Slashdot Mirror
When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide
theodp writes "Last July, Slashdot reported on Kyle McDonald, 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. A year later, Wired is running McDonald's first-person account of the preparation for and fallout from his People Staring at Computers project. 'I really wasn't expecting the Secret Service,' McDonald begins. 'Maybe an email, or a phone call from Apple. Instead, my first indication that something was "wrong" was a real-life visit from the organization best known for protecting the President of the United States of America.'"
...amongst their weapons are fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
>>>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"
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.
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"
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
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."
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!
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>>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"
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.
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.
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.
Used only his equipment, and set it up to take photos in the women's bathroom.
#DeleteChrome
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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?
... 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.
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
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 appreciate the compliment, but still, fuck you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
...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.
Jack of all trades,master of none
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.
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.
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"
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"
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....
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?
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."
"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.
"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.
Apple was replacing the old "Big Brother" with the new one- themselves.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
"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.
So you don't disagree that intent matters then?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The stores are public, but the PCs are private property. He did step over that last line.
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".
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
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." :D
And would you mine brewing some Kona for me, too?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>>>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"
And then this tool just went right back to Apple, like he loyal dog he is. Incredible.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
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
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.
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.
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.
An owner of course has the right to make you leave. What he can't do is press charges for taking pictures.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
"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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
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.
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.