility" is a private area that has been voluntarily opened to the public, such as a store or bar or mall. It differs from a private home, because you don't have to let black people into your home. Or women. Or people under age 21. You are allowed to discriminate. BUT the moment you open the doors to everybody, such as converting your home or office into a store or restaurant, then you go from "private" to "public facility" and you are no longer allowed to refuse service.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:32 · Score: 0

Wrong. A store is private property. This is obvious. This guy is also a dipshit calling it art.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:43 · Score: 0

Yes, and as everyone knows, if you go to a public park you're entitled to chop down any tree because it is "public property", and, if you want, you can spray-paint someone's car in a public parking lot because it is sitting on "public property".
Public != your personal property to do with as you please. You have a lot of rights in public spaces, but the fact something is in a public space does not grant you carte blanche, especially if it is clearly not your property.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by 0123456 · 2012-07-15 05:45 · Score: 1

Wrong. A store is private property. This is obvious.
Only if you're not a lawyer. Lawyers will happily argue that white is black if someone pays them to.
And if the store really is 'obviously' private property, the government wouldn't be able to prohibit behaviour there such as smoking which is perfectly legal otherwise.
BTW, I'd add that when I was testing the tablets at a local retailer, there were many hours of video on some where someone had left the camera recording the people who used them.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 05:51 · Score: 2, Informative

And "public facility" is a private area that has been voluntarily opened to the public, such as a store or bar or mall. It differs from a private home, because you don't have to let black people into your home. Or women. Or people under age 21. You are allowed to discriminate. BUT the moment you open the doors to everybody, such as converting your home or office into a store or restaurant, then you go from "private" to "public facility" and you are no longer allowed to refuse service.
You are confusing "public accommodation" but private ownership which is expressly defined in the Commerce Clause with public ownership. Inside a business can be considered private. The owners of a private business can have CC recording but must disclose this to any patrons. Police cannot install hidden microphones inside a restaurant and record conversations without a search warrant for example. Recording individuals in a public park is permissible. However, you still missed the point: Illegally installing software and spying on people is okay with you?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:53 · Score: 0

"no longer allowed to refuse service" funny, I see signs on numerous "public facilities" where they claim to right to refuse service.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by honestmonkey · 2012-07-15 05:54 · Score: 2

Interestingly enough, this (wiping the drives) happened automatically every night. Apparently they do this and start fresh with a new install every day. So, yeah, no (extra) costs to Apple.

--
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by MightyYar · 2012-07-15 06:36 · Score: 4, Informative

1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property.
Maybe by your definition, but by law it is open to the public and thus public.

2) he wasn't using his own equipment, he was installing software on Apple's machines.
Which is allowed. They have a very generous policy for use of their display machines, choosing to wipe them every night rather than try to enforce some kind of demo mode. I think he abused this policy, but it was not a crime.

3) Apple doesn't "forbid" you from using your own cameras and recording equipment in their stores to "record what they witness in plain sight", it just frowns on you effectively installing hidden cameras to capture people's images without them knowing.
Frowning is one thing - calling the Secret Service is another!

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by MightyYar · 2012-07-15 06:42 · Score: 1

What if this guy wasn't an artist? What if worked for a competitor who was trying to get a headcount at a certain store? Would that change the story? I love art as much as the next man, and sure, it's an interesting idea, but the but the guy has earned what he's received.
I believe that intent is an important facet of the law, and has plenty of precedent - thus the definitions of murder vs. manslaughter.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Udo+Schmitz · 2012-07-15 06:51 · Score: 1

Huh? It's much more complicated then you want it to look like, I guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:58 · Score: 0

It was not installed illegally, he had permission from an Apple employee.
Do you people ever read the article before holding strong opinions?
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by jo_ham · 2012-07-15 07:00 · Score: 1

"1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property."
Just because something is privately owned, doesn't mean it can't be a public space. The Apple store is open to the public, so it is a public facility.
The OP was clearly calling Apple "tyrannical" for daring to dictate what was allowed in a "public" space, as if it had no right do do that. Apple's retail stores are, by definition, private property.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:16 · Score: 0

It's true though. Even *IF* this had a malicious intent, what could that person/those persons have done?
There's no name associated, no personal information, nothing but a picture you could have randomly taken anywhere and gotten some random person in a specific location.
Tell me what's the worst thing that could happen?
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:22 · Score: 0

Calling in the Secret Service is okay with you? The same people who are only suppose to have powers like: ( http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq2 )
The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
The immediate families of the above individuals
Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries
Children of former presidents until age 16
Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President and
National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by jo_ham · 2012-07-15 07:43 · Score: 0

It's true though. Even *IF* this had a malicious intent, what could that person/those persons have done?
There's no name associated, no personal information, nothing but a picture you could have randomly taken anywhere and gotten some random person in a specific location.
Tell me what's the worst thing that could happen?
So that makes it ok?
The mind boggles. You also forgot to log in.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:54 · Score: 0

Coming from the fool who can't even use capital letters or punctuation properly..
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by EGSonikku · 2012-07-15 07:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Did YOU read it? He asked if he could take pictures, and was told sure. He DIDN'T ask to install hidden webcam software, and reading the article he was clearly trying to not get caught doing so by making sure no one was watching him, and having tabs to other websites open that he could switch to if someone came by.
of he "had permission", why the sneakiness?

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 09:35 · Score: 1

Apple called the authorities. In this case it happened to be the Secret Service that investigated. I don't know why it was them and not the FBI. I suspect that the artist had inadvertently taken photos of either a foreign official or an American official. Thus it falls under their jurisdiction.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 09:37 · Score: 1

He clearly said he was to make sure no one caught him installing the software and that he was quick to do so. He also read the TOS that said wasn't against the TOS. But NOTHING that said he asked for permission.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by ganjadude · 2012-07-15 09:42 · Score: 0

true, but all he did was take pictures, sure he didnt explain how he was going to go about it but he didnt do anything other than what he said he was going to do.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by theNAM666 · 2012-07-15 11:36 · Score: 1

I don't have the right? Holy lack of disciplined, analytic thought on SlashDot, BatBuddy!
Please cite one piece of relevant statute or case law. Because Apple seems to be encouraging users to install software on those machines, and no charges were filed. Certainly looks like he had the "right" to me.
(Personally, if arguing for one of the people pictured as plantiffs, I'd argue there was a reasonable expectation of a sort of privacy, which was violated-- it's the same as a telephoto lens being used, it's technological enhancement, you don't expect a close-range hidden camera to be taking photos of you, a guy with a big apparatus or a cameraphone would be another thing).
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by MightyYar · 2012-07-15 13:15 · Score: 1

So you don't disagree that intent matters then?

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by SurfsUp · 2012-07-15 18:20 · Score: 0

" the artist who had the Secret Service raid his home at the behest of Apple, who was miffed with Kyle's surreptitious capture of people's expressions as they stared at computers in Apple Stores"
Holy hell. I didn't hear this story til now, but what the HELL was Apple (and Jobs since he was still in charge) thinking? A public facility is not only forbidden from discriminating against people based on race, sex, age, et cetera, but also forbidden from blocking people from recording (with camera, audio, pen-and-paper) what they witness in plain sight.
That's it. From this point forward when I hear someone waxing beautifically about hwo "great" Apple is, I will be linking to this story. And others. To show them how tyrannical the company has truly become.
Apple has officially succeeded beyond its wildest dreams... at becoming the most evil corporation ever. More evil than Microsoft. More evil than Phillip Morris. More evil than any environment trashing, justice perverting, antisocial corporation I can think of. Now we know what killed Steve Jobs. He ate himself out from inside.
And I notice that the usual gang of paid Apple astromods is in here downmodding right on schedule. Which is what made me really mad. You want a fight, Apple? You got one.

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 01:43 · Score: 0

That's it. From this point forward when I hear someone waxing beautifically about hwo "great" Apple is, I will be linking to this story.
If history has taught us anything, it's that you won't actually link it at all. You'll just talk about it as if it is common knowledge, and will simply get indignant at anyone who dares to ask for a citation to your claims.
Now it's possible you've changed, but.. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I thought you'd changed once before, but then you'd shortly reverted to your condescending, child-like behavior. So I have no reason to suspect that you've changed now.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by cpu6502 · 2012-07-16 03:45 · Score: 1

>>>You are confusing "public accommodation" but private ownership which is expressly defined in the Commerce Clause
I wasn't talking about the U.S. Constitution. I was talking about New York Law which calls them "public facility"

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-22 01:41 · Score: 1

The last time I checked New York must abide by the Constitution.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

And he bought another apple... by oic0 · 2012-07-15 04:05 · Score: 0

At first when I started reading this, the most bothersome thing was he didnt seem aware of the greatest invention ever. Air conditioning. Later in the article I discovered he must also not be aware of PCs as he immediately ordered another Apple after Apple had the secret service barge into his house and steal all his apples.

Re:And he bought another apple... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:11 · Score: 0

i got sick after eating burger king once, i still go. story has nothing to do about his computer of preference.
Re:And he bought another apple... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:30 · Score: 0

Artists are usually too pretentious to use anything other than Apple products
Re:And he bought another apple... by couchslug · 2012-07-15 05:02 · Score: 1

It was a chance to upgrade!
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apple

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:And he bought another apple... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:13 · Score: 0

i got sick after eating burger king once, i still go.
Yeah, well, most of us are not emetic fans.

Expectation of privacy also during business hours by F69631 · 2012-07-15 04:08 · Score: 1

I would say that everyone has - by default - a reasonable expectation of privacy whenever nobody else is around. Sure, if you are in a park, you can't do certain things that you could in the privacy of your home even if you don't see anyone, because you might not just have noticed someone and so on. However, in a half-public place, such as a store with no customers inside, you should be able to call your family/doctor/etc. or whatever without having to wonder whether someone is monitoring you in secret. (You may say "You shouldn't do that at work anyways" but that's to be settled between the employee and employer)

That all said, yeah... Involving the local cops? Sure. FBI? Maybe. Secret service? It does sound like an overkill.

it's an overreaction, for sure by circletimessquare · 2012-07-15 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

but you are kind of a dick if you transgress against people by taking unauthorized pictures of them with equipment that isn't yours and then using the pictures without their permission

so i'm not very sympathetic to the stalkerific "artist"

but i'm sure we'll see a lot of comments here about the violations of the federal government in this situation, completely ignoring the violations committed by this douchebag

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Sarten-X · 2012-07-15 05:07 · Score: 1

As an avid fan of "people doing what's right", I find I can't really support anybody in this case.
The artist (yeah, I'll grant him the liberal use of the term, and give him the freedom to declare his work as art) should have considered the effect of his work on others... not just the final product, but the production. He could have worked with the store to come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, he could have staged the pictures with actual models making the expressions seen in the surreptitious photos, or he could have conveyed his message (whatever that may be) in another medium that doesn't involve as much disrespect for the people and organizations involved.
Apple, once offended, could have sent a letter, or a lawyer, a C&D notice, or maybe just shoot for a restraining order against the artist ever entering their stores again. To draw in the federal government to raid the guy's house? That's pretty extreme. It's so extreme that I wonder if there's more to this story than we're being told. I mean, it makes sense in a jumping-to-conclusions sort of way. The guy installed his own application onto every computer in a store, without management approval. That's malicious activity, and could be construed as a target malware attack.
Apple's supposed to be a computer company, though. would it have really been so hard to look at the program and see what it did? Maybe send the guy a final picture of the manager holding a note reading "We're uninstalling your program; don't ever set foot in here again", and be done with it? They instead chose to go straight to the nuclear option.
Good job, everyone involved. You've disgusted a very patient and accepting person. I hope you are all happy with yourselves.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by circletimessquare · 2012-07-15 05:08 · Score: 1

you're right, every actor in this situation is basically a douchebag apocalypse: everyone violating everyone else

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:10 · Score: 0

So you've answered the question: "Do you trust Apple taking pictures of you and monitoring your actions in their store, as opposed to an individual doing the same thing". It is clear you don't like what he did and truth is that I don't like it much either. His project does, however, make me think about expectation of privacy. I have a much higher expectation than is probably realistic, which is why I am uncomfortable with his project.
Today the context has changed in that companies are now tracking your every financial transaction, e-mail, twitter, on-line post, location, etc. They are all douchebags and we're all affected unless protected by the laws in our coutry. After all, the companies including Apple, Google, and Facebook won't change voluntarily.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:17 · Score: 0

I agree is kind of dickish.

