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 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 fredprado · 2012-07-15 07:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

As all Apple customers he has battered wife syndrome...

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 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 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 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 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 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: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: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.

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

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

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

Re: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: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 MightyYar · 2012-07-15 06:36 · Score: 4, Informative

1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property.

Maybe by your definition, but by law it is open to the public and thus public.

2) he wasn't using his own equipment, he was installing software on Apple's machines.

Which is allowed. They have a very generous policy for use of their display machines, choosing to wipe them every night rather than try to enforce some kind of demo mode. I think he abused this policy, but it was not a crime.

3) Apple doesn't "forbid" you from using your own cameras and recording equipment in their stores to "record what they witness in plain sight", it just frowns on you effectively installing hidden cameras to capture people's images without them knowing.

Frowning is one thing - calling the Secret Service is another!

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re: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.

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 08:55 · 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.

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.

Slashdot Mirror

When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide

27 of 358 comments (clear)