So if you go to a baseball game does your rule apply? If I don't want my image on tv how do I express that; I never signed an agreement? Supposing I go to Disneyland and snap a picture there? Is there an assumption that everyone in my picture is aware of and consents to my taking their picture?
A thousand anecdotal examples could be given where this type of behavior is not seen as illegal. It won't stop you flag wavers from screaming for blood though.
So if you go to a baseball game does your rule apply? If I don't want my image on tv how do I express that; I never signed an agreement? Supposing I go to Disneyland and snap a picture there? Is there an assumption that everyone in my picture is aware of and consents to my taking their picture?
A thousand anecdotal examples could be given where this type of behavior is not seen as illegal. It won't stop you flag wavers from screaming for blood though.
Absolutly!! If you go to a baseball game you have to expect to have your face on the giant screen and you really can't complain!! and You have to expect 20 people will take your picture and 5 will post them on the internet!!
So the folks who had their picture taken also had it taken at the bank on the street corner and by ten web cams as they walked down 5th Ave. including the one in front of the Apple store!!
There is no more 4th amendment!! We gave that up a long time ago!! The police don't need a warrant to ask the owner of a street corner webcam for access to their history files!! Or for that matter the grocery for what you bought yesterday!!
Once you walk out your door you are in "Public" and have no expected right for privacy!!
I never handled the ticket; my friend bought it for me and presented it at the gate.
I can appreciate that.
That mass of 3-point type on the back of tickets to most public events spells out what you agree to while attending the event. For baseball there will be a clause that your image may appear on TV and the printed page. This is probably true for most televised sporting events.
That's because Major League Baseball (along with other franchise owners) don't want to be sued (like Apple is going to be sued) by a disgruntled individual who didn't want their picture taken.
You consent to the agreement by purchasing the ticket.
Absolutly!! If you go to a baseball game you have to expect to have your face on the giant screen and you really can't complain!! and You have to expect 20 people will take your picture and 5 will post them on the internet!!
So the folks who had their picture taken also had it taken at the bank on the street corner and by ten web cams as they walked down 5th Ave. including the one in front of the Apple store!!
There is no more 4th amendment!! We gave that up a long time ago!! The police don't need a warrant to ask the owner of a street corner webcam for access to their history files!! Or for that matter the grocery for what you bought yesterday!!
Once you walk out your door you are in "Public" and have no expected right for privacy!!
The Fourth amendment is still very much the rule of law. It prevents us from having a Telescreen in every living room.
That mass of 3-point type on the back of tickets to most public events spells out what you agree to while attending the event. For baseball there will be a clause that your image may appear on TV and the printed page. This is probably true for most televised sporting events.
That's because Major League Baseball (along with other franchise owners) don't want to be sued (like Apple is going to be sued) by a disgruntled individual who didn't want their picture taken.
You consent to the agreement by purchasing the ticket.
Again, you can imagine situations where the ticket was purchased by someone else and handled by them. Apart from posted notices (which might very well be at the gate) there may be other forms of notification, but you could think of ways that individuals could be filmed without consent or knowledge (in the case of posted notices, a blind man who had the ticket purchased for him by a friend, for instance.)
I don't believe privacy in retail space is a general assumption.
I asked the guard if I could pee in the store, and he said yes....
Brilliant. Just brilliant way to illustrate how stupid it is to argue that he asked the security guards if it was ok to photograph in the store (carrying a huge digital SLR) then go on to install software that takes pictures using the isight cameras built into the computers and send them to a server that he can access at home at automatic or controlled intervals.
Want to clarify I neither support or am against this individual, but feel this quote was a great and clever example, in my eyes
I don't believe privacy in retail space is a general assumption.
I agree. But the devil is in the details. Can someone take a picture of you at a baseball game or in an Apple Store, then turn around and use your full face appearing to hold a glass of some brand of beer in a national ad campaign? Can someone use that image to gratuitously ridicule you because of your ethnicity, physical deformity, etc.? Can your "freely obtained" image be photoshopped wearing Nazi regalia and used on a White Power website? There are limits even to a signed away right let alone an assumed one.