In the US, I've learned to fear almost anything. I like to take pictures, but I'm afraid that at some point I'm taking pictures of someone, probably a kid in the park, and I get cops and everyone on my back because they think I'm a creep or a pedophile. Now, I really wonder how famous pictures of people were taken, and if every single journalist ever have to ask permission to all the people in their pictures. Why is it different from the others.

So, while this was abusive, there's also... is it proper to take pictures of people anymore? Even at public places? Just wondering.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple, once offended, could have sent a letter, or a lawyer, a C&D notice, or maybe just shoot for a restraining order against the artist ever entering their stores again.
So Apple is to investigate why secret software was installed on their computers? Or would they do as any other company and call the authorities and let them deal with it. After the fact, we know he was just an artist but Apple (and more importantly the Secrete Service) couldn't have known that. Why was the Secret Service involved? I suppose this fell under their jurisdiction and not the FBI.

To draw in the federal government to raid the guy's house? That's pretty extreme. It's so extreme that I wonder if there's more to this story than we're being told. I mean, it makes sense in a jumping-to-conclusions sort of way. The guy installed his own application onto every computer in a store, without management approval. That's malicious activity, and could be construed as a target malware attack.
You make it sound like Apple championed a raid. I'm pretty sure that the government decided on that course of action without Apple's opinion. Apple reported the issue and the Secret Service took it from there. Also remember at the time, other than the artist, no one at the Secret Service or Apple could be sure of the intent of this malware.

Apple's supposed to be a computer company, though. would it have really been so hard to look at the program and see what it did? Maybe send the guy a final picture of the manager holding a note reading "We're uninstalling your program; don't ever set foot in here again", and be done with it? They instead chose to go straight to the nuclear option.
Again Apple is not a computer crimes investigative company. There are specialized companies and agencies for that. And again, they informed the authorities who took it from there. Apple is not responsible for the actions of the authorities.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Sarten-X · 2012-07-15 05:41 · Score: 1

I'd expect Apple to have been fully involved in the case. It would have to have been one of their staff who noticed the guy installing application (or the app itself), one of their legal representatives who passed it to the Secret Service, and once the Secret Service's investigation showed who it was and (roughly) what was going on, they probably got a call asking "Is this one of your guys?" to make sure the Secret Service wasn't about to raid the home of a hired security consultant or the like.
Somewhere along the line, an Apple representative made the decision to screw up this guy's life for a while. That's bad enough to disgust me.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd expect Apple to have been fully involved in the case. It would have to have been one of their staff who noticed the guy installing application (or the app itself), one of their legal representatives who passed it to the Secret Service, and once the Secret Service's investigation showed who it was and (roughly) what was going on, they probably got a call asking "Is this one of your guys?" to make sure the Secret Service wasn't about to raid the home of a hired security consultant or the like.
So you are saying Apple other than handing off the information (and the computers) to the authorities has to be involved with every step? When you report a crime to the police, are you involved with every step of their investigation? The police and Secret Service probably want to do the investigation on their own. The last time someone took something from my car, I didn't tag along with the detective or ask the tech guys if they processed the fingerprints.

Somewhere along the line, an Apple representative made the decision to screw up this guy's life for a while. That's bad enough to disgust me.
What kind of nonsense is this? They reported a computer to the authorities. The authorities took it from there. This artist who broke laws has no consequences to his own actions? Just above you said that Apple should have been more involved but then you blame them for actions that they didn't take even though they were not more involved. If someone breaks into my house and steals things; I report it to the police. The police put the thief into jail where he gets stabbed to death, you are saying that I screwed this guy's life?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Sarten-X · 2012-07-15 06:45 · Score: 1

So you are saying Apple other than handing off the information (and the computers) to the authorities has to be involved with every step?
No, but at some point they would have been consulted to see if they wanted to proceed.

When you report a crime to the police, are you involved with every step of their investigation? The police and Secret Service probably want to do the investigation on their own. The last time someone took something from my car, I didn't tag along with the detective or ask the tech guys if they processed the fingerprints.
If they had ever caught someone, you'd be asked if you wanted to press charges. If they had suspects, there's a good chance you'd be shown a set of pictures and be asked if you recognize anyone.

This artist who broke laws has no consequences to his own actions?
The artist should face consequences, but of the "mild discomfort and inconvenience" variety that the Apple stores faced when they couldn't explain what the display computers had just done.

Just above you said that Apple should have been more involved but then you blame them for actions that they didn't take even though they were not more involved.
In TFA, the artist mentions that he had pictures of an Apple technician working with the program. They did some of their own investigation. It's reasonable to assume that they could figure out what was going on, and they chose to pass it to the Secret Service.

If someone breaks into my house and steals things; I report it to the police. The police put the thief into jail where he gets stabbed to death, you are saying that I screwed this guy's life?
In that circumstance, no. The thief (barring mental disorders) would probably know that what he was doing was outright against the law, and he made the conscious decision to screw up his own life. In another example that I think is a little more fitting, let's suppose you have a large lawn that borders a public park with no fence. If someone wanders into your yard, you could report them for trespassing. If you're a nice guy, you politely tell them that the park is back there, and they're currently walking over your work-in-progress miniature golf course. If you're out to screw up their life, you pull out the Castle Doctrine and start shooting.
The artist should have thought more about the legal implications of his methods,
Apple should have tried to quietly just end the project with discussion rather than force.
The Secret Service apparently followed their protocol well, and from TFA don't seem too objectionable, so my only objections to them are the standard-issue complaints about federal law enforcement (confiscations lasting far too long, generally hostile demeanor, provocation, etc...).

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2012-07-15 07:06 · Score: 1

douchebag apocalypse
I think you've just found a new and much better title for your current project. :)

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:16 · Score: 0

I don't even talk to kids personally. If I see a child doing something dangerous, I won't even do or say anything because I'm afraid wacko parents will jump on me and call me a pedo. If I saw an injured kid on the street, I might even let him die rather than help (well I'd call an ambulance, but I wouldn't go near the kid).
Society in the 21st century:
- If you're white, you're a racist.
- If you're a man, you are a pedophile, you cheat on your wife and you don't love your kids.
- If you're an atheist, you have no morals and you need to shut up as religious folk throw around their religion.
- If you're straight, you're close-minded.
- If you're all of the above, you're fucked.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:30 · Score: 0

http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq2
They are designed to be the "do anything to protect important dignitaries such as the US president and other foreign leaders. I suspect the SS has less liability issues if they do something than a normal cop would (they could shoot on sight and nobody would question them kind of deal)
The secret service, according to their own website, has no jurisdiction for privacy issues of the local population / corporations. They had no business being involved in this, unless the photos happened to take a picture of a president's relation (even then that's stretching it).
I suspect a large amount of money was exchanged.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 08:47 · Score: 0

Go back to your link and actually read it this time instead of just scanning for the bits which confirm what you want to believe. Specifically, read the "What types of crimes does the Secret Service investigate?" section of the FAQ. Your assumption that the Secret Service is exclusively a dignitary protection agency is wrong.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 08:58 · Score: 0

I am a straight white male atheist (who is only attracted to adults) and I think you are completely fucked in the head. People like you almost invariably are actual racists (or other things on your list) in a state of denial. It's the reason you get so butthurt about society popping your little bubbles of privilege.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 09:55 · Score: 1

No, but at some point they would have been consulted to see if they wanted to proceed.
So you know that the Secret Service personally called Steve Jobs or someone at Apple before they obtained a search warrant? Get real. The most that the Secret Service would have done was to inform Apple of the results of the investigation after they had questioned the artists and investigated. The Secret Service is not a branch of Apple.

If they had ever caught someone, you'd be asked if you wanted to press charges. If they had suspects, there's a good chance you'd be shown a set of pictures and be asked if you recognize anyone.
After the Secret Service found the person, after they investigated him, and after they determined why he installed the software then the Secret Service may ask how Apple would like to proceed. I suspect the whole reason the Secret Service was involved was there were factors beyond a simple case of spying. I am speculating that the artist may have taken a picture of someone important enough for them to be involved.

The artist should face consequences, but of the "mild discomfort and inconvenience" variety that the Apple stores faced when they couldn't explain what the display computers had just done.
He was interviewed. His computers were confiscated. He wasn't thrown in jail. He wasn't fined. When the Secret Service determined it was for an art project, they returned this things. Please tell me that you have issues with that.

In TFA, the artist mentions that he had pictures of an Apple technician working with the program. They did some of their own investigation. It's reasonable to assume that they could figure out what was going on, and they chose to pass it to the Secret Service.
You are assuming a lot. Apple discovered that the program wasn't one of theirs and they may have discovered some of the basic functionality of what it did through monitoring. But Apple like the Secret Service are not omnipotent; they could not know why or all of the functionality. Even if Apple had the source code, they may not known what it did. Have you heard of the C Obfuscation Contest? At some point Apple contacted the authorities and it was the Secret Service who had to investigate.

Apple should have tried to quietly just end the project with discussion rather than force.
Two things: 1) After the investigation, it was found out to be an art project. How could have Apple or the Secret Service know about that when they found the program. Tell me how was anyone supposed to know that in advance. 2) You keep saying Apple did this and Apple did that. Apple turned it over to the Secret Service who investigated. They last time I checked the Secret Service did things on their own. Is it not clear that they are not the same entity.

The Secret Service apparently followed their protocol well, and from TFA don't seem too objectionable, so my only objections to them are the standard-issue complaints about federal law enforcement (confiscations lasting far too long, generally hostile demeanor, provocation, etc...).
So you leave the Secret Service blameless in this even though they were the ones who drafted the search warrant; they were the ones who confiscated everything, and they were the ones who investigated. All Apple did was to alert them that there was a security issue yet they are to blame.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Sarten-X · 2012-07-15 10:03 · Score: 1

What types of crimes does the Secret Service investigate?

