Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
from the must-be-a-slow-crime-day dept
So this is one of those interesting scenarios that really tests the boundary between what people find to be socially unacceptable behavior versus what is actually illegal under current law. Artist Kyle McDonald put a strange art project into practice when he installed what amounts to surveillance software on the public computers at an Apple store and used the images collected to create a presentation that he hoped would give us, by the facial expressions captured, insight into our relationship with the computers we use:
Image from Notcot
On three days in June, McDonald's program documented people staring at computers in Apple stores. Since the stores wiped their computers every night, he had to go back in and reinstall the program each day he took photos. He uploaded a collection of the photos to a Tumblr blog, and last Sunday he set up 'an exhibition' at the Apple stores. During the unauthorized event at the Apple stores on West 14th Street and in Soho, when people looked at an Apple store machine, they saw a picture of themselves. Then they saw photos of other people staring at computers. Amazingly, nobody made a fuss. [...]Even more interesting than his project about how people perceive their relationship with their computer might be how people perceive the artist's actions here. Many people seem to be up in arms, and feel quite strongly that his actions were criminal and should be punished. But what crimes did he actually commit? None of the immediately obvious arguments would appear to be viable when you consider the facts of the situation:
Over the course of the project, McDonald set up roughly 100 Apple store computers to call his servers every minute. That's a lot of network traffic, and he learned that Apple monitors traffic in its stores when he received a photo from a Cupertino computer of what appeared to be an Apple technician. The technician had apparently traced the traffic to the site McDonald used to upload the program to Apple Store computers; and installed it himself.
McDonald figured that Apple had decided the program wasn't a big deal. That was until four Secret Service men in suits woke him up on Thursday morning with a search warrant for computer fraud. They confiscated two computers, an iPod and two flash drives, and told McDonald that Apple would contact him separately.
1. Unauthorized access to a computer (hacking): The computers he used were open to the public, so no hacking there. Some might say that his program installation exceeded his allowed access, but I don't think customers are forced to sign any kind of agreement before using the computers, and even if they were, it is not currently the law (yet) that violating a Terms of Service agreement constitutes hacking.
2. Violation of Privacy: To argue a violation of privacy, in most places you would have first argue that the person videotaped had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place. Certainly, being in a public location, Kyle could have snapped pictures of those very same people with a handheld camera and, short of Apple themselves giving him the boot off the premises for annoying their customers, there would be no legal consequences to doing so. Additionally, it's highly likely that Apple (or the mall itself) had their own cameras present for security purposes. All in all, this would appear to be a nonstarter as well.
3. Wiretapping Laws: Someone might be inclined to link this to cases we've seen recently where police officers charge the people videotaping them with violating state wiretapping laws. They would be forgetting, however, that wiretapping statutes are usually restricted to audio. Still pictures means no wiretapping.
Now, despite my admittedly snarky sub-heading, it's also not clear that the Secret Service necessarily overreacted in this case. You have to realize that an investigating Apple employee found that a person had been (for several days no less!) installing a program on multiple Apple computers that called home repeatedly, presumably with information gleaned from those computers. Without knowing exactly what the program was or its intended purpose, it would be very reasonable to expect the worst. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some customers log into websites or otherwise do things on a public computer that a keylogger would love to pick up. Hopefully, though, when they discover the true nature of the program, they'll realize it was all a misunderstanding and give the guy back his expensive electronics. Other legal experts seem to agree, but plenty of others are up in arms about this.
What do you think? Is what he did a crime, or merely creepy? Neither? Both? If it's a crime, what crime? If not, should it be?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: apple store, computers, kyle mcdonald, photographs, secret service
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Secret Service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secret Service?
USSS jurisdiction involves a whole host of electronic crimes that fall under the general term "hacking".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Secret Service?
This "hacking" is a serious crime. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secret Service?
Whatever next? TSA at the door?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secret Service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without a doubt it violates all sorts of laws, from privacy to hacking (installing malicious software without permission).
Further, it raises bigger questions about the security of computers purchased from stores. Can you imagine if this software was install on every apple computer sold, and the guy could harvest images from those computers at any time?
I can see why the Secret Service showed up. If you cannot see the crime in this, you really missed the boat!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Public place. No expectation of privacy.
hacking
Public computers. Software was only "malicious" if you assume the conclusion (circular logic).
Further, it raises bigger questions about the security of computers purchased from stores. Can you imagine if this software was install on every apple computer sold, and the guy could harvest images from those computers at any time?
Huh? Have you ever been in an Apple store? They have demo models on the floor for the public to use. He wasn't installing them on computers in the back that were for sale (how would he?).
If you cannot see the crime in this, you really missed the boat!
Did you even read the story? I really have to wonder . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: public?
I'm pretty sure vandalism is a crime, regardless of whether or not there is a sign. A charge of "hacking", however, requires a determination of whether or not a person had legitimate access to the machine in the first place. He did, therefore there was no hacking. If they had put up a sign, or made him sign a ToS, or otherwise blocked the installation of software, and he had gotten around those provisions, Apple might have a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
On the issue of privacy, I think it's a little more complicated. Yes you are in public, but when I use a demo computer, my expectation is not that it will snap a picture of me. If that was my expectation (let's say if there was a sign on the computer that stated that it would/might take my picture) I would probably act differently. (avoid the demo computer for one thing) Similarly, if I see someone pointing a camera at me, I might choose to not act the same way. I have started believing that privacy is a continuum. The same way that long-term GPS tracking is not the same as short-term GPS tracking, snapping a picture secretly to put it for public viewing is not the same as snapping a picture openly for your private collection. While one might reduce my privacy only by a small amount, the other one reduces my privacy by a large amount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
Says a bit about the Apple group to me.
I have to agree with Mr Rhodes here. It wasn't against the permissions so its fair game for the demo machine. Either that or the Apple store group is incredibly not smart. Take your pick.
As for the public place and demo computer taking a picture of you, stores have cameras everywhere these days. You are being recorded. Whether it is by the demo computer itself or just the stores normal cameras makes no difference in my mind. Do you avoid all stores like Wal-Mart, Meijer, Best Buy, and just about every other decent retail store (and party store) because they have cameras on the ceiling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
"As for the public place and demo computer taking a picture of you, stores have cameras everywhere these days."
Well yes. But the expectation is that those camera feeds will not be posted on the internet for the world to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
I agree that there is an expectation in the minds of many but this situation begs the question, should it be expected? I don't think the law as it stands says that it is illegal to stream security feeds. I don't believe its illegal to publicly show footage from public places for noncommercial purposes.
When looking into whether or not its legal I found this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkFprH8ix1c and the instructions work. Kinda screws with your expectations doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Installs are part of the product experience.
Of course it does. It has to be. Otherwise you end up with situations much like this where someone gets arrested and charged with a crime for merely doing a proper demo of a product sitting in a store.
If the perms aren't locked down, ANY ONE can install stuff. They might even want to do this with non-malicious intent. They just might want to show granny how easy it is to install stuff in MacOS.
No. The real question here is why this issue has never come up yet in all of the years that Apple have been running these stores. Why haven't they gotten victimized by some guy installing modern versions of Mac Puke?