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.
No, he said:
Quote:
i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely.
As you yourself quoted. You can't just pick out the one word, "theoretically", out of the context of the entire statement. He clearly stated the artist had demonstrated what was by some considered a theoretical possibility.
"the artist showed the Problem" is a very definitive statement and in no way theoretical. So please don't accuse me of not understanding when your very quote did not support the accusation you directed at me
And the overall point still stands...regardless of any statement the original poster made to defend the artist, the poster's comments amounted to nothing more than excuses for someone's bad behavior, trying to place blame on everyone (Apple, Mac OS security, Mac hardware designs, the other Apple customers, etc) except the artist himself.
As you yourself quoted. You can't just pick out the one word, "theoretically", out of the context of the entire statement. He clearly stated the artist had demonstrated what was by some considered a theoretical possibility.
"the artist showed the Problem" is a very definitive statement and in no way theoretical. So please don't accuse me of not understanding when your very quote did not support the accusation you directed at me
I'm sorry, I just don't see where that says that Kyle McDondald's software had remote control capability. A different sentence, a different thought, and "theoretically" contradicts the idea that remote control was used, it is just a mention of one of the potential problems of a computer having a built-in camera.
All it means is that someone with malice could have done even worse. That has already been done where a school district was caught snooping on students in their home. How this was discovered was a student had been eating Mike-n-Ike and was suspended for prescription drug abuse. I think the investigators found thousands of stored photos of students in their homes.
The artist knew what he was doing. He was trying to make a name for himself. And, he has done just that. In the end, he will be fined and get a show somewhere. As an artist, you have to grab your pub any way you can.
Installing a software on Apple store computers might not be big issue. However, installing a software that take pictures every at specific intervals is considered spying. It is also possible that sound is being recorded. This software can still record activities after the store close. He could see what preparations are being done for new products. His intensions might not be such but the law is not about intensions.
I'm all for "art", and I realize it's difficult to define, but some of these guys are just attention hungry maniacs. Then they try to justify things like graffiti, etc as if it was for the public good or we will learn something about ourselves as humans, etc... what a bunch of fraud. The fact is, he altered property that was not his own without permission and cost the company and government money trying to sort it all out.
Lesson: Get a real craft. Hone it. Master it. Then you can be an artist. Until then, guys like this are a bunch of nits.
Your right, art is difficult to define and more and more people are breaking laws in pursuit of art. You mentioned graffiti which reminded me of the street artists, such as Banksy & Obey, and how many laws they broke, mostly trespassing and vandalism. So far I have yet to see any true harm come from the Apple Store spyware project, I haven't heard about anyone who had a picture taken coming forward with claims of how it negatively impacted their lives. Despite this, I can understand the need for a business to press charges and for the Secret Service to get involved and make an example out of this kind of action to deter others from following this trick up with something far worse.
His project would have not worked if he had said that the computer is taking pics. He wanted to have the people natural, similar like when you glue a camera on an eagle mother and see how she feeds her baby birds.
It was an experiment, not an attempt to spy on people to steal things from them. The artist studied electronic art - what do you expect from him? That he paints pictures with oil paint like in the 15th century???
His project would have not worked if he had said that the computer is taking pics. He wanted to have the people natural, similar like when you glue a camera on an eagle mother and see how she feeds her baby birds.
It was an experiment, not an attempt to spy on people to steal things from them. The artist studied electronic art - what do you expect from him? That he paints pictures with oil paint like in the 15th century???
I'm personally not worried about the privacy. But there are of course legitimate concerns to the exploitation of someone's likeness for personal gain. If he had gotten proper permission from Apple (who do have a right to control site security through video and photos), I wouldn't think there would be a problem on the privacy front.
As it sits, I'd say the law enforcement was doing due diligence. Apple wasn't informed this was going on, their computers were set to transmit captured photos of their control, and that really needed to be checked because they had no way of knowing if it's some sort of corporate espionage, some other malicious activity or something benign.