The Secret Service has primary jurisdiction to investigate threats against Secret Service protectees as well as financial crimes, which include counterfeiting of U.S. currency or other U.S. Government obligations; forgery or theft of U.S. Treasury checks, bonds or other securities; credit card fraud; telecommunications fraud; computer fraud, identify fraud and certain other crimes affecting federally insured financial institutions.
Emphasis mine. The term "fraud" is conveniently vague in most legal definitions, but generally covers any unauthorized appropriation of equipment or identity for any unauthorized purpose, like installing your own program on a store's display computers.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by theNAM666 · 2012-07-15 11:32 · Score: 1

Apple allows software to be installed; if they don't want that, they should guard against it. That said, individuals involved in the project clearly didn't anticipate that they could be photographed-- which is sorta kinda the point.
He did not install tracking software, he did not follow people home, and ... well, taking unauthorized pictures of people in public and posting them without their permission is legal. (Should it not be?)
That's the whole point: we can have a discussion and we can discuss the law and ethics and etc., and come to some decisions. Or we can be knee-jerk "I'm not sympathetic, he's a stalker" idiots, and get nowhere.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by SurfsUp · 2012-07-15 18:25 · Score: 1

you are kind of a dick if you transgress against people by taking unauthorized pictures of them
Would that be secret service, flak jacket level of dick then? Or would the dick be you and the paid Apple astromods who modded up your worthless post?

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 21:33 · Score: 0

This was during Steve Jobs' reign, but I don't think he ever had a "red phone" to the Secret Service, nor was he ever omniscient, nor did he ever have his own Secret Police.
Apple saw that someone had installed spyware on several of their machines and called the police, who delegated it according to jurisdiction.
Yes, it was kind of inconvenient for the "poor" artist, but he wasn't even arrested or charged with anything. They did this by the book, and were apparently reasonable and polite all the way.
The artist, on the other hand, is kind of a scumbag:

If I were wiser, I may have split “People Staring at Computers” in two. [...] I would recruit some friends, and ask them to install the photo app. [...]
The other piece would have been the in-store intervention. I’d use the same photo app, but they’d be uploaded directly to an anonymous photo host instead of my server. I’d replace the screensaver with an app that downloaded and exhibited these photos. Done properly, there would be no one to point fingers at, and people might be able to focus on questions about privacy and surveillance instead of arguing about art and intentionality. [...]
Emphasis mine - In hindsight, he thinks his biggest mistake wasn't installing spyware or violating people's privacy, but getting caught.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 04:34 · Score: 0

Fingerprints? Ha!
You, sir, have either never had your car robbed or live far away from the USA.
I've literally heard cops laugh when 'fingerprints' are brought up in the context of 'minor' crimes.
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 05:28 · Score: 0

Apple would not have been asked "if they wanted to procede". You have a clear bias here in that you think the Secret Service did this as a favor or service to Apple. What they did was to investigate criminal acts that fell into their jurisdiction. Yes, Apple clearly reported it to them. But guess what, if a credible report from other than Apple had come in such that they investigated -- Apple would have only had a say in the investigation insofar as it directly affected their property. That is to say, seizing of computers for digital forensics would have required consent from Apple.
"Apple should have tried to quietly just end the project with discussion rather than force."
Right... again betraying your unwarranted believe that this was an Apple run investigation rather than a criminal investigation. You may think that the government functions as a lackey for Apple, but you are going to continue running into these mismatches between reality and your conception of it until you manage to better align your perceptions. Apple has greater recourse with respect to the government and law enforcement than regular citizens, but they don't have a direct line to the head of each agency that the CEO calls and dictates actions and policy. Its a bit more subtle than that...
This isn't a PI firm hired by someone to spy on a spouse to discover if suspicious behavior is the result of infidelity, it is about investigation of a criminal act. I've noticed it is common for people to not be able to separate civil offenses from criminal ones, but they are fundamentally different. It is not unusual for a criminal case to be prosecuted even when the victim isn't interested in prosecution. That is because it is the *government* doing the prosecuting, and not on behalf of the victim, but on behalf of the *public*. In some cases the prosecution continues even against the express wishes of the aggrieved party.

Re:Expectation of privacy also during business hou by SJHillman · 2012-07-15 04:14 · Score: 1

I expect a lot of those half-public places to have some sort of surveillance these days, such as a camera. Sure, there's plenty of places you'd reasonably expect there to be no electronic surveillance, such as the middle of the woods, but almost anywhere outside of nature you can reasonably expect to be recorded even if no one else is around.

So much stupidity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:17 · Score: 1

It is hard to lay blame on just one party here because all of them are stupid. The "artist", Apple, and the SS - each stupid in their own stupid way.

Re:So much stupidity by SurfsUp · 2012-07-15 18:27 · Score: 1

You named three parties. Two are stupid. The third is stupid and evil.

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.

Blatant waste of tax payers money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:20 · Score: 0

Isn't this blatant wasting of tax payers money? Clearly secret service was involved because of a) pressured by Apple lobbyists, or b) their buds in Government made it to act for "the good" of their corporate overlords.

Re:Blatant waste of tax payers money by ColdWetDog · 2012-07-15 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Isn't this blatant wasting of tax payers money? Clearly secret service was involved because of a) pressured by Apple lobbyists, or b) their buds in Government made it to act for "the good" of their corporate overlords.
As the TFA points out, the Secret Service performed an investigation. That is, somebody thought something was weird, it got bounced up the chain to a couple of field agents who acted professionally, even displayed a teensy tiny bit of humor ("We're from the FBI, maam, we don't have a sense of humor that we are aware of.") and compassion, spent some time and in the end, decided it wasn't a big deal. Remember, these guys didn't know what goofball artiste was up to. They just got a report of somebody installing what literally amounts to spyware on private computers.
If somebody did that where I work, you can bet there would be a bunch of people both in uniform and plainclothes wandering about asking pointed questions.
If anything, this reaffirms my (very limited) faith in the system. Nobody called in the SWAT team. Nobody went to jail. Yes, people were inconvenienced, but that happens every day around rush hour. Money was spent. In retrospect they didn't really need to do that, but that is what is great about hindsight.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Only in America... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-07-15 04:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

AmerCIA.

"We're keeping an eye on you, buddy."

Now, you have to consult with the EFF, before you want to take pictures of people shopping in a mall.

Way to fucking go, land of Jefferson.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

The guy essentially installed malware/spyware by aristotle-dude · 2012-07-15 04:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

He basically installed malware/spyware onto Apple store computer and he calls that "art". Are botnets just another form of "expression"? Give me a break. There was not permission from the store owners and no informed consent from the subjects. The guy is creepy as hell.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

Re:The guy essentially installed malware/spyware by Bing+Tsher+E · 2012-07-15 05:23 · Score: 1, Interesting

He's creepy as hell, but the fact that Apple chose to trump him with their own creepy behavior isn't comforting. There were many other means at their disposal to deal with the issue, that they chose to call up a Secret Police organization is sorta telling.
Re:The guy essentially installed malware/spyware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:00 · Score: 0

New York section 250.45
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article250.htm#p250.40
Re:The guy essentially installed malware/spyware by Theaetetus · 2012-07-15 07:10 · Score: 1

He's creepy as hell, but the fact that Apple chose to trump him with their own creepy behavior isn't comforting. There were many other means at their disposal to deal with the issue, that they chose to call up a Secret Police organization is sorta telling.
The Secret Service's primary (and initial) purpose is investigating fraud and counterfeiting. Identity theft falls under that.

New Response When The SS Comes A-Knockin' by Greyfox · 2012-07-15 04:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh... hi guys. The whorehouse is just down the street.

They'll taze you, but it'll have been worth it.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:New Response When The SS Comes A-Knockin' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:44 · Score: 0

Man, you dropped the ball of yarn on this one. Let me FTFY.
Oh... hai guyz! THis is not the cathaus you looking 4.
Can i haz tase, bro?

Non-issue. by midmopub · 2012-07-15 04:42 · Score: 0

It is legal to take your picture inside a public business without your knowledge. See security camera's in nearly every business. It is legal to take pictures of the public without knowledge and no expectation of privacy by a private 3rd party. Why is this an issue at all? Seems like a huge waste of resources to me.

Re:Non-issue. by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 05:10 · Score: 1

It is legal to take your picture inside a public business without your knowledge. See security camera's in nearly every business.
I believe by law any place that has CC recording must disclaim that you are being recorded inside the place of business, thus it isn't without your knowledge. As for outside security cameras, that problem falls into public view. If you are in public view, you have no expectation of privacy.

It is legal to take pictures of the public without knowledge and no expectation of privacy by a private 3rd party.
If you are in the public view. This was inside an Apple store. There is some expectation of privacy

Why is this an issue at all? Seems like a huge waste of resources to me.
An unknown person installed software on Apple computers without their knowledge or approval. The software took pictures secretly of people. The software uploaded the images to an outside server. So unauthorized access to someone's computer and spying are not big issues to you?
Apple discovering the software alerted the authorities. The government agency that investigated this unknown threat was the Secret Service. I'm not sure of the responsibility was theirs or the FBI. Since it was unknown who did this or why, it was probably assumed to be the worst and that there was some sort of imminent security risk. The Secret Service then found the individual and investigated him. They questioned him and seized his computers.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Non-issue. by midmopub · 2012-07-15 10:12 · Score: 1

As a photographers I disagree with nearly every point. As much as it pains me to side with the paparazzi, they have the right to take your picture in public. I challenge you to site the specific statue being violated by taking your picture inside a public accessible business.
Re:Non-issue. by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 15:57 · Score: 1

So I can walk into any mom and pop store and start taking pictures? I can take pictures of anyone on the street. Inside a business is another matter.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Non-issue. by midmopub · 2012-07-15 16:30 · Score: 1

Actually it isn't different. Cell phone pics are taken inside businesses with regularity. Bars, Clubs, Restaurants. How do they differ from Retail stores? You are in public with no expectations of privacy. The law will not protect you.
Re:Non-issue. by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 21:26 · Score: 1

If you continuously were taking pictures with your SLR, camcorder, or even your cell phone, the owners are well within their rights to ask you to leave. Parents recording their kids birthday party at a local restaurant probably won't upset the owners. Someone setting up a web cam in their restaurant probably will.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Non-issue. by midmopub · 2012-07-16 15:23 · Score: 1

An owner of course has the right to make you leave. What he can't do is press charges for taking pictures.
Re:Non-issue. by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-17 01:58 · Score: 1

He hasn't been charged with anything. He was only questioned and investigated. What he did do is install spyware on computers that were not his own. He secretly took pictures of people without permissions. He then uploaded pictures to an outside server. It was highly suspicious when it was discovered.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:46 · Score: 0

no you have to consult with the EFF before you hack the mall's DVR and take CCTV footage and post it as an "art show" inside the hacked malls electronic billboards.

I really wasn't expecting the Secret Service by Noxal · 2012-07-15 04:47 · Score: 0

NOBODY expects the Secret Service!

Things by jvin248 · 2012-07-15 04:49 · Score: 0

The guy shouldn't have been recording people. however a few worrisome things about this is that

Count the number of video cameras that Apple is already recording people with in their stores. It's not just used for security/theft, they also use it to mine shopper behaviors - spying on you to figure out how to better sell to you. So there is some dude in a back room looking at you - yes you - as you go about your random shopper tactics. Maybe even using those very same computers they sell. This happens all over.

The other worrisome item is how Apple got the SS involved. Of course, since Apple is just a corporation, it's subject to a few bad years of mismanagement that will have taken care of themselves and righted the world in the process.

Re:Expectation of privacy also during business hou by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

You would be completely wrong. You have an expectation that there are video cameras all throughout the store for security reasons. They will at least capture video, they might even capture audio. You have no expectation of privacy in a place open to the public.