Total amateur hour here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
This presumes you know how both a)how Apple defines "normal" use of their display computers and b) how the law defines "normal" use of a public computer.
I am absolutely certain that you know neither of those things in actuality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
BB uses this http://www.faronics.com/standard/deep-freeze/?gclid=CJfd7cmH-qkCFQe87Qod_T9FaQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
I'm pretty sure theft of service is also a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
But this is the most credible reason he may have broken the law yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: public?
If the prosecution/plaintiff can prove he wasn't authorized to use that service maybe. Since the machines were networked, and he had free access to a user account without any particular restrictions, I think that would be very difficult to prove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> if you assume the conclusion
They're not really public computers. They're floor models that Apple allows potential customers to use in order to consider making a purchase.
That doesn't mean they've either expressly or impliedly opened them up to whatever use anyone who walks through the door wants to put them to.
Neither have they given anyone any express or implied authorization to install software or alter their systems in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> all the PCs every night shows that they
> knew it happened and didn't mind it.
It doesn't show either one of those things. The fact that they do it every night suggests it's a prophylactic measure put in place as a matter of policy, not that they knew about this specific intrusion.
It also doesn't show that they "didn't mind it" at all. It says nothing about they feel about this guy's actions one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless they clarified what his access actually was, good luck to them in court when they try to prove it. Vague laws are bad (and often unconstitutional) laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Best Buy has software that doesn't allow any changes to be saved through a reboot. So every time you turn it off and on again it is exactly the same as when you installed the protection software in the first place. I assume Apple does something similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know... it's a tough question. Hacking means accessing a computer you are not authorized to access. In this case, he absolutely was authorized to access it, with no stated restrictions.
So one could argue that he was completely authorized, and i'm not sure how you could make a hacking charge stick. When given open access to a computer, why would it be legally implicit that installing software was still "hacking"? What other things are/aren't considered hacking when using an open system, and how do people identify them? It would be a legal nightmare...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think of it this way: If you walk up to me and ask if you can borrow my cellphone to make a call and I say yes, calling your aunt in the next city for 5-10 minutes is acceptable. On the other hand if you proceed to make an hour long long-distance call across the world, that is not acceptable and I could probably sue you for it. (Evidence might be an issue but let's leave that aside) Why is that? We don't have a contract after all. The reason is simply that there are norms outside of written law and contracts and if you violate those norms in the course of using my property, you have cause me harm because implicit in my agreement to let you use my cellphone is that you won't make a long distance call without asking me first. That is a good thing because we don't want to have to write 100 page contracts for every interaction. All reasonable people understand that someone who lends you their cellphone is not authorizing you to make hour long international calls unless that was specified. Similarly, all reasonable people understand that the floor models are not to be used to snap pictures of patrons at a store before disseminating such pictures to the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If someone I don't know asks to use my phone I always ask where they are calling, usually I even put the number in myself just so I know the area code. Ethics, politeness and courtesy are not law. IANAL but if someone said can I use your phone and you said yes, then they call China I don't think you would have a leg to stand on to sue them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you answer my comment instead? My standard use of a computer undoubtedly does not match everybody else's average use. What I said was that there is a commonly held understanding of what is and isn't acceptable on floor model. It may not be unanimous, but one of the reasons why people felt this was creepy and weird and unacceptable is specifically because what that guy did violates common expectations and understandings.
"If they didn't want software installed, they would have prevented it through permissions."
I did not say they were against software being installed. I said they were against somebody installing monitoring software on their floor models every day after they wipe them. Also, just because your door is unlocked does not mean that I'm allowed to come in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, standard use doesn't matter. If it is allowed on the floor model, then it isn't hacking. Creepy sure, but being creepy isn't against the law. As plenty of others who have been to apple stores have now pointed out in the comments, Apple welcomes you to install software to test things out. To me that shots your argument completely hollow. Whether a guy installed it more than once is completely irrelevant. It is either against the law or it isn't, and in this case it clearly isn't. Things are never legal until done X times, then they suddenly become illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps, but I doubt that could be proven to be "unauthorized access" beyond reasonable doubt.
If you walk up to me and ask if you can borrow my cellphone to make a call and I say yes... if you proceed to make an hour long long-distance call across the world, that is not acceptable and I could probably sue you for it.
You can sue for anything, but you wouldn't win. I just did something you gave me permission to do (make a phone call with your phone). It's not my fault you gave me permission to do something you didn't intend for me to do. It's not illegal to be rude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said in another comment higher up, (Or in a previous version of this comment) I'm not a lawyer and so I don't know for sure whether this is illegal or not. However it does sound like something that is illegal or at the very least should be. I would guess Apple and those would have a much better shot in civil suits against that guy.
"You can sue for anything, but you wouldn't win. I just did something you gave me permission to do (make a phone call with your phone). It's not my fault you gave me permission to do something you didn't intend for me to do. It's not illegal to be rude"
The problem is not that you are rude. The problem is that when I give you permission to use my phone, there are a whole bunch of unspoken caveats. More specific examples: Using my phone as a hammer is not permitted. Using my phone to play fetch with your dog is not permitted. Yet, I told you you could use my phone. Now, admittedly, making a long-distance phone call might be a bit of a gray area. But the basic principle is that when you contract verbally or in writing, there are common expectations that are implicitly integrated in the contract unless you specify the opposite. When you violate those expectations, you are violating my property rights. Some of these are very clear cut while some others may be a bit more fuzzy. I think it's likely that what this guy did violates Apple's property rights. But I gladly admit it's probably fuzzy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they damage the phone. If I ask to use your phone and then I use the nice hard flat back of it as a surface for writing something on a post-it note, or the reflective screen to check my hair, do you think that's illegal? Because I'm sure that isn't what you expected me to do either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Neither have they given anyone any express or implied authorization to install software or alter their systems in any way"
I would say they have because doing so is not blocked. It is very easy to not allow a user account to install software I think by not restricting that ability you are giving implied authorization to install.
Those computers are not just taken out of the box and put on display, they install the demo software and set up a demo account. If they didn't want you doing something its very easy to block it, by not blocking it they are allowing (and passively authorizing) you do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it malicious? That's a pretty slippery definition. Is a gun malicious? What about a crowbar? A hammer? Screwdriver?
I guess all the people that use that exact same software to protect their stolen computers should also be in trouble for using malicious software.
One man's malicious is another man's legitimate tool.
> Can you imagine if this software was install on
> every apple computer sold
Yes, just imagine. He opens the boxes of each computer, unpacks them, plugs them in, starts them up, agrees to the EULA, waits, waits, eats lunch, waits some more, installs software, waits, shuts down, unplugs computer, repacks carefully into factory box. Then repeat on each computer in inventory.
Demo units are not sold as new. They might not even get sold period.
> and the guy could harvest images from those computers at any time?
And clearly that would be a crime. At least it crosses far more serious lines.
> I can see why the Secret Service showed up.
I can't.
> If you cannot see the crime in this, you really missed the boat!
If you don't understand basic technology, you really missed the boat.
