To be called an artist, you'd figure that the person would at least have to be doing something artistic. Any talentless hobo or person born with zero artistic skills can install spyware on a bunch of computers and snap photos of people without their knowledge every 60 seconds. There is no artistic skill involved in that. Recording a great song, painting a masterpiece, writing a book, creating a game, those are all things that require artistic talent. This foolish computer stunt requires no such talent whatsoever and since there is no artistry involved at all, the person can hardly be called an artist, because that is an even greater insult to art and to real artists.
And thus the question, what is art? To me art is an expression of ones self emotion. What they are thinking, what they are wanting, what they are needing, what they arefeeling, what they are smelling, what they are hearing. I use to go to the Museum of Modern Arts and thinking to myself, this canvas with nothing but black paint is NOT art but then I came to realize that art is of the senses, your own senses. In this case, it is interactive art, voyeuristic art.
Am I defending Kyle McDonald? No. Am I defending art? Yes.
. At first, he thought Apple had Days later, four Secret Service agents visited his house with a search warrant for computer fraud. According to the report, they confiscated two computers, an iPod and two flash drives and notified him that Apple would contact him separately.
I asked the Apple store security if it was ok to take pictures, but did not specify the means of taking photos. They said it was good, and encouraged me to take photos.
Somehow, I don't think this is what the store security had in mind as taking photos. It just doesn't sound like the guy has a lot of street sense about him. I wouldn't be surprised if a reading of the law in this circumstance can interpret this as computer hacking (installation of unauthorized software) and espionage (covertly recording information and sending it to a secret location for later examination). The only difference is broader intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bodypainter
You are wrong! The computers have no password, no protection. They are there to be tested and used. The problem was that the computer kept being in the same state like after his software was started. He could have "forget" about closing it. We are now reminded that every computer with a camera can take pictures of us. That is an artist compatible issue.
If it was just one or two computers, OK. Other stories said he installed it on hundreds of computers, and he went back to reinstall the software after routine computer wipes. To say he "forgot" to remove it doesn't really fly on the plausibility meter. And then there's the matter of the computer being set to send photographs to some undisclosed remote location, I can see why it would look like espionage.
If the computers aren't set to restrict the installation of software, then I expect that to change.
Well, the Macs are actually there to Be testet out. If the Artists Test was to See if the Software Works then it is Not fraud. And everyone who Used them Saw that the Camera light was Lit up. So: they got Warner, it was signaled that the Cam was on.
However, i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely. We all forget about it, but it's a fact. And in this case apple is to blame, because they don't even design the cam so that you can close the camera hole with a sliding element (or so)...
You are wrong on several levels. People have right to expect that their privacy is protected. Then, you can not test your softever on any computer, other then yours, without asking for permission, even if it is a test unit, in this case a showcase unit. Finaly, most of store attendants are new Apple customers, and many of them are not aware of every aspect of those computers (camera indicators and others) and they are the tricked ones. At the end you have a prospective buyer, who suddenly became a showpiece all over the internet, and that is a very bad from Apple perspective.
First the first posts in that thread are very much akin to "he should be shot", which itself is fascinating (Hey, Apple is that think-different-company, with the black-turtleneck-and-jeans-ceo who went to India, experimented with LSD, you know "countercultural"... it's supposed to be the "open-Minded" company, so stop being stuck-up right-wing douchebaggy conservatives... or don't post, at least ).
Second, this is really interesting: what's art, what's the limits of art, is intent more important than acts themselves (if you kill someone with a gun accidentally, your sentence is not the same as if you kill someone with your car on purpose, so intent is by law very important).
I hope that guy gets away with it, just because it's an interesting project, and also because what he did was not really that bad. Sony has done way worse for the money with their trojan horse, a decade ago... Don't plead for the destruction of a young (and possibly dimwitted) guy's life, this is just not nice...
By the way, my Mom's got a black opaque plastic thingy over her camera... it's ugly, but it makes her feel safer
First the first posts in that thread are very much akin to "he should be shot", which itself is fascinating
Not akin except by the slight degree, please don't exaggerate like that.
Quote:
(Hey, Apple is that think-different-company, with the black-turtleneck-and-jeans-ceo who went to India, experimented with LSD, you know "countercultural"... it's supposed to be the "open-Minded" company, so stop being stuck-up right-wing douchebaggy conservatives... or don't post, at least ).
Much of that is four decades ago. Apple has long ceased to be countercultural to that degree. I don't think a casually dressed tech CEO is countercultural anymore. Having taken LSD in the 60's doesn't in itself mean anything now in 2011.