"Radical Openess" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:51 · Score: 0

He apparently embraced this fully and it led him to doing the photo experiment..
Maybe if he were focused on giving people Freedom he could have found something that didn't involve spying on people on computers running non-Free software?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

An overreach of the law by kilodelta · 2012-07-15 04:53 · Score: 0

I really dislike when corporations decide to abuse the law like this. It makes my view of Apple even more cynical. And I've bought precisely three Apple products in my lifetime and that will be ALL I buy. For example, when I was in the market for a new phone I eschewed the iPhone, not for it's alleged technical superiority - but for the fact you can't EASILY replace the battery and you have to use the craptastic dock connector as opposed to mine USB on the Android phones. And I'll be in the market for a new PC soon. I can tell you it definitely won't be an Apple product.

Re:An overreach of the law by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 05:31 · Score: 2

I really dislike when corporations decide to abuse the law like this. It makes my view of Apple even more cynical.
Please describe what abuse has occurred. Apple detected a computer intrusion at their stores. The software was being used to secretly record people and upload images to an outside server. Apple reported it to the authorities who happen to be the Secret Service. The Secret Service investigated. They questioned the individual and confiscated his computers. Please tell me how any of this is abusing the law.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:An overreach of the law by SurfsUp · 2012-07-15 18:29 · Score: 1

I really dislike when corporations decide to abuse the law like this. It makes my view of Apple even more cynical. And I've bought precisely three Apple products in my lifetime and that will be ALL I buy. For example, when I was in the market for a new phone I eschewed the iPhone, not for it's alleged technical superiority - but for the fact you can't EASILY replace the battery and you have to use the craptastic dock connector as opposed to mine USB on the Android phones.
And I'll be in the market for a new PC soon. I can tell you it definitely won't be an Apple product.
I see that somebody from Apple modded down your perfectly legitimate post. Is anybody surprised?

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:An overreach of the law by SurfsUp · 2012-07-15 18:31 · Score: 1

I really dislike when corporations decide to abuse the law like this. It makes my view of Apple even more cynical.
Please describe what abuse has occurred. Apple detected a computer intrusion at their stores. The software was being used to secretly record people and upload images to an outside server. Apple reported it to the authorities who happen to be the Secret Service. The Secret Service investigated. They questioned the individual and confiscated his computers. Please tell me how any of this is abusing the law.
The secret service is not supposed to act as a private security contractor for Apple. Does the word Pinkerton's mean anything to you?

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:An overreach of the law by kilodelta · 2012-07-16 02:27 · Score: 1

Not surprised at all. It has been obvious for some time that corporations like Apple deploy such tactics.

And Apple can mod me down on here but there are sites I own that they can't mod down. So I have two words for Apple:

Fuck off.
Re:An overreach of the law by BadPirate · 2012-07-16 13:26 · Score: 1

The issue is a criminal one. Apple didn't contract the secret service, they contacted law enforcement. If you feel the laws are too over-reaching then change them. If you feel that you can't change them because of corrupt system, then bitch about that. If you and I are living in the same apartment complex, and god forbid, I'm making too much noise at 3am, it may be polite to tell me personally to quiet down, but it is also acceptable to call the cops and let them deal with me. They aren't Pinkertons, they just enforce the rules of society that we have implicitly agreed on.

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.

Why the secret service? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 04:57 · Score: 0

I have no problem with this guy burning, but why isn't it the local police (or even the FBI) knocking on his door? Why is the secret service? From their website, they have a two-fold mission: investigating issues of treasury (including fraud, etc), and protecting American and foreign officials...where does violating wiretapping laws fit into this?

Re:Why the secret service? by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 05:35 · Score: 1

I suppose it might have been the location of the Apple stores in New York city where there are lots of foreign officials (UN).

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Not your computer, so don't fuck with it. by couchslug · 2012-07-15 04:58 · Score: 1

You don't own that physical object, therefore not yours to play with.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:Not your computer, so don't fuck with it. by mellyra · 2012-07-15 05:57 · Score: 1

You don't own that physical object, therefore not yours to play with.
the computer is exhibited in the store for the very purpose of you to play with it
Re:Not your computer, so don't fuck with it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:45 · Score: 0

There is a world of different between 'playing' and installing a bit of software that takes users pictures without their knowledge.
If someone did this to one of my computers then I'd not be very responsible for my actions.
Re:Not your computer, so don't fuck with it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:17 · Score: 0

You don't own that physical object, therefore not yours to play with.
Yeah, I too think people shouldn't buy apple shit.
Re:Not your computer, so don't fuck with it. by wisnoskij · 2012-07-15 07:48 · Score: 1

Yes, but it sounds like installing software was an expected part of playing with it in this case and he never signed a contract restricting what type of software he could install.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Just show me the damned pictures by dsmithhfx · 2012-07-15 05:07 · Score: 0

Not these wishy-washy, lame watercolors. I'm really disappointed in Wired magazine.

Photography irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:17 · Score: 0

Installing software on a machine without the permission of the owner and which performs a background task on behalf of the installer is spyware. This is hacking regardless of how the software is installed (i.e. direct access to the machine) or what the law says about taking photos in the store.

So, Apple lets store patrons have superuser? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 05:28 · Score: 0

Guy was creepy, but the question in my mind is how could he install software on a publicly accessible host?

Is it the case that you can't even lock down a mac to the pathetic level you can lock down a windows host? Or is Apple just stupid, and gives all store patrons super user privs?

I think there is a bit of blame to go around here. If this guy could install his software, who knows how many keyloggers and such are being installed in Apple stores that are NOT just creepy art projects.

Re:Only in America... by Denogh · 2012-07-15 05:36 · Score: 4, Informative

Wikipedia says:

The photos were gathered by going to Apple retail stores and secretly installing an application on Macs that would snap a photo using the Mac's built-in webcam iSight every minute and uploading photos if a face of an unsuspecting customer was detected.

I suspect that's the tricky bit that brought down the wrath.

He should've done it the time-honored way by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-07-15 05:38 · Score: 1

Used only his equipment, and set it up to take photos in the women's bathroom.

--
#DeleteChrome

Just a reminder... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-15 06:04 · Score: 0

It's not cool any more to own Apple products. None of them. I mean, they might be fine for whatever reason you might have for owning an iPhone, but it's important that you realize it is no longer cool. In fact, it is very specifically not cool to own Apple products or to support a company that calls the fucking Secret Service when the whole thing could have been easily handled if they'd just responded to the guy's inquiry about whether or not it was OK to do what he was doing. Think about this: the guy contacts Apple and explains his project because he's not looking for trouble and Apple calls the Secret Service (!) as if the guy had just expressed his plans to assassinate the President. I'm trying to figure out a way Apple could have been more dickish about this besides sending a team of chubby Genius Bar neckbeards to rape and murder the guy's family.

Apple is becoming the shit company to end all shit companies. Their list of anti-social, anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-freedom behaviors is growing, it seems, every single day. I understand that some of you already own Apple products and don't have much choice at this point, but unfortunately you're going to have to accept that Apple's behavior is going to rub off on you. Maybe you can buy some nondescript case that will obscure the brand of your device until you can afford to replace it with something that won't make you look like such a huge douchebag for supporting a company like Apple. I really feel for you, but it's not like there weren't signs last year when you bought that iPad 2 and signed the contract. Now you'll just have to live with the consequences of your willingness to ignore those signs. Plus, Apple stuff is so 2006.

But anyone who goes out from here on and buys a new Apple product is not only really not cool, but is inviting douchebag classification.

Secret fucking Service. Unbelievable.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Just a reminder... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-07-15 06:43 · Score: 1

Wowsers MacTavish.
the goddamned secret service is who you call in these cases
I hope you are not a lawyer. You would be a very bad one.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Re:Just a reminder... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-15 07:14 · Score: 1

the goddamned secret service is who you call in these cases
By "these cases" are you referring to something that the artists explained to the Apple employee he wanted to do and wanted to make sure it was OK before he did it?
By "these cases" do you mean some completely harmless artist taking pictures in public?
"In these cases..." Fuck you.

I hope you are not a lawyer. You would be a very bad one.
I appreciate the compliment, but still, fuck you.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Just a reminder... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:47 · Score: 0

No, you would be. I could break the points down one by one, but none of the clauses apply. Most of the clauses contain:
"without authorization". Sorry, he asked an tech at the store, and they were cool with it. That's WITH AUTHORIZATION.
"exceeds authorized acces". Sorry, no hacking was involved here. Admin / software install privileges were granted to all users.
"defraud". Sorry, no. This was clearly outlined as an artistic work.
"damage". None. A simple uninstall (it's not malware -- it's a normal application that can be uninstalled by deleting normally)
"deny". No denial. The machines continued to work as normal
I hope YOU are not a lawyer. You would be an even worse one.
Taking a bunch of pictures using a bog standard application (might have even been built in, and just needed configuring to send to a specific location) and sending them somewhere has not violated any of those clauses you linked.
Re:Just a reminder... by EGSonikku · 2012-07-15 08:02 · Score: 1

He did not explani. What he was doing. He asked to take pictures, he didn't ask to install webcam software and upload photos.
if he "had permission" then why does he point out things like making sure he wasn't being watched, and having a tab to Flickr open that he could switch to to hide what he was doing?

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Re:Just a reminder... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-15 12:08 · Score: 1, Flamebait

if he "had permission" then why does he point out things like making sure he wasn't being watched, and having a tab to Flickr open that he could switch to to hide what he was doing?
Fair enough. But, Secret Service?
And isn't Apple the company that won't sell computers to Iranian-Americans?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Just a reminder... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 17:04 · Score: 0

Yes, Secret Service. (As explained in an early post *IN THIS SUB-THREAD*.)
And, yes, Apple is the company that had an employee who wouldn't sell to an embargo-effected system to an Iranian-American individual who he *overheard state was going to ship said system to IRAN*.
So, two examples of Apple and it's agents (employees) behaving *exactly* as they are supposed to, and in accordance with the law.
So, your problem would be, what?
Re:Just a reminder... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 17:10 · Score: 0

Without authorization most certainly applies. He never asked if he could install any software (which he admits having done), and actively took measures to *disguise* the fact that he was installing said software (again, he admits this, even describing the steps he took in detail). If I knock on your door and ask to borrow your phone, and you say "yes", that does not give me permission to install software on your computer. It does, in fact, only give me permission to borrow your phone.
If a computer is sitting on a table, even unlocked, you do not magically gain authorization to install software on it without explicit permission from the owner. He knew he didn't have permission to install the software, as demonstrated by the lengths he went to to avoid detection during the process.
Defraud/damage/deny? Turns out he's safe on these, but neither Apple, nor the Secret Service could have known that prior to the investigation.
Re:Just a reminder... by SurfsUp · 2012-07-15 18:34 · Score: 0

It's not cool any more to own Apple products. None of them. I mean, they might be fine for whatever reason you might have for owning an iPhone, but it's important that you realize it is no longer cool. In fact, it is very specifically not cool to own Apple products or to support a company that calls the fucking Secret Service when the whole thing could have been easily handled if they'd just responded to the guy's inquiry about whether or not it was OK to do what he was doing. Think about this: the guy contacts Apple and explains his project because he's not looking for trouble and Apple calls the Secret Service (!) as if the guy had just expressed his plans to assassinate the President. I'm trying to figure out a way Apple could have been more dickish about this besides sending a team of chubby Genius Bar neckbeards to rape and murder the guy's family.
Apple is becoming the shit company to end all shit companies. Their list of anti-social, anti-competitive, anti-consumer and anti-freedom behaviors is growing, it seems, every single day. I understand that some of you already own Apple products and don't have much choice at this point, but unfortunately you're going to have to accept that Apple's behavior is going to rub off on you. Maybe you can buy some nondescript case that will obscure the brand of your device until you can afford to replace it with something that won't make you look like such a huge douchebag for supporting a company like Apple. I really feel for you, but it's not like there weren't signs last year when you bought that iPad 2 and signed the contract. Now you'll just have to live with the consequences of your willingness to ignore those signs. Plus, Apple stuff is so 2006.
But anyone who goes out from here on and buys a new Apple product is not only really not cool, but is inviting douchebag classification.
Secret fucking Service. Unbelievable.
But it's consistent with all Apple's behavior recently. Now... pissing off the environmentalists, that is definitely the last straw. Worse even than kicking in the door of a journalist or calling in an air strike on an artist by the secret service.

