"Perhaps, but I doubt that could be proven to be "unauthorized access" beyond reasonable doubt."
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.
"Your average use on a comptuer =/= everybody else's average use."
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.
The fact that the computer was not locked down does not mean that anything is fair game. I think it's pretty clear that installing random stuff to see if it works on the machine is the expectation. Apple definitely did not expect that a user would daily install a program that would take pictures of its customers and send those to a remote site. A good test is probably: If they had seen you do it, would they have stopped you? Given that they sent the Secret Service, the answer appears to be yes. This is definitely falling outside the bounds of how one is expected to use a demo computer.
"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.
I think this is where the "reasonable person" test can come up. It is commonly understood that demo hardware is provided to demo the product. It is also commonly understood that some limited amount of web-surfing/use is acceptable. What he did falls way outside what a reasonable person would consider to be the intended/acceptable use of a floor model.
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.
Yes. But he did not install the software in order to test it. He installed the software on many computers repeatedly (after wipe-outs) in order to use it to transmit information about patrons of the store. This most definitely falls outside the bounds of what Apple is intending when it makes its laptop available for demo. This definitely smells like he exceeded his authorized access.
I'm not sure that the unauthorized access charge is as bogus as you seem to believe. No he didn't have to sign anything before using said computer, but his use of the computers far exceeded the what would be considered "normal" for a display model at a store. It seems to me (and I don't know if the law agrees) that providing a floor model for demo purposes only allows the use of that floor model for what is generally considered to be demo purposes. Installing software that takes pictures of people who use the computer falls far outside what most people would expect to be authorized. The nightly wipe-outs at least shows that Apple did not intend store customers to be able to install software for long periods of time. I think there is a strong argument to be made that on those basis alone, what that guy did should be illegal.
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.
The answer is no. If you own a copy of a movie through legal means (let's say by purchasing the DVD) then go and obtain a copy through an illegal source, you are infringing. Why? 'Cause Disney says so that's why! You got a problem with that?!
I could see a different theory. Let's say I fall asleep next to a bunch of cans of paint, they tip over and I roll in them creating a picture on the floor. It seems pretty clear that because I originated the chain of event which led to the picture's creation, I own the copyright. (Even if that's stupid) So I think here is the same case. By abandoning the camera near monkeys the photographer originated the chain of events which led to the photo's creation. So it seems he owns the copyright.
Or you could just legalize the drug trade and prostitution. That would put an end to the whole crime syndicate thing... It's really hard to run a criminal organization when you have legal competitors who have access to capital markets.
I would. I mean, it's not like I would be wasting something with much value anyways. Once you start to realize that your vote is pretty much irrelevant, you realize that strategic voting is nonsensical. (Or any voting for that matter) So you might as well vote for the person you believe in.
I know... McCain would have done a whole lot better most assuredly. How could we all be stupid as to not notice the brilliance and wonder that illuminated the McCain-Palin ticket? If they were in charge everyone would have gotten a free unicorn.
That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. (I hope we don't have to wait too long for it) The airline sold that person a ticket. Then, for no good reason, they were denied the seat they paid for. If it was me, I would file a lawsuit. When the airline called for settlement, I would simply say: "Pay my lawyer's fees, fire the two people who did this, sue them for damaging your reputation and I'll be happy."
You know. Even though he's pretty bad, it could be worst. And a lot of the things you are complaining about are simply the logical continuation of what other presidents (dems and reps) have done in the past. It's unlikely his successor will do much better. Think on this before calling for "anybody but Zerobama".
He may not be personally selecting whom to prosecute but he does set the tone. And he could have ordered his people to send whistle-blowing cases up the chain of command before making a decision. Maybe not to himself, but to someone who shares his views.
What is very telling is his handling of the Bradley Manning issue which definitely did come to his attention. He just trusted that the DoD was handling things in an acceptable manner. Please note that he did not deny any of the facts that were reported. He could have said: "There were exaggerations. He is actually treated differently than has been reported." What he said amounted to: "What you said is right. We're torturing the poor guy. But I'm ok with it because the DoD says it's ok." No excuse for that.
I was about to write that maybe if Mr. Risen went to jail the people would realize how much they have been misled. But the sad truth is there are only a couple of people who will care. If anyone cares at all, Obama will just blame a bunch of people at the bottom of the ladder and nothing will happen. Maybe they should have screwed in the "The Buck Stops Here" sign on the desk. (Not that it stopped Truman from his own atrocities)
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re:
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
On the post: Google Wants Another Court To Determine If Accessing Open WiFi Is Wiretapping
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
Re: Serious Question...
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
On the post: Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?
Re:
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Seriously...
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Seriously...
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Support for....
I would. I mean, it's not like I would be wasting something with much value anyways. Once you start to realize that your vote is pretty much irrelevant, you realize that strategic voting is nonsensical. (Or any voting for that matter) So you might as well vote for the person you believe in.
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: I't all your fault....
On the post: US Airways Employee Handles Complaining Passenger The 'TSA Way'
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: Whistleblowing
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Re: question from the politically inept
What is very telling is his handling of the Bradley Manning issue which definitely did come to his attention. He just trusted that the DoD was handling things in an acceptable manner. Please note that he did not deny any of the facts that were reported. He could have said: "There were exaggerations. He is actually treated differently than has been reported." What he said amounted to: "What you said is right. We're torturing the poor guy. But I'm ok with it because the DoD says it's ok." No excuse for that.
On the post: The Latest Attempt By The Obama Administration To Punish Whistleblowers
Next >>