I think a bigger question here is about installing software, probably without permission, onto multiple store demo units -- and reinstalling every day. Apple probably would not allow that without authorization. In any individual store (not just Apple) a sales droid might allow a potential customer to install, and then remove something. But doing such might also be a ploy to get malware installed onto a computer that survives beyond the "uninstall".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Apple would allow arbitrary access to any of its display models considering how protective the company is.
-The article doesn't state the "artist" had the decency to even ask permission for the install.
-Secret Service was involved.
Now, perhaps this story is true, but it's really hard to believe anyone would have the balls to do such a thing...
...at an Apple store.
That's just foolish considering the aggressive nature of the company that's more in the news for this behavior rather than its products.
Should've used Walmart: better subjects and acceptance of the "art".
On a personal note (with a sprinkle of troll): Those people do look like Mac users, don't they.
>:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Apple would allow arbitrary access to any of its display models
You've never been in an Apple store, have you? =P Most of their floor space is taken up by demo machines . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example, a few years ago my wife was looking at buying a new MacBook and wanted to test some software before buying it. The Apple store employee said it was fine so we tried it out. There were no restrictions on the computer, so we could do whatever we wanted.
I doubt Apple has changed things since then. So, while I'm sure this guy didn't have approval, there was nothing to stop him from doing it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...with an individual repeatedly installing his own, private monitoring software on hundreds of computers over the course of several days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"wishful thinking" as an engineering methodology
You need to design with worst case scenarios in mind rather than just depending on wishful thinking.
Applies both to law and computing systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey Mike, can you add a "dumbass" button to the comments section?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
opinion
Violation of privacy, no. It's a public store.
Wiretapping, no. How can it be Wiretapping if there is no violation of privacy (real or perceived)?
Ethical violation, yes. It's a violation of nerd rule 37 to install any software on someone else's PC without their permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
Since you know where it is in order to complain about, I'm absolutely going to blame you if you miss it.
If you're too abjectly lazy to look where you already know the author's name is before you complain about him, that's all on you, chief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
Yea how dare he use the same location as other forums / content management systems default location!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
- Dark Helmet (FTW!)
/everything is a remix!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
Your excuse is pathetic, as is your attempted defense of Apple. They deserve every bit of criticism they receive, and more IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
First off, Blue Balls, I STILL like you, because of your firm commitment to the crazy.
Secondly....the above is not a sentence. Please revise for grammar and syntax, write it out a hundred times and submit by the end of class.
Thirdly....LOLwut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having been caught out with the "byline" trick,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Apple had done this, it would be even less of an issue. The "hacking" charge becomes even more ridiculous, since it's their own machine, and the privacy charge is weakened too, since I'm sure they already have security cameras up to do essentially the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's too sophisticated an operation for local police to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
> Service relation: "told McDonald that Apple
> would contact him separately". -- I don't
> think it usual that the Secret Service is
> apprised of Apple corporate plans.
The USSS relationship with Apple in this case is the same as there is between law enforcement and any potential victim of a crime.
Of course they're not privy to what goes on behind closed doors at Apple. They're just telling the guy, "We're only here to look into a possible violation of federal law. If Apple decides to come after you civilly, that's up to them and you'll be hearing from them about it."
It would be no different than if the local cops had arrested a robbery suspect and told the suspect "We're only prosecuting you for the crime. If the business owner wants to take civil legal action against you, he'll contact you separately."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
The USSS isn't going to do anything other than turn the results of it's investigation over to the US Attorney. They will decide whether to prosecute or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
> hacked into my laptop, I wouldn't even get the time of day.
> Apple gets them to visit the guy's house.
That's because the US Attorney's office sets minimum guidelines for federal prosecution. Same reason the DEA isn't interested in you for possessing one joint. But if you have two tons of marijuana, you're on their radar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
http://epic.org/2011/02/epic-v-nsa-foia-lawsuit-nsa-wi.html
A summary of speculation about the relationship:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/188581/the_googlensa_alliance_questions_and_answers.ht ml
and EPIC's statement to congress:
http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/google/EPIC_Cybersecurity_Statement.pdf
From Consumer Watchdog's report you might find out why Google owns a fighter jet.
http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GOOGGovfinal012411.pdf
Finally, this is Consumer Watchdog's humorous take on former Google CEO Eric Schmidt's testimony before congress, though I get the feeling CW doesn't really think it's all that funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBMPphy9gFg&feature=player_embedded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harm done?
A bit of extra internet use? No big deal
Was anybody injured? No
Did any of the computers crash as a result of the added software? No
Anything illegal downloaded to the store's computers? No
Anything nasty done with the photos of the users? No
So was any ACTUAL harm done by this guy? No
No potential harm happened either. I say, no crime committed.
But, on the other hand, I wouldn't blame the staff if they decided to kick him out of the store either!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harm done?
They might have been photographed if they were in the store with their parents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No state law violation
So no state law violation, regardless of whether there was an expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No state law violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> a PUBLIC place and all the pertaining laws apply
The mall may be a quasi-public place (not completely public, per the Supreme Court) but the individual stores are not, and their floor model computers sure as hell are not, even if customers are allowed to use them for a limited purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Can I use your computer?
-sure
...
- I didn't say you could push the 'H' key! police!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have to wonder: If he had installed Microsoft Office, would everyone here be trying to send him to prison? I doubt it.
All that means is that people are trying to twist the law to hurt this guy because they think he did something uncouth, regardless of whether or not they really believe the law was broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what he did
-sure
...
- I didn't say you could ... INSTALL software on it that TAKES closeup photos focused on people's faces from a foot away WITHOUT their knowledge or permission, use our bandwidth to UPLOAD those photos to another computer we don't control, and PUBLISH those photos all over the internet without the knowledge or permission of the people in them.
I guess that's the same as "pushing the 'H' key"????
If I had any suspicion that Apple did indeed give fully informed consent to this 'artist' to do this, I would never go in their store again. To the extent that there are people like me, this guy 'harmed' Apple by damaging their reputation as a place you can go to look at a computer without the damned computer looking at you and sending your picture all over the world. I hope they sue his ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what he did
That seems to be about their own recourse, and it doesn't seem like it would get very far. Frankly, I think they'd be dumb to try, but this is Apple we're talking about . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what he did
But when they admitted that iPhones were secretly tracking you all the time...that didn't bother you? Why would that not be far, far worse than this? Where is your line in the sand, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: what he did
At the time I heard about that, I hadn't yet upgraded my iphone to the version of the OS that had that SPYWARE BUG, and I swore that if it was not fixed to my satisfaction I would never upgrade the OS and never buy a newer iphone. Is THAT enough to show that it bothered me?
In response to people who say there was no "expectation of privacy" in a public store because there are other cameras for security, I say that a REASONABLE person expects that photos taken for security purposes will be used for those purposes and then deleted, NOT distributed to the entire world. If I scratch my ass in a store, I figure there might be one or two security guards who see it on a security camera for half a second, and that it won't be sent to an ass-scratcher-fetish website without my knowledge or permission. And the fact that I was in the store at all, looking at a computer, is not the world's business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More from the article:
Soooo...he had permission from the store security guard(s), and he asked customers if he could take their picutres (albeit with a camera; presumably handheld)? Those seem to be rather important facts, no?