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Re:Just a reminder... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-16 00:37 · Score: 1

Now... pissing off the environmentalists, that is definitely the last straw.
I don't really care about pissing off environmentalists, sorry.
That's minor compared to the negative social impact Apple is having, their impact on civil liberties, consumer choice and yes, the environment (as opposed to environmentalists).
Plus, they are not cool and their products are not cool. They are about as cool as carrying a Dell PocketPC.
Uncool in the extreme.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Just a reminder... by PopeRatzo · 2012-07-16 00:42 · Score: 1

So, your problem would be, what?
There are a lot more instances of Apple refusing to sell to Iranian Americans (even though an Iranian American looks just like an Iranian who looks just like an Iraqi.
They could have dealt with the artist with a phone call (they knew who he was, they had his name and number). Calling the Secret Service was shitty behavior.
I sympathize with your efforts to try to protect Apple's image. It can't be easy now that their products are so uncool.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Just a reminder... by BadPirate · 2012-07-16 13:29 · Score: 1

Oh god.... Apple isn't cool anymore?!!! WHATEVER WILL I BUY!!!? ::vomits from stress::

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.

If Apple had done it by honestmonkey · 2012-07-15 06:06 · Score: 2

So imagine the exact same art project, only someone at Apple had come up with it and decided to do it. The only difference would be that instead of some random artist installing software on computers in the store (the only part of this that might conceivably be a slight bit hinky), Apple employees install the same software. They don't have to change anything in their stores, or ask permission (there are already security cameras in the store). They have an artist go through and make a show in the same manner this fellow did. What then? Is it "Cool idea, Apple" or "Ah, ah! Privacy violation! Just because I'm in your store!"

Alternately, the guy could have gone through a bit more effort and used a telephoto lens to get essentially the same photos through the window, or even wandered around inside the store with a camera; we already know that that's legal.

So is the only thing that's wrong is that he used the computer's camera's? Didn't warn people? Is Apple out any money due to this? If they'd contacted the guy and said "Cool, but ask us next time", we wouldn't even be reading about this. What if it had happened in a Best Buy instead - better or worse than this?

--
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.

Re:If Apple had done it by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 06:51 · Score: 1

So is the only thing that's wrong is that he used the computer's camera's?
Yes. Without Apple's permission.

Didn't warn people?
No he did not. And he did not get their permission. Read up on public photography vs private photography.

Is Apple out any money due to this?
That is irrelevant.

If they'd contacted the guy and said "Cool, but ask us next time", we wouldn't even be reading about this.

Someone unknowingly installs software on your computer. That appears to spy on people and uploads to an unknown account outside their servers. Do you contact the person or do you contact the authorities? Apple chose to contact the authorities. There may be bigger legal questions involved.

What if it had happened in a Best Buy instead - better or worse than this?
I suspect the same exact thing would have happened.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

As it says in the article by HuguesT · 2012-07-15 06:10 · Score: 1

One of the purpose of art is to challenge any and all social norms.

His project was interesting and did not really violate privacy because none is expected in an Apple store. As far as we know, Apple keylogs everything people do on their computer in their store. Yet one sees people do all sort of private things on these computers: write CVs, log onto FB, read mail, and so on.

His project draws attention to the fact that Apple likely does record things about their users, and it does it in a fun way that is frankly not very intrusive. This is probably why Apple didn't like it.

Re:As it says in the article by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 06:55 · Score: 1

His project was interesting and did not really violate privacy because none is expected in an Apple store. As far as we know, Apple keylogs everything people do on their computer in their store. Yet one sees people do all sort of private things on these computers: write CVs, log onto FB, read mail, and so on.
Installing software onto Apple's computers without their permission violates no laws for you? And do you know what Apple does or are you making wild accusations without proof?

His project draws attention to the fact that Apple likely does record things about their users, and it does it in a fun way that is frankly not very intrusive. This is probably why Apple didn't like it.
You can postulate whatever reason you want for Apple not liking it., but if I installed the same software on your computer, it wouldn't really what particular reason you didn't like it, would it?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:As it says in the article by spire3661 · 2012-07-15 10:13 · Score: 1

That is not the purpose of art. The purpose of art is to express emotion and thoughts in other ways. It CAN be used to challenge societal norms, but that is not what you are saying.

--
Good-bye

Installed his own software? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:16 · Score: 0

WTF? Where is Apple's security? Apple basically said it was OK to do what he did.

Re:Installed his own software? by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 06:56 · Score: 1

No Apple said it was okay to take pictures in the store. They did not say to install software to take secretly pictures of people using their computers and then upload the images to an outside server.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

What I find most striking by bytesex · 2012-07-15 06:19 · Score: 1

The guy gets his home raided by SS-goons, sicced on him by Apple, and his first inclination is: Yay, let's go buy another Apple product!

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.

Re:What I find most striking by Al+Al+Cool+J · 2012-07-15 07:15 · Score: 1

The guy gets his home raided by SS-goons, sicced on him by Apple, and his first inclination is: Yay, let's go buy another Apple product!
That was my thought too.
What exactly does Apple have to do to before their users will stop buying their products? because apparently trying to destroy your life by having you thrown into a federal prison doesn't make the cut.
Given how hopelessly addicted their users are, I'm surprised Apple just doesn't design their computers to randomly explode, in order to boost sales. "Yeah my girlfriend lost three fingers this time, but at least the Apple Store was still open after I dropped her at the ER, so I was able to buy a new MacBook right away."

Stop being angry by Bulldozer2003 · 2012-07-15 06:25 · Score: 1

Why is everyone so angry? Yeah his project wasn't very nice, but he wasn't really spying on people. Does he know what they were doing on the computer? Did he copy their browsing history, log their passwords? No. The stores have surveillance cameras, the patrons were already being recorded. Does that make what he did right? No, but it is interesting. Did you want him to go to jail for 10 years and never be allowed to touch an electronic device ever again? Apple could have sued him in civil court, but even they decided it would be bad PR and/or was not worth it.

Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:43 · Score: 0, Interesting

In his defense, he did mention that he asked an Apple employee for permission, which was granted.

Before you say the employee might have overstepped his level of authority and decision-making, that's not the guy's problem, that's between Apple and their employee.

I do thing it was wrong to take pictures of people without their consent. The USA really need laws that protect people's privacy better ,especially when it comes to photography. But nothing the guy did seems illegal.

Apple wouldn't have sold them like that. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:44 · Score: 0

Apple isn't stupid. They know someone could install shit on the computers. They would wipe the disk just in case before selling. Good heavens man.

Not equvilient. by phorm · 2012-07-15 06:51 · Score: 2

You mean the clearly-marked, fairly highly visible van that's driving through a public area, right? The one that has alghorythms that try to blur out people's faces so that they DON'T show up on street view?

Oh yes, that's exactly the same as somebody installing surveillance software on somebody else's property, eavesdropping on their customers, and using said photos in their entirety without permission.

When I saw the google van go by, I waved. If somebody had installed software without permission on my computer (or on my personal/business premesis), I'd be pissed.

BS artsy spin included by luckymutt · 2012-07-15 06:55 · Score: 1

From the article, regarding his 2009 "keytweeter" project.

I learned that I was more honest, with myself and with others, when I knew everyone could see what I was saying.

No, that's not being more honest.
That's being more paranoid and closing off what you really want to say.
Artists like to put a positive, deep-thought spin on their works. At least he didn't throw in 50 cent words in describing his projects.

Re:BS artsy spin included by veg_all · 2012-07-15 08:14 · Score: 1

At least he didn't throw in 50 cent words in describing his projects.
Yes, he did. He used 'ontology' twice (as noun then an adjective), both times incorrectly (or nonsensically).

--
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
Re:BS artsy spin included by luckymutt · 2012-07-15 09:10 · Score: 1

Yes, he did. He used 'ontology' twice (as noun then an adjective), both times incorrectly (or nonsensically).
I stand rectifyologyified.

College KId? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 06:56 · Score: 0

Is he precocious? If not, he's a COLLEGE ADULT! Please stop saying dumb shit like "College Kid". You are not a kid. Act like an adult and take responsibility.

Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:02 · Score: 1

Who's fault is that for allowing random dick^H^H^H^Hpeople administrative privileges with full, unfiltered internet access on their kiosk desktops? Or for not installing the software most colleges / universities / public terminals do that reverts all changes on every boot?

What is WORSE Is that he KNOWS THIS and PLAYS DUMB by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:09 · Score: 0

Kyle McDonald is a Liar. In this 400 page essay, he stars rambling about nothing, and makes some very telling comments, all the while INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the stated facts of the case, and even repeating "I ASKED IF I WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE PHOTOS, OMG BBQ".

He LIES about being able to talk about it or discuss it, HE LIES about the "reading your email" as he is implying they were reading his.

Man walks into Apple store, installs malware on their computers, tech guys sees insecure http data being uploaded to fuckyeahkylemcdonald.com and sees the Java process running, does a whois and calls the police.

Question Kyle McDonald has answered: KYLE: WHAT SHOULD APPLE DO IF THEY FIND PEOPLE INSTALLING SOFTWARE THAT SENDS DATA TO A SERVER FROM THEIR STORES, KYLE? KYLE? WHAT SHOULD THEY DO? IS "CALL THE POLICE" ONE OF YOU ANSWERS? NO KYLE ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. 11 million page article of lies.

He then quotes "Public photo laws" as a defense, and uses all the emotive language in the world, and gets upset about "artists" being in quote.

Kyle : Stop trying to get more attention, anyone with half a brain can see what a terribly manipulative person you are.

Best known for protecting the Pres... by Theaetetus · 2012-07-15 07:09 · Score: 1

... second best known for protecting against counterfeiting, fraud and identity theft. Since that's what they were actually started to do, and is still their primary mission.

Re:Best known for protecting the Pres... by PaladinAlpha · 2012-07-16 02:19 · Score: 1

That link in no way supports your assertion that the Secret Service was started for protecting against identity theft. You are being disingenuous or dishonest.

The Secret Service and Computer-Related Crimes by westlake · 2012-07-15 07:09 · Score: 2

There are three things you need to know about:

Electronic Crime Task Forces

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed into law H.R. 3162, the USA PATRIOT Act. The U.S. Secret Service was mandated by this Act to establish a nationwide network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs). The concept of the ECTF network is to bring together not only federal, state and local law enforcement, but also prosecutors, private industry and academia. The common purpose is the prevention, detection, mitigation and aggressive investigation of attacks on the nation's financial and critical infrastructures.