I went to the website and saw the video in question. Totally innocuous. I cannot tell you people screaming murder what I think of your opinions without invoking Godwin's law.
You seem to believe that since the pictures were taken on Apple's property it would have been okay if Apple took them (without warning), but not if someone else took them. Apple using similar techniques for promotion purposes is apparently okay. Well, this takes care of the privacy concern, unless you apply a double standard.
The other concern is that of unauthorized use of Apple's demo computers. Lots of speculation whether you're allowed to install programs -- well guess what, he may have just opened a website that collects the pictures. Or started Skype. Is that illegal too? Which law forbids it?
If you have issues with people being spied upon in Apple's stores, take it with Apple. Not protecting the demo computers from such type of unauthorized use is just plain ridiculous. What's next, someone launching a DOS attack from Fifth avenue? I think that the police should better check how those stores are managed, I see potential threats in keeping them open...
I'll just go ahead and hack your home computer to take pictures of your kids using it, then. It's for an art project! I'm fine doing it!
Why do you alter the facts? This is not comparable at all! I guess you are mixing up some fact on purpose:
The artist didn't hack the computer.
My computer is placed in my private flat, the apple store is public (everyone CAN go there without limitation)
My home computers purpose is private use, the one in the apple store ist to try it out.
The people in the apple store know that they are NOT in private wherelse my kids would expect that in my flat.
Your argument goes to show what the real problem is: you think it is all private, he hacks the Mac, and everyone feels offended by pictures that are taken. I live in Europe, and if we see what Americans do with those Airport Bodyscanners and how Americans force their passengers to have nude photos taken, this makes US so wommiting. Where is YOUR critical voice here? Instead of putting so much energy into being upset about a 20something year old artist who started his program in an apple store to show us how people look when they are puzzled in front of a computer, it would make more sense to use fight against issues like the nudescanners (who REALLY are an invasion to our private sphere).
Comments
So if you go to a baseball game does your rule apply? If I don't want my image on tv how do I express that; I never signed an agreement? Supposing I go to Disneyland and snap a picture there? Is there an assumption that everyone in my picture is aware of and consents to my taking their picture?
A thousand anecdotal examples could be given where this type of behavior is not seen as illegal. It won't stop you flag wavers from screaming for blood though.
Read the back of your baseball ticket.
Read the back of your baseball ticket.
I never handled the ticket; my friend bought it for me and presented it at the gate.
So if you go to a baseball game does your rule apply? If I don't want my image on tv how do I express that; I never signed an agreement? Supposing I go to Disneyland and snap a picture there? Is there an assumption that everyone in my picture is aware of and consents to my taking their picture?
A thousand anecdotal examples could be given where this type of behavior is not seen as illegal. It won't stop you flag wavers from screaming for blood though.
Absolutly!! If you go to a baseball game you have to expect to have your face on the giant screen and you really can't complain!! and You have to expect 20 people will take your picture and 5 will post them on the internet!!
So the folks who had their picture taken also had it taken at the bank on the street corner and by ten web cams as they walked down 5th Ave. including the one in front of the Apple store!!
There is no more 4th amendment!! We gave that up a long time ago!! The police don't need a warrant to ask the owner of a street corner webcam for access to their history files!! Or for that matter the grocery for what you bought yesterday!!
Once you walk out your door you are in "Public" and have no expected right for privacy!!
I never handled the ticket; my friend bought it for me and presented it at the gate.
I can appreciate that.
That mass of 3-point type on the back of tickets to most public events spells out what you agree to while attending the event. For baseball there will be a clause that your image may appear on TV and the printed page. This is probably true for most televised sporting events.
That's because Major League Baseball (along with other franchise owners) don't want to be sued (like Apple is going to be sued) by a disgruntled individual who didn't want their picture taken.
You consent to the agreement by purchasing the ticket.
Absolutly!! If you go to a baseball game you have to expect to have your face on the giant screen and you really can't complain!! and You have to expect 20 people will take your picture and 5 will post them on the internet!!