The real questions seem to be whether he asked those two questions every day and whether he prevented people from using whatever machine(s) he had installed the software on if they said, "no," to his picture question.
I'm not seeing a big problem here. I'm not even seeing how it's all that creepy. Perhaps it was a bit disingenuous to ask to take a photo when he was really taking pictures with a webcam, but telling them about the webcams would have ruined the project (potentially). Perhaps he also should have discussed it with a store manager, but, even so, at best he violated an obscure, previously unstated store policy and might end up banned from the store.
The biggest problem seems to be the store employee who went and installed it to other machines (assuming I read the article correctly). I'm trying to figure out why he would do that without knowing full well what the program was doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More from the article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More from the article:
Of course, that's also part of why I wondered if he shooed people away from whatever computer he had installed the software on. My guess, though, is that he stood near the computer and asked people if he could take their picture. This actually makes some sense because he could take their photo with a handheld camera, compare it against photos taken by the webcam, and then only use photos of people who had agreed to have their pictures taken. Granted, that's a good bit of speculation on my part, but that's how I likely would have done it if I had come up with the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More from the article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More from the article:
In this case, the artist now holds the copyright, correct? Or does the computer?
Being in a public place, they have no expectation of privacy, so I don't see that he would need their express permission to use the photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More from the article:
Its not a store employee, its a tech, probably at one of their tech centers or corporate offices.
Assuming some assumptions I assume this is what happened:
Notice that the employee picture came from Cupertino, CA which is an entire continent away from where he was setting these computers up(he is in NY right or did I imagine that?). So some tech(or monitoring software) had noticed that a lot of upstream traffic from a bunch of different stores was going to an IP. Since most people don't upload things from Apple demo computer this probably threw up some red flags. They ask a tech to check out the site he sees the download that McDonald is putting on the demo units, so he downloads it onto a non-networked(on the net but not Apple nets) work computer so he can figure out what the program is doing. He sees its taking pictures and dumping them to the net, he calls his boss who calls his boss who calls his boss who calls the SS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More from the article:
Your way makes much more sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mcdonalds instore autopics
My recommendation, given that MacDonald appears not to have anticipated or possibly understood the ensuring furore or consequences of his actions; coupled with the fact that no harm appears to have been done, is that this should be taken as an opportunity to examine and analyse what has happened and take a careful and measured approach to analysing this event.
Macdonald clearly is a creative individual, who "dislikes walking beaten paths" for which he should not be penalised. It is possible that perhaps he has done American Society a favour. As a European I am, on the whole against instant ill-thought out reactions to events such as this; the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mcdonalds instore autopics
My recommendation, given that MacDonald appears not to have anticipated or possibly understood the ensuring furore or consequences of his actions; coupled with the fact that no harm appears to have been done, is that this should be taken as an opportunity to examine and analyse what has happened and take a careful and measured approach to analysing this event.
Macdonald clearly is a creative individual, who "dislikes walking beaten paths" for which he should not be penalised. It is possible that perhaps he has done American Society a favour. As a European I am, on the whole against instant ill-thought out reactions to events such as this; the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mcdonalds instore autopics
My recommendation, given that MacDonald appears not to have anticipated or possibly understood the ensuring furore or consequences of his actions; coupled with the fact that no harm appears to have been done, is that this should be taken as an opportunity to examine and analyse what has happened and take a careful and measured approach to analysing this event.
Macdonald clearly is a creative individual, who "dislikes walking beaten paths" for which he should not be penalised. It is possible that perhaps he has done American Society a favour. As a European I am, on the whole against instant ill-thought out reactions to events such as this; the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mcdonalds instore autopics
My recommendation, given that MacDonald appears not to have anticipated or possibly understood the ensuring furore or consequences of his actions; coupled with the fact that no harm appears to have been done, is that this should be taken as an opportunity to examine and analyse what has happened and take a careful and measured approach to analysing this event.
Macdonald clearly is a creative individual, who "dislikes walking beaten paths" for which he should not be penalised. It is possible that perhaps he has done American Society a favour. As a European I am, on the whole against instant ill-thought out reactions to events such as this; the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple went ballistic when they discovered this 'project' had gone public and then called the Secret Service as their personal law enforcement agency to seize all the photos and the computer that was used to do it with.
They're going to claim copyright infringement, just for starters, and move on from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apple went ballistic when they discovered this 'project' had gone public and then called the Secret Service as their personal law enforcement agency to seize all the photos and the computer that was used to do it with.
That seems like a wild claim to make when the simpler explanation is that they found out someone was systematically installing software on their machines that dialed home periodically. That should make any IT security person worth a damn very, very suspicious. Apple made the right call in notifying the authorities.
Once they know the whole story, however, they should back off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then they could have quickly moved on to "hey, what is this software" and "My regional supervisor wants you to stop this, ok?" /or/ "hey, the lead VP in charge of marketing wants to make this part of the next apple ad campaign, this is his office number"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jurisdiction
Personally? I don't think this was the Secret Service. Why on earth would they collect his stuff and just leave? It sounds to me like something Apple themselves would do. These dudes were probably private security of some sort hired to attempt to scare the hell out of the artist. My money says they'll wipe his systems and he'll receive them in the mail in 4-7 weeks from "0 Infinite Loop" with a note inside the box that says "Gotcha! -J" The fact that there isn't any apparent law that they could charge him under would seem to support this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
It hasn't even been determined that Apple wants to charge him with something. Some IT security guy saw something suspicious and reported it to the authorities.
I don't know why everyone is jumping to the conclusion that Apple is amassing an army of lawyers to descend upon the guy in an attempt to "make him pay". Unless you know something I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dangerous
And I want a pony! I'd say we have about the same odds of getting what we want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dangerous
Flip this situation on its head. Are the people who posted cell-phone videos of the Vancouver rioters to help identify them violating privacy laws? Can cops argue that citizens filming them violates privacy laws? Can the people on the beach in the background of your vacation photos get them taken down from your blog?
Be careful what you wish for. When you ask for privacy in public places, what you get is regulated truth - and that is never, ever a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dangerous
Marcus, you bring up a very good point. I would actually agree that you shouldn't have absolute control over your own image, especially in a public place. However, I think that the issue of reasonable expectations needs to be taken into account here.
Are the people who posted cell-phone videos of the Vancouver rioters to help identify them violating privacy laws?
No, if you're rioting, you should reasonably expect that you'd be filmed.
Can cops argue that citizens filming them violates privacy laws?
No, if you're a public employee on public property, you should reasonably expect that you'd be filmed.
Can the people on the beach in the background of your vaation photos get them taken down from your blog?
No, if you're on public property, you should reasonably expect that you'd be filmed.
Now, what about the inside of an Apple store (which I believe is actually private property)? Would the average person walking into that store reasonably expect that they'd have a close-up picture taken of them and posted to the Internet? I don't think so. And that's the difference between your examples and what actually happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
How "close-up" it was and where they thought it might or might not be posted to is irrelevant in a discussion about their expectation of being photographed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
No, that's not my theory. My point is that the "privacy" in "expectation of privacy" isn't a monolithic concept. The concept of privacy has context and is, from a legal standpoint, subject to the expectations of a reasonable person within a given set of circumstances.