The Secret Service's ECTF and Electronic Crimes Working Group initiatives prioritize investigative cases that involve electronic crimes. These initiatives provide necessary support and resources to field investigations that meet any one of the following criteria:

Significant economic or community impact
Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations
Use of schemes involving new technology

Electronic Crimes Task Forces and Working Groups

Criminal Investigations

Identity Crimes - Identity crimes are defined as the misuse of personal or financial identifiers in order to gain something of value and/or facilitate other criminal activity. The Secret Service is the primary federal agency tasked with investigating identity theft/fraud and its related activities under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028. Identity crimes are some of the fastest growing and most serious economic crimes in the United States for both financial institutions and persons whose identifying information has been illegally used. The Secret Service records criminal complaints, assists victims in contacting other relevant investigative and consumer protection agencies and works with other federal, state and local law enforcement and reporting agencies to identify perpetrators.

Identity crimes investigated by the Secret Service include, but are not limited to, the following:

Credit Card/Access Device Fraud (Skimming)
Check Fraud
Bank Fraud
False Identification Fraud
Passport/Visa Fraud
Identity Theft

Computer Fraud - Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1030, authorizes the Secret Service to investigate computer crimes. Violations enforced under this statute include unauthorized access to protected computers, theft of data such as personal identification used to commit identity theft, denial of service attacks used for extortion or disruption of e-commerce and malware (malicious software) distribution to include viruses intended for financial gain.

Criminal Investigations

The "spy camera" project that exposes kids can cast you into very deep water.

Forensic Services

As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, Congress mandated the U.S. Secret Service to provide forensic/technical assistance in matters involving missing and exploited children. On April 30, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the PROTECT Act of 2003, known as the "Amber Alert Bill," which gave full authorization to the U.S. Secret Service in this area.

Forensic Services

Re:Only in America... by DaveV1.0 · 2012-07-15 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

All we have is his insistance he asked for and received permission. Unless you assume that no one would ever lie to protect themselves from legal consequences, his word is untrustworthy.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.

Pseudo Art Collides with The Cult of Apple! by RobotRunAmok · 2012-07-15 07:25 · Score: 1

...and Persistent False Notions of Privacy Rights and even the Secret Secret make cameo appearances!

I'm pretty sure it doesn't get much better than this for a slow Slashdot Sunday!

When all else fails call it ART by Stan92057 · 2012-07-15 07:28 · Score: 1

When all else fails call it ART.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none

Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 07:44 · Score: 0

I'd assume apple was the one lying, and not him. Haven't you been reading the news? They're coming off as one shady fucking company these days.

Was this even illegal. by wisnoskij · 2012-07-15 07:46 · Score: 1

The computers sounds like they were left on, open, and with privileges such that you could do this. He (and all there other customers) obviously did not have to sign a contract such that they were granted use of the computers but were forbidden from installing keyloggers and other spying software. So it sounds like installing software on the computers was allowed. As for taking pictures of unaware people, they were in public and this is exactly the same as if they were captured by any normal hand held camera in public.

SO I could see how Apple might beef up security after this and get mad at him but how was any of it illegal?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:Was this even illegal. by EGSonikku · 2012-07-15 08:08 · Score: 1

You don't see how installing secret, hidden software on a computer that doesn't belong to you which secretly takes pictures of people without permission and publishing them online is illegal?
if I leave my front door open it doesn't mean you can walk into my house.
He obviously KNEW what he was doing was wrong, or he wouldn't have gone through the lengths he did to hide what he was doing by having a tab open with Flickr to switch to if someone came by, amongst other things. As far as Secret Service is concerned, I doubt Apple picked up a red phone to the CIA, they likely filed a police report, and law enforcement chose to escalate it up to the Secret Service level.

--
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
Re:Was this even illegal. by wisnoskij · 2012-07-15 08:15 · Score: 1

wrong and illegal are two different things and Apple obviously wanted and allowed people to installed software on computers. And these unsuspecting people were already being monitored and taped by Apples own security cameras.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:Only in America... by bruce_the_loon · 2012-07-15 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can take pictures if you want, but to publish them in any way, be it a magazine, website or artistic display, you need to get permission from the individuals in the pictures to do so. It's called a model release and every ethical photographer knows about them.

It's idiots like this that are screwing around that are causing the erosion of photographer's rights all over the planet.

We've self-regulated for a long time, but now that arseholes like this are not even looking to see how they should behave, the authorities are starting to get involved.

--
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.

Re:Expectation of privacy also during business hou by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 08:03 · Score: 1

It is because of the internet aspect that the SS was brought in, remember if you where not aware of the purpose and had no idea what was going on.. its reasonable to assume that this is some sort of malware that may be far more widespread than "just" for a local art project...

Anyone remember the drama over the "remote camera activation software" installed by those schools?

Despite artist protests to the contrary in the article, he clearly knew that he was in the wrong the entire time he was doing "operation photo taking", and he conveniently excluded some key facts re the "taking of photos" and expectation of privacy.. while it is true that in a public place you can safely assume you can take photos unless otherwise told "no photos allowed"... you are barred from displaying any photo containing the likeness of a human without their permission in public.. with the only exception being given if said person is highly unlikely to be recognized due to being part of a massive crowd seen (in other wrds a head bobbing in the background at a sporting event, busy people walking down the street from behind etc.. )

Further the artist knew *all of this* which is why he chose to be sneaky..

Funny part of all of this? Apple eats this kind of shit up and he likely could have totally gotten permission to run this "experiment" with their blessing including getting NDAs from customers on the pretense of being involved in a commercial, which Apple would have LOVED to run various images of people engaging with their products as commercial with links to the full project, and likely hosted the finished product as well....

Re:Only in America... by mwvdlee · 2012-07-15 08:06 · Score: 1

You can take pictures if you want, but to publish them in any way, be it a magazine, website or artistic display, you need to get permission from the individuals in the pictures to do so. It's called a model release and every ethical photographer knows about them.

And it's practically impossible for any kind of candid photography.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

Re:Only in America... by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-15 08:36 · Score: 0

AmerCIA.

"We're keeping an eye on you, buddy."

Nice try, but it was the "artist" that was spying on people.

Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 08:41 · Score: 0

Nah, you are wrong. The model release is only to use the photograph to sell something, e.g. to imply that the person or people in the photo endorse your product. This means you can't generally use the photos in an ad, or even sometimes on the cover of a magazine. But in the middle of a magazine, no problem.

Re:Only in America... by Khyber · 2012-07-15 08:52 · Score: 0

"I suspect that's the tricky bit that brought down the wrath."

That is NOWHERE in the purview of the SS. Maybe FBI. That's about fucking it.

The fact the SS got involved proves that the SS is no longer under control, but is nothing more than a rogue Clandestine office doing as they please. Every last one of them needs to be wiped out.

We can make new agencies to protect the President and our nation's currency - because these assholes sure as fuck aren't doing a good job of it, taking on cases like this where there is no emergent threat to our money or leadership.

Oh, and for you SS goons watching/reading - come get me if you've got the balls. Bet my titanium bones beats your brass-jacketed lead anyday. You'll need DU rounds at minimum.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Wrong Indian entirely by Kupfernigk · 2012-07-15 08:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

That would be clever. Maharsi was kind of the real thing, and he died in 1950, which would make it rather ingenious of Jobs to have studied under him. The "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" associated with the Beatles was someone who cottoned on to how a Westernised version of Hinduism could be profitably marketed, and did so. Very profitably. Lennon saw right through him (and I have little time for Lennon). Jobs...well look it up. The similarity between Apple Stores and the Maharishi's TM centres is interesting to a part time student of sociology of religion.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:Wrong Indian entirely by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:56 · Score: 0

I haven't read the Steve Jobs biography. But, I thought he went to India in search of Neem Karoli Baba, the guru of Richard "Ram Daas" Alpert.
Though, Neem Karoli Baba had already shed his body by the time Jobs got to Dehra Duhn, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Also, I wonder if this is true about the only book on Jobs' iPad being "Autobigraphy of a Yogi" by Paramahamsa Yogananda:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/the-steve-jobs-reading-list-the-books_n_1024021.html

Re:Only in America... by Khyber · 2012-07-15 08:53 · Score: 2

"I do thing it was wrong to take pictures of people without their consent."

Hi, welcome to PUBLIC VENUE.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Only in America... by Khyber · 2012-07-15 08:55 · Score: 5, Informative

"You can take pictures if you want, but to publish them in any way, be it a magazine, website or artistic display, you need to get permission from the individuals in the pictures to do so. It's called a model release and every ethical photographer knows about them. "

You're not a photographer, then, because in public venues, you have no right.

Yes, I do photography and film. Yes, I attended school for it.

Quit talking if you're not educated on the subject/hold any certification.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

correct interpretation of "1984" commercial by peter303 · 2012-07-15 09:02 · Score: 1

Apple was replacing the old "Big Brother" with the new one- themselves.

Re:Only in America... by drkim · 2012-07-15 09:08 · Score: 4, Informative

...he asked an Apple employee for permission, which was granted.

No, he claimed he asked a Security Guard (which may mean the guard worked for Apple, or might mean he worked for a company that was contracted by Apple) if he could take pictures in the store.

He did not ask for, or receive, permission to install software on the computers.

Re:Only in America... by spire3661 · 2012-07-15 09:32 · Score: 0

LOL 'hold any certification' Here is a tip champ, certs dont mean shit to anyone but HR.

--
Good-bye

Liberal Arts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 09:38 · Score: 0

Are botnets just another form of "expression"?

Your question struck me rather hard.

This certainly not a place filled with soft skills and philosophers. Yet I am one. Botnets are just another program, just another tool. Unless their utility was not taken into account when they were created. Then the answer to your question is yes.

Corporation/Gov vs. Security Researcher by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 10:02 · Score: 0

Take art out of it.

This exercise has thrown a little light on personal privacy and security issues related to doing business in public spaces.

This all sounds very much like Corp. X attacking a security researcher for disclosing a vulnerability in their software. In turning public opinion against the researcher, they deflect attention from their own failing.

Naive by countach · 2012-07-15 10:08 · Score: 1

I guess I can see how somebody could be naive enough to think that he could do what he did and think it might be unquestionably legal. What I find hard to grasp is how he could do it and not think people would be very upset about it - upset enough to at least TRY and get the law involved to make his life a misery. Seriously, if I was going to do this, I'd have the program directly upload it to a public web site, and I'd download it from a public terminal to give plausible deny-ability.

Re:Poster is a Moron by theNAM666 · 2012-07-15 11:23 · Score: 1

WTF mods up ACs, especially ACs who didn't read the article.

The Stores are public and have glass windows. Businesses operating in the public space are my playground if I want them to be-- that's what "public" means. If they want to be "private," they should move to Saudi Arabia.

Well, what did he expect? by Jiro · 2012-07-15 11:28 · Score: 1

Consider what the guy did: he basically decided to troll real life. It has several hallmarks of a troll, including "I followed the literal rules, so what I did was permitted" (without regard to the fact that certain permitted things are very rude or that we trust most people to use discretion rather than having to write up a rule to prohibit every little thing that hurts someone else), and "it was art" (which not only is routinely used by trolls on its own, but is close to the even more common "I was doing it as an experiment").

