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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 05:32 · 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 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 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 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 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."

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: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.

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 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 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: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 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: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..."

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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: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: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: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.

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 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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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: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"

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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

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.

Slashdot Mirror

When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide

65 of 358 comments (clear)