I would venture a wild guess that what happened is:
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.
I've ever seen a sign that says you can't throw the demo ipads on the floor, so by your logic that would be okay to do?
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.
Well, I don't know about Mike, but seeing as I'm the writer of the post, I'll respond:
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.
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 . . .
I (like many other fans of the original, I'm sure), was skeptical that the new game could live up to the memory of the first game, especially after they dumbed-down the sequel so badly, but after a couple of hours with the "demo", I immediately pre-ordered the collector's edition; it's going to be fantastic.
I think this leak is going to make Square millions.
When it is no longer economically viable to produce the content you are all pirating, you will be left with the content created by people who can adapt to new business models.
This has to be someone trolling. I refuse to believe that even a lawyer can be this much of an asshole.
Pretty funny though, I'll give the puppeteer that much. And he gets bonus points for including the link to the guy's webpage. I imagine that the real Pascazi will see some not-so-funny (for him) real life consequences out of it too, so that's just icing on the cake .
I can't tell if he's trying to do this to make a point about something, or if he really is enough of a scumbag to think he's in the right here.
I mean, he basically comes right out and says that he's trying to do it just because he thinks he can get away with it. If he's not just trolling, he really is the second biggest asshole I've heard of this week.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: Re: This ain't "art": it's computer aided snooping.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
Re: No state law violation
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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.
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:
-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 . . .
On the post: Secret Service Descends on Artist For Mildly Creepy Public Photography
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 . . .
On the post: Definition Of Irony: Deus Ex Leak Spawns Conspiracy Theories
This Leak Will Make SE Millions
I think this leak is going to make Square millions.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Accidental or Intentional?
On the post: Marcel de Jong's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Marketing Music Through Non-Linear Communication: Accepting The Full Reality Of The Digital Age
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Explains His Legal Theory
Re:
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Explains His Legal Theory
Re: Voglio Bitcoin in Italia
Pretty funny though, I'll give the puppeteer that much. And he gets bonus points for including the link to the guy's webpage. I imagine that the real Pascazi will see some not-so-funny (for him) real life consequences out of it too, so that's just icing on the cake .
On the post: Lawyer Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Explains His Legal Theory
It Boggles The Mind
I mean, he basically comes right out and says that he's trying to do it just because he thinks he can get away with it. If he's not just trolling, he really is the second biggest asshole I've heard of this week.
On the post: TSA Planning New, Even More Invasive Security Measures In Response To 'Threat' Of Implanted Bombs
Re:
On the post: Couple Trying To Trademark Bitcoin Via Dubious Claims
Re: Bitcoin Trademark in Civil Law Countries
On the post: Trolls: The Town Drunks Of The Internet
Re:
Troll detected!
On the post: Using Gaming To Drive Desired Behavior: Privacy Policy As A Game
Re: Hmmm...
On the post: Trolls: The Town Drunks Of The Internet
So Basically
Next >>