Quote:
Second, this is really interesting: what's art, what's the limits of art, is intent more important than acts themselves (if you kill someone with a gun accidentally, your sentence is not the same as if you kill someone with your car on purpose, so intent is by law very important).
I hope that guy gets away with it, just because it's an interesting project, and also because what he did was not really that bad. Sony has done way worse for the money with their trojan horse, a decade ago...
Sony was punished to varying degrees, they lost lawsuits and settled class action suits too. But I agree they should have been dealt with more strictly.
Intent is important, but as you suggest, lack of intent doesn't always eliminate the burden of having broken the law, if it is punished, it is usually factored in for a lesser punishment depending on the circumstances in question.
Quote:
Don't plead for the destruction of a young (and possibly dimwitted) guy's life, this is just not nice...
I don't think he'll get the full force of the law, I hope not. But his statements are jaw-droppingly ignorant, or ridiculously weasely, hard to decide which. I don't understand how he could hear "OK to take pictures" and then decide that means it's OK to install software on computers he doesn't own (was he not taught respect for property?) to take and transmit pictures to a remote location. It's surprising to see someone supposedly educated but so completely oblivious to possible legal ramifications. Don't they cover legal issues as part of an art degree? Art is more than just taking art classes.
To be called an artist, you'd figure that the person would at least have to be doing something artistic.
Damien Hirst is probably the best selling living artist, he never makes his own works, he just describes the idea to one of his team and has them fabricate it. Oh and on several occasions those ideas have turned out to be copies of other people's work such as his anatomical dummy.
Turns out there's no real talent requirement to be an artist, you just have to decide to be one.
I wouldn't call it art, more like a science experiment. But still an interesting idea, and I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble for it. I wonder if the Secret Service were concerned about identity theft, because if he's taking their photo maybe he's recording their keystrokes (passwords etc) too. I somehow doubt this is the case, and think they will let him go once they have inspected the software.
I for one am getting really sick and tired of having to "opt-out" of things like this. Facebook face recognition? It's on unless you "opt-out"! People uploading photos of you to facebook and tagging them? It's on unless you "opt-out". People soliciting your cell phone? It's on unless you "opt-out". There really needs to be some changes about this stuff.
Well, the Macs are actually there to Be testet out. If the Artists Test was to See if the Software Works then it is Not fraud. And everyone who Used them Saw that the Camera light was Lit up. So: they got Warner, it was signaled that the Cam was on.
However, i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely. We all forget about it, but it's a fact. And in this case apple is to blame, because they don't even design the cam so that you can close the camera hole with a sliding element (or so)...
You are wrong on almost every point in your post. Only in a world of fantasy would any of your arguments have any legal merit whatsoever. Just because the computers are there for users to try out does not give you permission to install anything on them. And the fact that he installed the software on many, many computers shows that his intent was not to "test" anything. His intent was to abuse his access to Apple's property.
And can you please point out where in the article it stays the camera was operated remotely? You say it's a "fact". Please show us this fact. Since you apparently failed to read the article the first time, let me help you out:
Quote:
McDonald installed his software, which captured photos every minute and sent them to a server, on roughly 100 computers in the company's stores. The artist has created a blog displaying the images.
The camera was not remotely activated. There was no remote hacking or control. The software was simply taking photos at intervals and sending them.
Your entire argument defending this guy is the same as the "open door defense". "Well judge, the victim left the door to his house open, so you can't blame me for robbing him."
However, i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
And can you please point out where in the article it stays the camera was operated remotely? You say it's a "fact". Please show us this fact. Since you apparently failed to read the article the first time, let me help you out:
The camera was not remotely activated. There was no remote hacking or control. The software was simply taking photos at intervals and sending them.
Can you please try to understand what someone said before attacking him? He said, and I highlighted, theoretically. It was not an accusation that Kyle McDonald had that capability. It was a statement of something that someone can do hypothetically. Please don't complain that he's adding falsehoods to the story when it's clear you really didn't understand the point of that part of his post.
And thus the question, what is art? To me art is an expression of ones self emotion. What they are thinking, what they are wanting, what they are needing, what they arefeeling, what they are smelling, what they are hearing. I use to go to the Museum of Modern Arts and thinking to myself, this canvas with nothing but black paint is NOT art but then I came to realize that art is of the senses, your own senses. In this case, it is interactive art, voyeuristic art.
Am I defending Kyle McDonald? No. Am I defending art? Yes.