To put it differently: imagine that instead of the Secret Service fighting him, it was doing the same thing as him: the Secret Service surreptitiously recorded thousands of images of people under circumstances where technically, they had no expectation of privacy so it was "okay". Would you be mad at the Secret Service? Yes, you would. Would he? Probably; trolls who dish it out often can't take it.

(And although Apple's security cameras take as many pictures of people, anyone with a lick of sense is aware that stores have security cameras and security cameras take pictures; they're inherently non-surreptitious.)

Missing the point by garote · 2012-07-15 11:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here's the point: We've all already begun to acknowledge the death of privacy. Most of us know that yes, we stand a chance of being recorded at any time, at any place. That's oooold news, Admiral Burrito. With this knowledge in hand, the point of contention is now, "How well is access to that information controlled?"

Consider Mr. J. Random Dork, in an Apple store, aggregating thousands of photos of strangers without consent, for his own purposes. He is showing people, by his own conduct, that he is not a very good steward of the information he is collecting. He didn't ask the subjects, he didn't ask the venue, he didn't ask legal counsel, he didn't even ask his peers. In fact he deliberately avoided all those responsible inquiries because he knew his project was objectionable to all of them from the outset. Directing anger at him is not "shooting the messenger". Once you're writing your own code, you've pretty much moved beyond the "messenger" role and into the "perpetrator" role.

Re:Only in America... by swillden · 2012-07-15 12:26 · Score: 1

"You can take pictures if you want, but to publish them in any way, be it a magazine, website or artistic display, you need to get permission from the individuals in the pictures to do so. It's called a model release and every ethical photographer knows about them. "

You're not a photographer, then, because in public venues, you have no right.

Have no right to what?

It's really not clear what you're trying to say here.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Public and Private by andersh · 2012-07-15 13:26 · Score: 1

The stores are public, but the PCs are private property. He did step over that last line.

Re:Public and Private by theNAM666 · 2012-07-15 14:54 · Score: 1

Except, well, they were machines made publically available, with software install rights. If they didn't want stuff installed, they should do like my public library, and reboot into a new session for everyone... *seriously,* it's not hard.

Re:Only in America... by Kalriath · 2012-07-15 13:37 · Score: 1

No, that's not true at all. What makes Apple's word more trustworthy than his? This is why we have investigations - to determine who, on the balance of probabilities, is telling the truth.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

The Photographer's Attorney by westlake · 2012-07-15 13:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, I do photography and film. Yes, I attended school for it.

But were you sleeping in class?

In general, when people are in public, you may photograph them. The use of the photographs can be restricted due to certain privacy rights. The rights for a person to certain kinds of privacy are recognized in most states, but differently for each one. It is, therefore, tricky to know what you can do. The safest approach is to follow the most restrictive one. Privacy rights can be subdivided into four areas.

The first is "invasion of privacy" or "intrusion upon another's seclusion." It happens when someone actually intrudes a person's private domain that would be considered offensive to the average person. As a photographer, the act of going on someone's land without permission would violate this privacy. You don't have to take the photo or publish the photo for the action to be unlawful. Some courts have found an invasion of privacy even when photographing someone in public. In those cases, the photographers harass their subjects, use hidden cameras, or wait for a woman's skirt to be blown at a fun house. It also is unlawful to view and photograph people inside of residences or other places where privacy is expected (businesses are ok), even when the photographer is standing in public.

The second is the public disclosure of private facts.

The third right of privacy is the portrayal of a person in false light. This happens often with photographs, but usually because of the caption. It requires someone to be publicly portrayed in a false manner in which an ordinary person would find the portrayal offensive. To be liable, the publisher of the photograph must have known or recklessly disregarded the probably falsity of what is represented. It is similar to defamation, when someone's reputation is damaged by a statement that is known or should be known to be false. False light does not require that the person was damaged.

The fourth right of privacy is very different from the other three. It is the commercial appropriation of someone's name or likeness without permission, or misappropriation. It also is known as the right of publicity. It happens when someone uses the name or likeness of another without consent to gain some commercial benefit. It usually occurs when a photograph of a person is used in an advertisement without the person's permission. That is why model releases are so important-they show that you have the person's permission to use the person's name or likeness. Permission is not required for editorial or newsworthy publications.

Be sure to consider other's rights of privacy before you click the shutter.

Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney

Rights of Privacy Concerns for Photographers

Re:The Photographer's Attorney by Khyber · 2012-07-15 14:17 · Score: 1

You're inside an Apple Store - you're already on camera. It's even stated so on the premises.
Sorry, your entire highlighting doesn't work in such a case. There is ZERO expectation of privacy.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:The Photographer's Attorney by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 06:35 · Score: 0

Hey, man, cut him some slack! He studied really hard at that photography school, so he could get a job as research director* for the porno store** he runs!
* Research director?
** Porno Store Employee?

Re:Only in America... by bryan1945 · 2012-07-15 14:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This isn't the type of thing you just ask permission for, like "can I grab an apple off your tree" (yes, intended). Something like this is where you get written permission beforehand, in triplicate, and file one in the basement in a locked closet with a leopard guarding it.

This is not between Apple and an employee. He messed with Apple's property, not the employees. For the obligatory car reference- if a car salesperson says, "Yeah, feel free to run the car into a tree on your test drive!", the potential buyer is not getting off the hook for paying for the car because a salesman said it was cool.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

For those who support this guy by bryan1945 · 2012-07-15 14:52 · Score: 1

I'll be by your house around 9:30 Thursday morning to check out your computer. I promise I won't install anything on it. Really, there won't be any pictures secretly taken, err, I mean don't mind my art project. It's cool, I asked your neighbor if I could take pictures of you, and he/she said "no problem by me."
And would you mine brewing some Kona for me, too? :D

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

Explicit or Inferred Consent? by andersh · 2012-07-15 15:10 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, I only know my own European legal system in detail, however I believe that you are not legally entitled to use their property in such a manner simply because it is technically possible?

I imagine it would require Apple's explicit consent to collect information [using their property] for your private purposes legal or otherwise.

I've never been to an Apple Store but I imagine reading that they re-image their machines every day?

Re:Explicit or Inferred Consent? by theNAM666 · 2012-07-15 15:32 · Score: 1

Evidently they did not image every day.
You're right that just because it's *technically possible* it's not necessarily legal (much less right). But the whole point here, is that it's not clear why it would be wrong. The US does not have the kind of privacy expectation that has arisen in E.U. nations. Why is there a problem?
Otherwise, as currently info reads, Apple should have put up a EULA or such preventing this. But that doesn't really get to the core of the issue, does it?

Nothing in the law is ever that simple. by westlake · 2012-07-15 15:56 · Score: 2

Sorry, your entire highlighting doesn't work in such a case. There is ZERO expectation of privacy.

Spy cam software secretly put in place by a third party.

Installed for the purpose of capturing candid close-up images of customers using demo machines.

Not part of the legitimate and expected in-store surveillance system.

Not so gross a conceit as placing cameras behind the bathroom mirrors --- but not so very different a conception either.

Shots to be Instantly uploaded to the web as "art "or "entertainment ---"

without the consent of the participants to their possible public humiliation and with a very real potential for commercial exploitation and other abuses.

There can be a non-zero expectation of privacy even within a public place. The bolded examples are relevant. Photo Attorney's warnings are relevant.

Re:Nothing in the law is ever that simple. by Khyber · 2012-07-16 03:04 · Score: 1

"Spy cam software secretly put in place by a third party."
Doesn't matter. You were warned that you could be audio/video monitored. Your agreement to walk into such a store CLEARLY destroys that right.
Exactly the same thing at my porno shop. We have people trying to go "You can't tape us without permission in the arcades!" Bullshit, child. You see that sign? You go past it, you're fair game to every possible hidden camera on ourselves, our employees, and the customers that walk in there, because YOU ARE EXPLICITLY NOTIFIED.
ALL EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY GOES OUT THE WINDOW.
It doesn't matter. We've won this lawsuit multiple times across multiple states, starting from Colorado, out to California, then going the other direction, to Tennessee, and New York.
"without the consent of the participants to their possible public humiliation and with a very real potential for commercial exploitation and other abuses."
Hi, you're on CANDID CAMERA.
Your chosen source is wrong, outdated, and easily behind the times, especially when it comes to already-existing shows which do EXACTLY what has happened in TFA, and those shows have been around for 20+ years.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Control Freak much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 16:42 · Score: 0

Is Apple a control freak corporation? NO! They would never go after competition in the courts instead of the marketplace. They would never lock developers out of their marketplace because of applications or parts of applications which they don't approve. They would never gouge customers or outsource to a country where working conditions are so bad that the company puts up nets around the assembly building to keep them from dying when they jump from the second or higher floors. Well, maybe they are a control freak corporation, (Where microsoft is the king of evil, and oracle is the evil twin, apple is a mini-me...or is that i-mini-me?

Re:Expectation of privacy also during business hou by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 17:36 · Score: 0

Because of wiretapping laws, many states require both parties to consent to audio recordings. So most security cameras are video only.

they were demo units by Chirs · 2012-07-15 17:44 · Score: 1

People were *supposed* to use them.

If they didn't want people installing stuff on them, they should have locked them down or scrubbed them periodically. Heck, I've downloaded and installed stuff on demo tablets which is essentially the same thing.

they were demo computers by Chirs · 2012-07-15 17:47 · Score: 1

The computers are out on display for people to use. They're not "private" computers, so if they don't want you installing software on them they should say so. (Or more likely if it was me I'd have them all periodically re-sync to a known-good disk image over the network.)

Re:they were demo computers by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-15 21:33 · Score: 1

When someone invites me over to a Superbowl watching party, it's clear that I can't take things from their house just because they let me in. When a house gets put on the market for the public to view in an Open House, do the prospective buyers know they can't paint the walls to see how it looks? Should Apple have to spell out that you shouldn't install spyware on their machines? Despite for demo purposes, they are still owned by Apple.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

they're demo units by Chirs · 2012-07-15 17:50 · Score: 1

As far as I'm concerned, an unpassworded computer set out for public display is fair game for anything if there are no "please don't install software" signs. I've downloaded and installed apps on demo tablets, this is fundamentally equivalent.

The proper technical solution for the store is to have all devices periodically sync with a known-good disk image via the network such that any illicit software will be wiped.

Applicable Law(s) by andersh · 2012-07-15 18:33 · Score: 1

You make several good points, there are notable differences between our [many] systems.

While privacy is highly valued in Europe in general, regardless of EU membership or not, the US has a more "aggressive" justice system in my opinion. The incarceration rates seem to support my claim.

I expect(ed) a US lawyer/prosecutor to find something "applicable" to the situation with regards to misuse of private property.

However as you correctly stated it does not get to the core of the issue. I'm not at all sure the machine weren't re-imaged, that's why I mentioned it, I suggest that it could be that he simply visited several times.