Specifically, a reasonable person would expect that there would be security cameras in a store and that they might be recorded. However, this same person would probably expect that if there was a still taken from this recording of them, it would be rather grainy and indistinct.
How "close-up" it was and where they thought it might or might not be posted to is irrelevant in a discussion about their expectation of being photographed.
That's where we disagree. And that's exactly where I think that expectations need to be taken into account. I contend that a reasonable person would not expect that a detailed picture of their face would be taken, stored, and distributed publicly when entering an store.
What if technology advances and private companies can take an MRI of a person from a distance? Wouldn't the level of detail be relevant to a reasonable person's expectations of privacy?
Do people traveling by air expect that a naked body scan is going to be taken of them? No, because in spite of that fact that they are in public, a picture of that detail would be considered private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
That reasonable person would be wrong. I know the cameras at best buy have a very high resolution. You can zoom to take a picture across the store(from that camera) and take a professional photo grade still.
Yeah if I am in a 7-11 I wouldn't expect they can take a high-quality photo, but a lot of higher end chain store have some nice cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
I believe you. However, I don't know if most people know this. And if people were made aware that high resolution pictures can be taken, it would still be considered an invasion of privacy for those recordings to be distributed to the public or, for that matter, used in any context other than for security purposes.
Resolution does count when it comes to privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
depends on the state. My understanding is, in general in the US, you can publish any footage(or still) of anyone as long as no sound is recorded. Which is why you can have sites like peopleofwalmart.com and why everyone in the background isnt blurred out on reality TV. Just because people are misinformed about what can be done with that footage doesn't make it illegal. You keep using the "reasonable person expects" but that only applies to whether or not you can expect privacy in a place, like your home, a hotel room or a bathroom/dressing room. It does not apply to what can be done with the footage that is taken somewhere you can not expect privacy. That is based on state laws not peoples assumptions.
http://www.internettollfree.com/articles/surveillance-security-laws-you-need-to-kn ow-448
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
What most people think does not depend on the laws of a particular state. I'm not just splitting hairs here. I'm trying to clarify the discussion by making the distinction between that the law is and what most people or the "reasonable person" would consider to be "hacking" or an invasion of privacy. It very well may be that something is legal in a state, but still most people in that state would consider it an invasion of privacy. I personally think that just because you're in a public place, does not mean that you are completely subject to any type of picture/scan/recording possible with modern technology. And for the record, I'm not saying that the opposite is true where people think that they should have total control over their image. I see there being a reasonable middle ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
I'm not saying it necessarily has to be all-bets-are-off, but I'm not sure it's quite as simple as finding the correct "middle ground"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
I think we all agree that this is a little creepy and, I know I certainly wouldn't expect it to happen if I was at a demo machine. But beyond an ethics violation this guy didn't do anything wrong. (Hijacking apple's bandwidth is the best argument I have seen and I still don't think it would be enough to get a judgment against him)
So is the lesson to assume less? Or that "most reasonable people" are wrong in their expectations?
"I personally think that just because you're in a public place, does not mean that you are completely subject to any type of picture/scan/recording possible with modern technology."/"but still most people in that state would consider it an invasion of privacy."
Again just because we think it doesn't make it so and doesn't mean we can do anything about it if people do the opposite of what we think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
You do realize the ridiculousness of that statement, don't you? Let me paraphrase: "Ignoring the question of whether what this person did was right or wrong, what this person did wasn't wrong." Awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
Just because I personally don't agree with it doesn't mean I have to think it should be illegal.
I can see how you can screw that up if you only read one sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dangerous
> my permission.
Then the best advice I can give you is this.
Get a notice tattooed on your forehead that cites specific US law, and your demand for payment or other settlement.
Hire a lawyer to draft the correct language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dangerous
A hat or tee shirt might be a little less painful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dangerous
Yeah. Like that guy above me says, and I want a pony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dangerous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dangerous
really, look how cute those are and they are like the size of a pint glass. better than some stupid pony shitting and pissing everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who the what now?
Huh? What does the fact that the computers were in a public place have to do with anything? Regardless of whether the intent was benign, it seems to me that the average person would consider it "hacking" if you installed software on a computer without the owner's express permission.
Say that someone updated a display model computer at Best Buy so that it displayed the better prices at competitor stores? You wouldn't consider this hacking because the computer happened to be in public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who the what now?
How do you differentiate that with simply using the computer without the owner's permission? As far as I know, you don't have to ask anyone at all to start poking around on them.
Say that someone updated a display model computer at Best Buy so that it displayed the better prices at competitor stores? You wouldn't consider this hacking because the computer happened to be in public?
Correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who the what now?
There's a big difference between using the existing programs on a display model and installing a new application on a display model. I think the proverbial reasonable person would see this key distinction.
Correct.
You are surely in the minority with this opinion. Regardless of the legal definition of hacking, I believe that most people would consider this activity to qualify. Are you splitting hairs here? Do you just have a different definition of "hacking" or are you referring to some particular legal point to justify why this would not be hacking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
How so? Can you explain this distinction?
You are surely in the minority with this opinion.
I don't think most reasonable people would assume that bringing up a NewEgg page on a Best Buy computer was a felony. Maybe you hang around a different group of people than I do.
are you referring to some particular legal point to justify why this would not be hacking?
It's not for me to justify why it wouldn't be hacking. It's for you to justify why it would be. Apple puts out computers for the use of public and even allows them to install things to those computers at will (both through the lack of any user restrictions and through store policy). If you can explain how doing so is "hacking", then by all means try. Vague assertions about how installing software suddenly makes a hacking charge possible is pretty silly unless you have something to back it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
The distinction is simply this: that the majority of people would not consider running the calculator app on a display model as hacking, whereas they would consider as hacking what the person in the article did.
I don't think most reasonable people would assume that bringing up a NewEgg page on a Best Buy computer was a felony. Maybe you hang around a different group of people than I do.
I didn't mean bringing up a web page in a browser already installed on the machine. I was trying to think of a relatively benign example. I meant something closer to what the person in the story actually did i.e. install an application.
It's not for me to justify why it wouldn't be hacking. It's for you to justify why it would be.
I intended that to be an honest question, not an attack. I was just hoping to get a little background on your thoughs on the topic to further the discussion.
Apple puts out computers for the use of public and even allows them to install things to those computers at will (both through the lack of any user restrictions and through store policy).
I think that there is a non-trivial distinction between "allowing" someone to do something and not (adequately) restricting someone from doing something. For example, Sony can have laughably weak security on its systems, but that doesn't mean it gave permission for people to hack them.
If you can explain how doing so is "hacking", then by all means try.
Well, if you read my comments carefully, you'll notice that I didn't actually say that I thought what this guy did was hacking. I was referring to "most people". I actually don't think that what this person did would be considered "hacking" by most people in the computer field, just most people on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/computer-hacking/
But the first step before you can go any farther is this:
"intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains--"
He has authorization and did not exceed authorized access. Any member of the public can walk in the store and use the demos -so he has authorized access
People are allowed to install software and the user policies do not block the installation of software -so he did not exceed authorized access.