So the folks who had their picture taken also had it taken at the bank on the street corner and by ten web cams as they walked down 5th Ave. including the one in front of the Apple store!!
There is no more 4th amendment!! We gave that up a long time ago!! The police don't need a warrant to ask the owner of a street corner webcam for access to their history files!! Or for that matter the grocery for what you bought yesterday!!
Once you walk out your door you are in "Public" and have no expected right for privacy!!
The Fourth amendment is still very much the rule of law. It prevents us from having a Telescreen in every living room.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescreen
I can appreciate that.
That mass of 3-point type on the back of tickets to most public events spells out what you agree to while attending the event. For baseball there will be a clause that your image may appear on TV and the printed page. This is probably true for most televised sporting events.
That's because Major League Baseball (along with other franchise owners) don't want to be sued (like Apple is going to be sued) by a disgruntled individual who didn't want their picture taken.
You consent to the agreement by purchasing the ticket.
Again, you can imagine situations where the ticket was purchased by someone else and handled by them. Apart from posted notices (which might very well be at the gate) there may be other forms of notification, but you could think of ways that individuals could be filmed without consent or knowledge (in the case of posted notices, a blind man who had the ticket purchased for him by a friend, for instance.)
I don't believe privacy in retail space is a general assumption.
I asked the guard if I could pee in the store, and he said yes....
Brilliant. Just brilliant way to illustrate how stupid it is to argue that he asked the security guards if it was ok to photograph in the store (carrying a huge digital SLR) then go on to install software that takes pictures using the isight cameras built into the computers and send them to a server that he can access at home at automatic or controlled intervals.
Want to clarify I neither support or am against this individual, but feel this quote was a great and clever example, in my eyes
I don't believe privacy in retail space is a general assumption.
I agree. But the devil is in the details. Can someone take a picture of you at a baseball game or in an Apple Store, then turn around and use your full face appearing to hold a glass of some brand of beer in a national ad campaign? Can someone use that image to gratuitously ridicule you because of your ethnicity, physical deformity, etc.? Can your "freely obtained" image be photoshopped wearing Nazi regalia and used on a White Power website? There are limits even to a signed away right let alone an assumed one.
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.
No, he said:
i am glad the Artist showed the Problem of a Built in Camera. Theoretically it can be switched on at any Time - remotely.
As you yourself quoted. You can't just pick out the one word, "theoretically", out of the context of the entire statement. He clearly stated the artist had demonstrated what was by some considered a theoretical possibility.
"the artist showed the Problem" is a very definitive statement and in no way theoretical. So please don't accuse me of not understanding when your very quote did not support the accusation you directed at me
And the overall point still stands...regardless of any statement the original poster made to defend the artist, the poster's comments amounted to nothing more than excuses for someone's bad behavior, trying to place blame on everyone (Apple, Mac OS security, Mac hardware designs, the other Apple customers, etc) except the artist himself.
No, he said:
As you yourself quoted. You can't just pick out the one word, "theoretically", out of the context of the entire statement. He clearly stated the artist had demonstrated what was by some considered a theoretical possibility.
"the artist showed the Problem" is a very definitive statement and in no way theoretical. So please don't accuse me of not understanding when your very quote did not support the accusation you directed at me
I'm sorry, I just don't see where that says that Kyle McDondald's software had remote control capability. A different sentence, a different thought, and "theoretically" contradicts the idea that remote control was used, it is just a mention of one of the potential problems of a computer having a built-in camera.
All it means is that someone with malice could have done even worse. That has already been done where a school district was caught snooping on students in their home. How this was discovered was a student had been eating Mike-n-Ike and was suspended for prescription drug abuse. I think the investigators found thousands of stored photos of students in their homes.
I'm all for "art", and I realize it's difficult to define, but some of these guys are just attention hungry maniacs. Then they try to justify things like graffiti, etc as if it was for the public good or we will learn something about ourselves as humans, etc... what a bunch of fraud. The fact is, he altered property that was not his own without permission and cost the company and government money trying to sort it all out.