When I worked at an Apple Store in the first year or two they were open, it was standard practice to erase and restore every computer in the store every night after closing. This effectively minimized shenanigans such as this. It was a pain in the ass, and no one wanted to have do it (walk around with a LaCie portable hard drive and plug in to each Mac and wait). If they discontinued this practice to save time and money, then it just bit them. One would think that today it could be done remotely on the local network, which makes me wonder why it wasn't done.
1) To me he at the very least guilty of some privacy laws and some level of computer fraud.
2) I was in the 5th Ave store in NYC last weekend and took photos inside, no guards or employee's said anything to me. Took the below photo with my 360 Panoramic app, took several photos with no worry. Why would anyone ask to take photos? Don't ask - just do until someone tells you to stop.
Comments
At first, he thought Apple had Days later, four Secret Service agents visited his house with a search warrant for computer fraud.
WTF does that sentence mean?
WTF does that sentence mean?
To be called an artist, you'd figure that the person would at least have to be doing something artistic. Any talentless hobo or person born with zero artistic skills can install spyware on a bunch of computers and snap photos of people without their knowledge every 60 seconds. There is no artistic skill involved in that. Recording a great song, painting a masterpiece, writing a book, creating a game, those are all things that require artistic talent. This foolish computer stunt requires no such talent whatsoever and since there is no artistry involved at all, the person can hardly be called an artist, because that is an even greater insult to art and to real artists.
And thus the question, what is art? To me art is an expression of ones self emotion. What they are thinking, what they are wanting, what they are needing, what they arefeeling, what they are smelling, what they are hearing. I use to go to the Museum of Modern Arts and thinking to myself, this canvas with nothing but black paint is NOT art but then I came to realize that art is of the senses, your own senses. In this case, it is interactive art, voyeuristic art.
Am I defending Kyle McDonald? No. Am I defending art? Yes.
. At first, he thought Apple had Days later, four Secret Service agents visited his house with a search warrant for computer fraud. According to the report, they confiscated two computers, an iPod and two flash drives and notified him that Apple would contact him separately.
This doesn't make sense.
I asked the Apple store security if it was ok to take pictures, but did not specify the means of taking photos. They said it was good, and encouraged me to take photos.
Somehow, I don't think this is what the store security had in mind as taking photos. It just doesn't sound like the guy has a lot of street sense about him. I wouldn't be surprised if a reading of the law in this circumstance can interpret this as computer hacking (installation of unauthorized software) and espionage (covertly recording information and sending it to a secret location for later examination). The only difference is broader intent.
You are wrong! The computers have no password, no protection. They are there to be tested and used. The problem was that the computer kept being in the same state like after his software was started. He could have "forget" about closing it. We are now reminded that every computer with a camera can take pictures of us. That is an artist compatible issue.
If it was just one or two computers, OK. Other stories said he installed it on hundreds of computers, and he went back to reinstall the software after routine computer wipes. To say he "forgot" to remove it doesn't really fly on the plausibility meter. And then there's the matter of the computer being set to send photographs to some undisclosed remote location, I can see why it would look like espionage.
If the computers aren't set to restrict the installation of software, then I expect that to change.
Well, the Macs are actually there to Be testet out. If the Artists Test was to See if the Software Works then it is Not fraud. And everyone who Used them Saw that the Camera light was Lit up. So: they got Warner, it was signaled that the Cam was on.
However, i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely. We all forget about it, but it's a fact. And in this case apple is to blame, because they don't even design the cam so that you can close the camera hole with a sliding element (or so)...
You are wrong on several levels. People have right to expect that their privacy is protected. Then, you can not test your softever on any computer, other then yours, without asking for permission, even if it is a test unit, in this case a showcase unit. Finaly, most of store attendants are new Apple customers, and many of them are not aware of every aspect of those computers (camera indicators and others) and they are the tricked ones. At the end you have a prospective buyer, who suddenly became a showpiece all over the internet, and that is a very bad from Apple perspective.
Second, this is really interesting: what's art, what's the limits of art, is intent more important than acts themselves (if you kill someone with a gun accidentally, your sentence is not the same as if you kill someone with your car on purpose, so intent is by law very important).
I hope that guy gets away with it, just because it's an interesting project, and also because what he did was not really that bad. Sony has done way worse for the money with their trojan horse, a decade ago... Don't plead for the destruction of a young (and possibly dimwitted) guy's life, this is just not nice...
By the way, my Mom's got a black opaque plastic thingy over her camera... it's ugly, but it makes her feel safer
It was a douchebag thing to do and he looks like a douchebag too.
... but it's art! Are you a neanderthal or something?
First the first posts in that thread are very much akin to "he should be shot", which itself is fascinating
Not akin except by the slight degree, please don't exaggerate like that.