Just because you think the majority of people don't understand what hacking is does not mean that is what the law is based on. Was this beyond what apple thought people might use it for, probably. But that doesn't make it illegal. Most reasonable people wouldn't think the intended use of a netbook is shove it up someones ass, but if I shoved one up Daryl's ass would I be hacking?
"Sony can have laughably weak security on its systems, but that doesn't mean it gave permission for people to hack them."
The difference here is a security system is just that, a system to block you from doing something or make it secure. Going around that is hacking because it exceeds authorized use. So the comparison is apples to oranges, if Apple had had a laughable weak security feature to prevent this then he would be "hacking."
The only way this would unreasonable use would be if it is illegal. I think its shady but not illegal, but if it turns out otherwise than you could argue he exceeded authorized use. Because the only thing Apple has a reasonable right to assume is that you won't use the demos to do anything illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
He flat out did not have authorization. You seem to think that "it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission." It's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
As far as did someone expressly tell him he could install this specific piece of software, no they didn't. But in the realm of computers that is not what is meant by authorized access, authorized is anything the computer allows you to do without circumventing security protocols. So step by step:
Was he authorized to use the computer at all? Yes, anyone who walks in off the street can use the computers.
Was he authorized to install software? Yes, the user account that he is authorized to use (see above) allows him to install software, therefore he is authorized to do it.
If had to gain unauthorized access then it would be hacking (i.e. secretly use the computer, use a staff computer instead of a demo, use a staff login to access a admin account, or anything else to force the install)
Again, No he did not have express permission to install this specific software. But he was authorized to use the computer(everyone is) and authorized install software (everyone is). He did not use a loophole, fraud, or any other nefarious means to accomplish this. Apple allowed him to use the computer and he did what the computer is set up to allow him to do. Is this what it was intended for, certainly not but that does not mean it is unauthorized.
Personally, I ask for permission and would have never thought to pull a stunt like this but what you and I would do is, again, not the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
Yes, but not in every possible way.
But in the realm of computers that is not what is meant by authorized access
Yes it is.
authorized is anything the computer allows you to do without circumventing security protocols.
Not it isn't. Just because it's possible, doens't mean it's authorized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
"Yes, but not in every possible way." They can't make money off them, he is allowed to take them and post them to a third party website. Can you show one example that says otherwise? My example is peopleofwalmart.com.
"Yes it is."
Yes what is? you take one sentence and say the opposite. Do this count as an argument?
"But in the realm of computers everything you are not expressly told you can do is hacking." That is what you are arguing? That is the opposite of my original thought smashed into one sentence. So you believe if someone you have to ask permission before you do anything? Please defend that statement since it is apparently what you think. Have you been on techdirt at all at work? Did you ask your IT manager if you can go to techdirt, or if you can reply to me? Did you ask him if you can reply to each post individually or if you can just reply to all posts at any time? Are you allowed to go to any website? Do you get permission before going to any non-work related websites? OMG are you a hacker?
"Not it isn't. Just because it's possible, doens't mean it's authorized."
Ok, that sentence was overly broad. But all the words after that are the basis for that sentence, so why don't you look for the flaw and tell me where this becomes hacking. And don't tell me its what you can expect people to do, because if you(as a business decision) leave a computer on and open in public, ask people to come over and use it and not restrict anything they can do why can you expect them to be nice to it?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
No. That would be silly. What I'm saying is that in some conditions you have to ask permission and some conditions you don't. For example, you don't have to ask permission to run an application on a demo computer at an Apple store. Another example: you do have to ask permission if you want to install an application on a demo computer at an Apple store. My point is simply that, like many other things, what constitutes unauthorized access and a privacy violations are dependent on the particular situation.
Let me put it this way, how likely do you think it would have been for the Apple corporation to grant this person access to install his creepy application? Would you agree that it's about zero? If so, don't think this is a pretty good indication that this was not an authorized activity?
why don't you look for the flaw and tell me where this becomes hacking
The topic of that paragraph wasn't about the broader issue of whether what he did was hacking. It was to the more narrow issue of whether what he did was authorized. You contend that because one of the purposes of a computer is to install applications, the Apple store was tacitly granting permission to install an application on their demo computer. My position is that this idea is patently ridiculous. You know Apple doesn't want you installing your own software on their demo machines. Just because they didn't properly lock down the machines or put up a big sign that says "Don't install software on this computer" doesn't mean you have permission to do so. Again, just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's authorized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
From what I've been reading here, that is not true. If you can walk up to a demo machine and install software on it, and Apple doesn't make any indication you're supposed to ask permission, and doesn't attempt to impose any adverse consequences on you for doing so without permission, what makes you think you need to ask permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who the what now?
I would see this as being different but only for one reason, the user account is locked and does not allow you to install applications or make changes to the computer. I believe that Best Buy does not have a network cable connected to the computers. So to install software the person will have to work around the system restrictions. The Apple computers did not have this and installing would be as easy as plugging in a flash drive with the install file set to launch when connected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
All of best buys displays are on the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who the what now?
I honestly don't know the exact wording of the "hacking" laws, but I would assume (or at least hope) there are qualifications for contextual permission. As in, a reasonable person would expect that you can start any application on a display computer and play around with them. But I don't think a reasonable person would think that it was OK to install a new application without the owner's knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
"If Sony didn't want to be hacked, why didn't they have more secure systems?"
"If they didn't want to be robbed, why didn't they lock their door?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
Rape by definition is forced sex, these computers allowed him to put the software on without any complaints, warning or attempts to make him stop so the installation was consensual.
Sony had security, albiet bad security, getting around that security was hacking. These demos had no security feature to block installation, effective or ineffective, so installing the software was not hacking(even though the option to block installation is built into the OS and takes about 8 seconds to activate, the "reasonable person" could assume that if they didn't want you to install stuff they would disable the feature).
In your third instance the door is a security feature, being unlocked its a lot like Sony's security, by going through it you are entering private property which you are not authorized to access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
But that's the point in question, isn't it? Whether what he did is illegal. Whether you call it hacking or something else, I think that either what he did A) was illegal or B) should be illegal. It's an invasion of privacy. Partly because it goes beyond what the average person would expect and partly because, well...it's just downright creepy.
Rape by definition is forced sex, these computers allowed him to put the software on without any complaints, warning or attempts to make him stop so the installation was consensual.
You're joking, right? By your own logic, if a woman is so drunk that she can't say no, the sex is consensual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
As to your other point, again the law is not all about what the average person thinks the law should be. Sometimes that test is used in certain laws. In privacy law it is used for or not you can expect privacy by where you are, as in "can I expect what I am doing to be something only myself or those I expressly permit to see." You can not expect privacy in a department store you are in public surrounded by people. Anyone can be watching you at anytime, and someone probably is at least casually looking at you or they could be taking a picture, and you are certainly being monitored none of that violates your expectations of privacy.
Google "privacy torts" and your state then look for the part on intrusion, you can see for yourself that being in a public place severely limits your privacy rights. If you wanna try and accuse him of appropriation(making money off your image) look for my other post and read the links first but he did not intrude on anything that should be expected to be private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
But neither should being in a public place totally eliminate your privacy rights either.