Lesson: Get a real craft. Hone it. Master it. Then you can be an artist. Until then, guys like this are a bunch of nits.
Your right, art is difficult to define and more and more people are breaking laws in pursuit of art. You mentioned graffiti which reminded me of the street artists, such as Banksy & Obey, and how many laws they broke, mostly trespassing and vandalism. So far I have yet to see any true harm come from the Apple Store spyware project, I haven't heard about anyone who had a picture taken coming forward with claims of how it negatively impacted their lives. Despite this, I can understand the need for a business to press charges and for the Secret Service to get involved and make an example out of this kind of action to deter others from following this trick up with something far worse.
Plus benevolently pointing out this security loophole is a gift from the Gods!
His project would have not worked if he had said that the computer is taking pics. He wanted to have the people natural, similar like when you glue a camera on an eagle mother and see how she feeds her baby birds.
It was an experiment, not an attempt to spy on people to steal things from them. The artist studied electronic art - what do you expect from him? That he paints pictures with oil paint like in the 15th century???
Freedom of art!
I'll just go ahead and hack your home computer to take pictures of your kids using it, then.
It's for an art project! I'm fine doing it!
Freedom of art!
His project would have not worked if he had said that the computer is taking pics. He wanted to have the people natural, similar like when you glue a camera on an eagle mother and see how she feeds her baby birds.
It was an experiment, not an attempt to spy on people to steal things from them. The artist studied electronic art - what do you expect from him? That he paints pictures with oil paint like in the 15th century???
I'm personally not worried about the privacy. But there are of course legitimate concerns to the exploitation of someone's likeness for personal gain. If he had gotten proper permission from Apple (who do have a right to control site security through video and photos), I wouldn't think there would be a problem on the privacy front.
As it sits, I'd say the law enforcement was doing due diligence. Apple wasn't informed this was going on, their computers were set to transmit captured photos of their control, and that really needed to be checked because they had no way of knowing if it's some sort of corporate espionage, some other malicious activity or something benign.
You seem to believe that since the pictures were taken on Apple's property it would have been okay if Apple took them (without warning), but not if someone else took them. Apple using similar techniques for promotion purposes is apparently okay. Well, this takes care of the privacy concern, unless you apply a double standard.
The other concern is that of unauthorized use of Apple's demo computers. Lots of speculation whether you're allowed to install programs -- well guess what, he may have just opened a website that collects the pictures. Or started Skype. Is that illegal too? Which law forbids it?
If you have issues with people being spied upon in Apple's stores, take it with Apple. Not protecting the demo computers from such type of unauthorized use is just plain ridiculous. What's next, someone launching a DOS attack from Fifth avenue? I think that the police should better check how those stores are managed, I see potential threats in keeping them open...
I asked the guard if I could pee in the store, and he said yes....
Clearly, the guard neglected his Apple training because they are supposed to say "As it turns out, you can."
I'll just go ahead and hack your home computer to take pictures of your kids using it, then. It's for an art project! I'm fine doing it!
Why do you alter the facts? This is not comparable at all! I guess you are mixing up some fact on purpose:
The artist didn't hack the computer.
My computer is placed in my private flat, the apple store is public (everyone CAN go there without limitation)
My home computers purpose is private use, the one in the apple store ist to try it out.
The people in the apple store know that they are NOT in private wherelse my kids would expect that in my flat.
Your argument goes to show what the real problem is: you think it is all private, he hacks the Mac, and everyone feels offended by pictures that are taken. I live in Europe, and if we see what Americans do with those Airport Bodyscanners and how Americans force their passengers to have nude photos taken, this makes US so wommiting. Where is YOUR critical voice here? Instead of putting so much energy into being upset about a 20something year old artist who started his program in an apple store to show us how people look when they are puzzled in front of a computer, it would make more sense to use fight against issues like the nudescanners (who REALLY are an invasion to our private sphere).