(Hey, Apple is that think-different-company, with the black-turtleneck-and-jeans-ceo who went to India, experimented with LSD, you know "countercultural"... it's supposed to be the "open-Minded" company, so stop being stuck-up right-wing douchebaggy conservatives... or don't post, at least
Much of that is four decades ago. Apple has long ceased to be countercultural to that degree. I don't think a casually dressed tech CEO is countercultural anymore. Having taken LSD in the 60's doesn't in itself mean anything now in 2011.
Second, this is really interesting: what's art, what's the limits of art, is intent more important than acts themselves (if you kill someone with a gun accidentally, your sentence is not the same as if you kill someone with your car on purpose, so intent is by law very important).
I hope that guy gets away with it, just because it's an interesting project, and also because what he did was not really that bad. Sony has done way worse for the money with their trojan horse, a decade ago...
Sony was punished to varying degrees, they lost lawsuits and settled class action suits too. But I agree they should have been dealt with more strictly.
Intent is important, but as you suggest, lack of intent doesn't always eliminate the burden of having broken the law, if it is punished, it is usually factored in for a lesser punishment depending on the circumstances in question.
Don't plead for the destruction of a young (and possibly dimwitted) guy's life, this is just not nice...
I don't think he'll get the full force of the law, I hope not. But his statements are jaw-droppingly ignorant, or ridiculously weasely, hard to decide which. I don't understand how he could hear "OK to take pictures" and then decide that means it's OK to install software on computers he doesn't own (was he not taught respect for property?) to take and transmit pictures to a remote location. It's surprising to see someone supposedly educated but so completely oblivious to possible legal ramifications. Don't they cover legal issues as part of an art degree? Art is more than just taking art classes.
To be called an artist, you'd figure that the person would at least have to be doing something artistic.
Damien Hirst is probably the best selling living artist, he never makes his own works, he just describes the idea to one of his team and has them fabricate it. Oh and on several occasions those ideas have turned out to be copies of other people's work such as his anatomical dummy.
Turns out there's no real talent requirement to be an artist, you just have to decide to be one.
WTF does that sentence mean?
Wonder if Ai are still looking for an editor? Methinks it is time.
Well, the Macs are actually there to Be testet out. If the Artists Test was to See if the Software Works then it is Not fraud. And everyone who Used them Saw that the Camera light was Lit up. So: they got Warner, it was signaled that the Cam was on.
However, i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely. We all forget about it, but it's a fact. And in this case apple is to blame, because they don't even design the cam so that you can close the camera hole with a sliding element (or so)...
You are wrong on almost every point in your post. Only in a world of fantasy would any of your arguments have any legal merit whatsoever. Just because the computers are there for users to try out does not give you permission to install anything on them. And the fact that he installed the software on many, many computers shows that his intent was not to "test" anything. His intent was to abuse his access to Apple's property.
And can you please point out where in the article it stays the camera was operated remotely? You say it's a "fact". Please show us this fact. Since you apparently failed to read the article the first time, let me help you out:
McDonald installed his software, which captured photos every minute and sent them to a server, on roughly 100 computers in the company's stores. The artist has created a blog displaying the images.
The camera was not remotely activated. There was no remote hacking or control. The software was simply taking photos at intervals and sending them.
Your entire argument defending this guy is the same as the "open door defense". "Well judge, the victim left the door to his house open, so you can't blame me for robbing him."
However, i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely.
And can you please point out where in the article it stays the camera was operated remotely? You say it's a "fact". Please show us this fact. Since you apparently failed to read the article the first time, let me help you out:
The camera was not remotely activated. There was no remote hacking or control. The software was simply taking photos at intervals and sending them.
Can you please try to understand what someone said before attacking him? He said, and I highlighted, theoretically. It was not an accusation that Kyle McDonald had that capability. It was a statement of something that someone can do hypothetically. Please don't complain that he's adding falsehoods to the story when it's clear you really didn't understand the point of that part of his post.
And thus the question, what is art? To me art is an expression of ones self emotion. What they are thinking, what they are wanting, what they are needing, what they arefeeling, what they are smelling, what they are hearing. I use to go to the Museum of Modern Arts and thinking to myself, this canvas with nothing but black paint is NOT art but then I came to realize that art is of the senses, your own senses. In this case, it is interactive art, voyeuristic art.
Am I defending Kyle McDonald? No. Am I defending art? Yes.
Well said.
2) I was in the 5th Ave store in NYC last weekend and took photos inside, no guards or employee's said anything to me. Took the below photo with my 360 Panoramic app, took several photos with no worry. Why would anyone ask to take photos? Don't ask - just do until someone tells you to stop.