I'll admit that I'm not an expert in privacy laws. That's why I can't say whether what he did is illegal. I do know, however, that many laws have built into them some subjectivity based on the average or "reasonable" person. For example, the laws/regulations about indecency take into account the public's current definition of idecent. They didn't change the law that you can now say son of a bitch or show a naked butt on TV; it's just that the times changed.
I don't know if the privacy laws are flexible like this, but I think they should be. This would be at least one way to account for changing technology. As I said in another comment, if someone invents an MRI machine that can be used from several feet away, I think that most people would consider this to be an invasion of privacy if, for example, your insurance company did a scan without your permission even if you were in a public place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
They already got something pretty close, look up "mobile backscatter xray"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
and you are right I should have said "criminal" instead of "illegal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
I agree. I think your analogy to the events at the Apple store is appropriate. For me, the difference is a matter of degree, not kind. It really is like taking all of the donuts. Bt donuts are petty theft, whereas issues of privacy are far more important to the average person. (Except cops, of course.) As I've stated before, it's about expectations. In your donut example, a reasonable person would expect that taking a donut or two is OK. But taking all of the donuts? Saying that there was not a goon standing there smacking donuts out of the hands of would be thieves doesn't mean it's OK or legal. It just means that the person putting the donuts out had an expectation that this wouldn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who the what now?
Lol, we had a kid that used to come in to the Best Buy I worked at and open Newegg.com on all the demos. He came in every few weeks, not sure why he bothered but we always laughed.
And no, no one ever asked him to leave or stop. The demos are there for people to due as they please with. Certain stuff is restricted by the user account but other than that they can do as they please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who the what now?
I'm not sure of the specifics of the law, but I personally believe that a "reasonable person" wouldn't see navigating to a web site in a browser on a display model as being hacking. Mischievous, yes. But not "hacking". I was thinking more along the lines of installing an exe that showed a message and disabled a soft reboot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
Why do they all agree with you?
And wtf do we care what the expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the what now?
I would hope you don't have many
"would an idiot in a hurry think this activity would be against the law" type deals since the laws should actually have definitions that aren't opinion based.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who the what now?
That's all that anyone needs to hear. There was no "hack". They were merely used. Perhaps they were "mis-used". However, they were never "hacked". Neither were they used without authorization. That authorization is clearly implied.
No "burglary" occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay when the government does it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find this borderline creepy but not a crime
There are already plenty of webcams out there, that broadcast on the web what people are doing in public places. This just seems to push it a little further being closeups of people's faces. If I had been one of those people, I probably wouldn't have liked to have my picture published like that without my knowledge.
Nevertheless the charges laid against him are total bogus and should be thrown out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I find this borderline creepy but not a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, not public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, not public.
Try showing up at WallMart with a camera crew sometime and see what happens.
They might toss you out, it's true. Apple didn't toss this guy out. How are the two related?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, not public.
"Try showing up at WallMart with a camera crew sometime and see what happens."
You get some great shots of some weirdos from the looks of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this is unlawful hacking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creepy!
Is it an invasion of Privacy? I think so. When I walk into a store, such as an Apple Store (or a Best Buy or any store w/ computers available) I think I have a reasonable expectation that the computer will not take a picture of me for future public display.
Is it an illegal invasion of privacy? I suspect not. At best he is violating some unspoken etiquette w/ regards to what you're allowed to do on public computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creepy!
You are fully aware that there is an army of cameras watching you in any of these stores and they are free to do what they want with those pictures and video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Creepy!
Use of someone's likeness without their consent could result in an appropriation claim. That's why, when you watch reality tv shows, people who don't sign waivers and releases are blurred out.
A defense to the claim of appropriation is consent, whoever, these individuals were on private property and did not expressly consent to be a part of Mr. Kyle McDonald's project. With respect to implied consent, I'm not sure a judge would side with McDonald if an individual brought a claim. Because the mall and the Apple Store are private property and McDonald did not himself have consent to photograph, the individuals photographed may not have had the requisite authority to consent (implied or otherwise) to be photographed by McDonald.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Creepy!
Im pretty sure thats only if sound is recorded as well. Which is why all the people in the background have faces even though I'm sure there isn't some kid running around getting them to sign shit. So if your voice is recorded as well then you need to give consent. The rest of that is a popular misconception. IANAL
http://www.internettollfree.com/articles/surveillance-security-laws-you-need-to-know-448
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creepy!
You were right that if you are using it commercially you can get sued for appropriation. The voice deal is still true but that just for the privacy tort. Appropriation can be used with just a still photo if you are making money off it.
So I wondered how likely people are to win a suit against this guy but what qualifies as "making money of it" outside of using it in an actual advertisement is pretty vague, and varies wildly between states, especially involving the internet and art.
I wouldn't doubt some civil suits will come with how popular this has become. It could lead to a big ruling (if any cares about it in 6 months and they don't just settle) for sites like PeopleofWalmart, lamebook(if facebook doesn't kill them first) and their ilk. They technically make money of the images/words of someone else that were made in public. Most sites like this are started for fun(I would hope) but if they have adds and get popular then they are making money, even if its not much.
McDonald is on tumblr so he isn't making money but he is making a name for himself(especially now, Streisand) which as an "artist" could be considered "profitable or commercial" although that doesn't seem to be the spirit of the law.
I still don't think Apple has a case though, unless they can drum something up about lost sales caused by the demos computers perform poorly. I don't think they should be able to win if it did screw with performance, because they could say that about any program and if you can't install anything than they can easily not allow it since they have a demo configuration anyway.
http://www.privacilla.org/releases/Torts_Report.html
Talks about appropriation in each section.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2010fall/law/357c/001/googlemapsandprivacy/civil.html
http ://abovethelaw.com/2006/10/strippers-remorse-that-cat-is-way-out-of-the-bag/
http://www.cas.oksta te.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/privacytorts.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting Concept - what if I go and copyright that. THEN in fact, you could NOT redistribute or take a picture or I could sue, right?
Actually - indeed, wouldn't ANY tattoo that an agency/store or any surveillance takes a picture of be in violation of the DMCA?
It is ART after all - that could REALLY open up Pandora's box, not couldn't it? You could even potentially get stuff like that tossed out of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And he asked "permission" in such a sneaky way - why do you think he did that? Maybe because he knew they'd object to what he was actually planning? And sorry, but asking permission from random people is not the same as actually asking permission from the people you're taking the pictures of. Last time someone randomly asked permission to take my picture I said no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Crosses the line into what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He asked a security guard in the store if he could "take a few pictures" with his camera. He asked an employee if he could install his software on a machine in order to try it out. He did NOT ask if he could install his software on hundreds of machines daily. He did NOT ask if he could surreptitiously take thousands of photos of Apple store customers, without their knowledge or consent.
Why? Because he himself knew that the former set of actions would be allowed, and the later would not. That one set would be considered fair and reasonable, and that one would not.
Did he even attempt to contact Apple corporate about his project? Did he even discuss it with the store manager, or anyone else in authority? Did he even attempt to setup his own computers in order to gather photos for his project? Did he ask friends to install his software? No, no, no, and apparently not.