Re:Applicable Law(s) by theNAM666 · 2012-07-15 19:00 · Score: 1

Well, I'm assuming that his account is accurate. If he re-installed, etc, then there are many other potential legal problems (for instance, trespass-- I talked tp a much better legal scholar than myself about this, a few hours ago, who was willing to consider this as trespass or similar offense).
I took the position that this guy violated privacy and should be prosecuted, and the legal scholar shrugged his shoulders and said the venue was public and people had no expectation of privacy there-- especially if it was "art." S/he then argued that if an artist used a telephoto lens to look in my window, but then used the images for "art" or "public commentary," it was protected in the US.
I don't think we want that, and I don't think that's "right." If we accept the foregoing, I imagine, an "artist" will soon be able to take naked pics with a small 'bot in a dressing room, and then publish them as "art" with protection under US "free speech."
Unfortunately in the US, the legal context doesn't provide many tools for making distinctions or walling off a realm that's not open to inspection (and publication) if the stated interest is not commercial (ie, "art" or "academic"). Yet I suspect the US's Constitutional framers, somehow, did not intend that pillow talk could be recorded by any third party and repeated as a matter of "free speech and expression."
Alas, too little will to explore and define these matters in the US (as with so much else). Looking forward to my next stay back in Belgium or CZ.

I think this guy is a bit thick by Askmum · 2012-07-15 19:17 · Score: 1

If you think what he did is allowed, then you also have to think Apple was allowed to do tracking with the iPhones. That Google was allowd to recording Wifi information while taking streetview pictures. That the government is allowed to track your every move.

But reading between the lines I come to the conclusion that he doesn't think that's right. So who in the hell could he come to the conclusion that installing software on an other person's (company's) computer is right. Using them to spy on people (i.e.: take pictures covertly) is right. Publishing then is right.

This guy must be a bit thick.

Re:Expectation of privacy also during business hou by ArsenneLupin · 2012-07-15 20:51 · Score: 1

Sure, if you are in a park, you can't do certain things that you could in the privacy of your home even if you don't see anyone,

o yes, you can :-)

because you might not just have noticed someone and so on.

Well, if he's in the park at that time of the night, just invite him to join the fun!

artist who had the Secret Service raid his home by chrismcb · 2012-07-15 21:55 · Score: 1

the artist who had the Secret Service raid his home at the behest of Apple

I don't understand. The artist had the Secret Service raid his home? So he filmed himself while the Secret Service raided his home? And why did Apple ask this guy to have the Secret Service raid his home?
I realize the summaries are poorly written sometimes, but at least make them make some sense. No matter how I parse this sentence, no matter where I put the missing commas, I still come up with the artist is the one who asked the Secret Service to do the raiding.

Disgusting by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-15 23:36 · Score: 0

I can't imagine allowing a company to have that kind of control over me. I would not last a single day without telling them to take their stinking job and shove it. I would rather work in a coal mine than put up with that nonsense.

Just what you would expect from a communist by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 00:53 · Score: 0

Company.

Re:Only in America... by DaveV1.0 · 2012-07-16 01:07 · Score: 1

Who is being accused of wrong-doing? Who is profiting from the actions he took? He admits he did something and claims he had permission but can not produce any evidence of said permission. Why should I or anyone believe something without evidence?

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.

Re:Only in America... by aethelrick · 2012-07-16 01:14 · Score: 1

Just because you can do something does not mean you should, nor does it mean that you are entitled to do it. Stealing a car that had keys left in the ignition IS STILL STEALING A CAR. Equally, this guy installing his software on some kit in a shop that does not belong to him because he can is both rude and wrong. I think getting the secret service to raid his house was probably over-kill (don't you yanks have regular police for this sort of thing?) but it does not excuse his actions.

Re:Expectation of privacy also during business hou by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 03:11 · Score: 0

> you are barred from displaying any photo containing the likeness of a human without their permission in public.. with the only exception being given if said person is highly unlikely to be recognized due to being part of a massive crowd seen (in other wrds a head bobbing in the background at a sporting event, busy people walking down the street from behind etc.. )

Where on earth did you get that idea? If that were truly the only exception every new celebrity would have to sign a stack of documents before their likeness could be used in the media, doesnt sound right.

Hahahahaha by Tyrannicsupremacy · 2012-07-16 03:55 · Score: 1

And then this tool just went right back to Apple, like he loyal dog he is. Incredible.

--
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png

The real question is! by corvax · 2012-07-16 05:54 · Score: 1

Where can we see the pictures! :p The real reason apple was so aggressive was they didn't want the public to see pictures or videos of people looking like morons while using their devices. Imagine if everyone knew how unintuitive an idevice was before living with it for months/years :o

Re:Only in America... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 07:04 · Score: 0

This is why we have investigations - to determine who, on the balance of probabilities, is telling the truth.

No. We have investigations so that corporations, acting through the government, which they control, can crush anything they perceive as resistance, erosion of market, also individual liberties and rights where these conflict with corporate goals.

Examine SCOTUS rulings: if it's corporation vs anyone, the ruling almost always goes to the corporation. This goes from land grabs to nonsense like Marbury vs. Madison. Examine congress's acts: Subsidies. Leases. Tax exemptions and loopholes. Instead of single-payer healthcare, which would have destroyed the insurance companies (and rightfully so, as they have abused the public trust), an outright gift to the insurance companies. From the outrageous land grab of Tock's Island Dam to the crushing of our privacy in favor of government (which really means corporate) database expansion, congress acts constantly to push corporate control and advantage.

"Investigations" are sops to keep the public calm. No more than that.

When Apple demonstrates the ability to direct everything from local police forces to the secret service, if you don't get the actual message, that's simply because you're stupid. And yeah, they pretty much count on that.

Mission Accomplished? by BadPirate · 2012-07-16 13:35 · Score: 1

Seems to me that the discussion on the topic of privacy and public / private spaces is part of what was intended by his "Art". I remember getting into similar trouble (though not as extreme), when I setup a website that showed people just how much personal information you could about a computer / person who did something as docile as visiting a website, or loading an embedded image... (Cookies, Computer type, IP address, rough geographical coordinates, snapshot of browser history, etc...) Mine wasn't for art though, just a tool that folks could use to see if their email had been read, or if the girl they were stalking had visited their website today. Privacy is an illusion that people don't like having shattered.

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.

Please stop by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-16 13:56 · Score: 0

Please stop emulating smart quotes using backticks (eg. ``). It's a plague upon the interwebs.

Re:Only in America... by Kalriath · 2012-07-16 16:00 · Score: 1

For some reason, you claim that we should believe Apple without evidence.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Re:Only in America... by WorBlux · 2012-07-16 23:03 · Score: 1

1. Taking a picture of someone in a public place is not illegal, and is not usually wrong. 2, Installing software on a computer that you've been granted access to is not illegal and is not usually wrong. Why is doing 2 to get 1 done wrong? It's certainly not illegal (no more so than leaving a small hidden camera in the store instead.) and it wrong it's only because it was unexpected.

Re:Only in America... by DaveV1.0 · 2012-07-17 00:01 · Score: 1

We have evidence. We have his use of Apple products. We have Apple's claim he didn't ask for permission. Now, it is on him to provide evidence he did get evidence. You and the AC say we should accept his word without evidence. I say there is no reason to believe him.

Please, explain why anyone should believe his claim that he received permission from a computer retailer to put software on computers in the company's stores, computers which could end up sold to customers, that took secret pictures of the company's customers and put said pictures on the internet without the permission of the customers.

Who benefits from his actions? He does. Who benefits from him claiming to have permission? He does. Who is harmed by his actions and his claim? Apple.

How would you feel if someone snuck software on to your computer that took pictures from your webcam and then strung them together into a video and put said video on the internet? Think on that then tell me if you, as a business owner selling computers, would allow someone to stick software on the display computers in your business that did just that. Think about the possible legal ramification from it as well.

Apple had no reason to and many reasons not to grant him permission to tamper with their computers. He, however, has every reason to claim he had permission, especially if did not.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.

Re:Only in America... by Kalriath · 2012-07-17 15:53 · Score: 1

No, you're doing it again.

I did not say we should accept his word without evidence, far from it. However I said we should not accept Apple's word either without evidence. No entity is more deserving of unquestioning belief in their word than another. That is why the issue needs to be investigated.

Also, they don't sell the display models to customers without wiping them first- they are usually packed with lots of software only useful for the purposes of showroom demo.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Re:Only in America... by Khyber · 2012-07-17 19:50 · Score: 1

"Here is a tip champ, certs dont mean shit to anyone but HR."

Oh, how ignorant you are.

You won't get hired in my company without at least a Master Gardener's certification. Oh, and we don't have HR. I do all the hiring.

And testing.

Also, some states won't let you do shit without a certification. Oh, say, California. Most counties require a FOOD HANDLER'S CERTIFICATE to even work in a fucking McDonald's.

HR has NOTHING to do with that. That's straight-up LAW.

Yet another ignorant 7-digit UID.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:Only in America... by DaveV1.0 · 2012-07-17 23:25 · Score: 1

And, you are wrong. An entity with a motive to lie is more suspect than an entity that does not have a reason to lie.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.

Re:Only in America... by Kalriath · 2012-07-18 00:49 · Score: 1

And you are still doing it. The employee who gave permission if the defendant in this case is telling the truth likely does have a motive to lie, as they will likely face disciplinary action for giving permission to do something in violation of company policy.

Hence, neither side is motiveless, and therefore neither side can be trusted until a proper investigation can be carried out.

Face it, Apple isn't fucking sainted.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Re:Only in America... by DaveV1.0 · 2012-07-18 03:14 · Score: 1

Except there is no evidence an employee gave permission and no employee has been named.

Face it, McDonald isn't sainted and has every reason to lie about an employee giving him permission, has provided no evidence an employee gave him permission, and has not, and probably cannot, name or identify the employee who allegedly gave him permission.

What you are repeatedly missing, probably deliberately, is that it is known McDonald did something. He has claimed he had permission. Apple has denied that claim. It falls on McDonald to prove his claim that he had permission. Without evidence to the contrary, it is one word against the other and the only known quantity is that McDonald did, in fact, do something to computer systems that the owner of which says he had no permission.

By your reasoning, a car thief can simply claim "they said I could take it" and be set free even if the victim denies giving permission.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.

Re:Only in America... by Kalriath · 2012-07-18 10:05 · Score: 1

Oh for fuck's sake. There is no evidence an employee didn't give permission either. So stop fucking claiming that we need to assume Apple is telling the truth, whether intentionally or not.

And no a car thief can't do that, because they are held in custody until an investigation has been completed. And by law, the car thief is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. You, for some reason, seem to think that if Apple is a plaintiff in a case the normal rules do not apply and we instantly declare the defendant a liar.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Re:Only in America... by DaveV1.0 · 2012-07-19 01:32 · Score: 1

Back the fuck up, shithead.

You, for some reason, seem to think that if Apple is a plaintiff in a case the normal rules do not apply and we instantly declare the defendant a liar

Really? The defendant already admitted to the act, or did you forget that part.

By your reasoning, a car thief can simply claim "they said I could take it" and be set free ...no a car thief can't do that

but then you say I am the who thinks someone in this case deserves special treatment? REALLY? Let's take a look at it.

In both cases, a person has been caught doing something. In both cases, the person caught has claimed to have permission from the victim. In both cases, the victim has denied giving permission. Yet, in one case you say we should believe the accused, and in the other we should not believe the accused.

You are according special status to the accused simply because the victim is Apple.

--
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.

Learn How To Write by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 22:40 · Score: 0

"Last July, Slashdot reported on Kyle McDonald, the artist who had the Secret Service raid his home at the behest of Apple"

Why did Kyle McDonald have Apple get the Secret Service raid his home?

FFS /., how about: Last July, Slashdot reported on Kyle McDonald, an artist whose home was raided by the Secret Service at the behest of Apple.

Slashdot Mirror

When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide

358 comments