In short, he lied, dissembled, evaded, and attempted to cover up his actions. Purposely, and deliberately.
That's the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I ask again: Crosses the line into what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the crime again?
Where's the crime again?
Being a jerk a lot of times doesn't make you a criminal.
This is very fortunate for some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hire him!
Even if he is punished for doing this without permission, his creativity should not go unrewarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hire him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait... what are we talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple
(Why the FBI can't do it, I don't know. There's probably quite a bit of overlap.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple
I have no clue why they handle other types.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple
I don't know why either but it is their jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a Case of Reality
So, the question is less of security/violation - there is NONE (at most somewhat inconvenient decryption). The question is how reliable and important is the information accessed. In this case, Nada. Weird, Yes, important, No.
Now you get to guess how reliable the publically accessible data on you is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The person who installed the software and started the "Timer" should be the one who owns the copyright on the images.
After-all, you wouldn't say that Nikon owns some of your family photos just because you didn't actually push the button yourself and the "Camera" took the photo based upon a timer.
Would you ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Apple computer took the photo, but the code was written and installed by McDonald and then transmitted via that code. So while the computer was owned my Apple, the picture was taken by the installed code.
So does the person who owns the machine that "clicks the shutter button" to take a photo own the copyright, or is it owned by the person who wrote the code that causes the machine to "click the shutter button" to take a photo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this guy seems to have set this up to generate publicity and looking at he posts he has suceeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Figured it out
The man in the upper right hand picture was obviously one of theirs. The police threaten to lock you in jail when you record them. The secret service just show up and take all your stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Blog Article on this Subject
My article has links to the statute relied upon in the seizure of McDonald's equipment and the original article I read.
As it stands, the case against McDonald is fairly weak. But that all could change, depending on exactly what they find on his laptop and other media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
Because now-a-days, facial recognition software gives a certain 'value' to a person's face, just by nature of the whole technology. That can be used on Facebook for example to automatically tag images and similar.
It's also unique and - in the case of the Mona Lisa for example, it clearly has an artist value - one that, of course, could vary greatly by a person's subjective opinion, but then the SAME would apply to an Apple Computer. To some, they are worth a lot - to others they have no value...
Therefore, our faces are our own intellectual property. I recommend we start copyrighting them. Then ANY use of said photos could be dealt with by DMCA or other IP laws.
This would categorically take away the supposed 'right' of companies to freely retain my image. I think this is a movement that needs to start - now.
Why not? Couldn't any 'artist' claim their photo on their album is protected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is sarcasm, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personality rights
Otherwise one could just sneak pictures of anything.
I have also asked Apple store personnel on occasion if I could take pictures of the store. But this was just to have a picture of the store.
There are a lot of people that do not feel comfortable being photographed for lots of reasons.
I think this should be respected.
I assume you wouldn't want to be pictured picking your nose, right?
Cheers,
Jens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personality rights
Not true in the US.
I assume you wouldn't want to be pictured picking your nose, right?
No, but I'd rather live in a free country. You take the good with the bad. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret Service is involved in fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secret Service is involved in fraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy is a right, and a store is not public space.
Imagine if he were a known sex offender instead of an "artist" and posted his video simply as "Hot People I Took Pictures Of Secretly" on a page called "Getting Off." Totally gross, right? Now, how would you supporters feel? If you would be repulsed, ask yourself why. This shouldn't be okay just because you like his art or that he is an artist. Those factors can never be a substitute for the consent of the victims or for the consent of Apple to install software. This is no more fair than if he stuck a camera up to your living room window and made a "collage" of you and your neighbors.
With art comes responsibility. Your "artist" badge does not absolve you of knowing right from wrong or give you super powers to take rights from others because it pleases your aesthetic. He's lucky I didn't walk into that store. I'd make sure he'd be in court for the rest of his life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy is a right, and a store is not public space.
Now, everyone over here in the rest of the world knows a few things..
1) Courts have found places like malls and parks and other public areas to be, that is right, Public Areas without any extreme expectation of privacy.
2) Every mall i have visited (and everyone visited by people i know) has had a clear "agreement" posted just inside entrance doors, outlining the statement that you may be photographed or filmed or have oil paintings made of you at any time while in their Public Space and by staying you agreed to allow this. This is usually above the reminder about applicable handgun bans, but below warnings about unattended minors.
In short, "HE DID SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE" is not the same as someone breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do i doubt DecentDiscourse will live up to his name?
I think you, and the others so bothered by this, should take a minute and realize how often you are and can be recorded, by a corporation, the state, or private individuals, and have little control over what happens to the footage. The press caught wind of this so its a big deal and people will look for themselves if they were Apple shopping in NY, but how many pictures of you that you don't know about are on the web. Not many probably, but maybe. If there are, whats the big deal? As long as its something from when you are in public why do you care so much? That's you in public being you, are you ashamed of yourself?
On your way to work, or at a baseball game, walking around with your family, or shopping someone can take a picture of you and do what they like with it, mostly. Is it that big a deal? You know people are looking at you, or can be instantly, when you do it why do you care so much that someone else can look at it later?
Not trying to make F.U.D but really if its a picture of your face in public whats the big deal. Sure a lot of hypotheticals make this worse; a stalker, associated statements(fictional[if not clear] or true[if personal]), or using your image to sell things. But in this case is it not any of that so where is the problem.
Legally depending on the state the law varies pretty wildy but I wouldn't think this violates your privacy in any state, though I am sure someone will want to try. I have a post above with some links if you care.
"He's lucky I didn't walk into that store. I'd make sure he'd be in court for the rest of his life"
So you could both be poor together?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I sure hate "art" and "artists". This fellow was an "artist". The quotes make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By the logic of some people here, what the second manager did isn't illegal, because hey, the sign SAID "free" and it SAID "donutS" didn't it? It never said who could take them or how many they could take or what they could do with them later, right?
By the logic of some other people here, what the second manager did was not only not illegal, it wasn't even WRONG.
I just don't understand some people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In your situation the second manager is an asshole but not a criminal. Hopefully the first one learns and adapts his sign to keep this asshole from taking advantage of him again.
What if the second guy worked at a children's cancer treatment clinic across the street and came and took half the donuts because their fridge broke and they didn't have lunch for the kids? He didn't take them all them and its for a good cause, is this still illegal in your eyes? Where is the limit?
If you make a set of rules and people operate with in that set of rules you can not be mad about things you didn't plan for. If someone has such strict rules for their free donuts they should put it on the sign. What are the rules for the free donuts? Are their exceptions to how free they really are? Do you expect something in return? If you don't lay these things out and people interrupt those questions in their own way its your fault not theirs. Everyone is not a mind reader and you shouldn't expect that everyone will view every situation the same as you.
Quickly flip this situation around. If a law says "no murder" what does that mean? Exactly what it says, it doesn't mean I am allowed only 1 murder, or I can murder with purchase and you can not argue vague reasons why somethings may or may not apply. It just mean NO FUCKING MURDER.
Your sign just means the donuts are free. If they are free with a catch or free with a limit that should be expressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]