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.
The search warrant was issued based on computer fraud. The issue is not taking picture of those people. The issue is unauthorized computer access. Basically, the software he installed gave him access to the computer from a remote location without consent from the computer owner (Apple). The other issue he might face is that this might be considered video surveillance since he still get photos from inside the Apple Store after they close, which could reveal "trade secretes". He is not being charged of anything yet and this is just an investigation.
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.
The apple store isn't a public place. It is a store owned by Apple. If the management at a particular store decides they don't want you there for any reason that doesn't fall sighing anti-discrimination laws (ethnicity/race, gender, religion), then they have every right to kick you out. Why? Because it's PRIVATELY owned and not a public place.
The computers in the store are for demos NOT public use. If you go into the Apple Store expecting to write your 20-page history essay, you will be in for a rude awakening.
People who go to the Apple Store do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact that their likeness will not be published and distributed without their knowledge or consent. That's why model/talent release forms exist. If the dude wants to call himself an artist then clearly his form of art is more akin to photography. Guess what, photographers have to get permission from their subjects before publishing/distributing those works. It's SOP so if thousand of art photographers know this then why doesn't he?
The apple store isn't a public place. It is a store owned by Apple. If the management at a particular store decides they don't want you there for any reason that doesn't fall sighing anti-discrimination laws (ethnicity/race, gender, religion), then they have every right to kick you out. Why? Because it's PRIVATELY owned and not a public place.
The computers in the store are for demos NOT public use. If you go into the Apple Store expecting to write your 20-page history essay, you will be in for a rude awakening.
People who go to the Apple Store do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact that their likeness will not be published and distributed without their knowledge or consent. That's why model/talent release forms exist. If the dude wants to call himself an artist then clearly his form of art is more akin to photography. Guess what, photographers have to get permission from their subjects before publishing/distributing those works. It's SOP so if thousand of art photographers know this then why doesn't he?
And I suppose some of the people whose pictures were taken appointed you as their lawyer, hence your indignation?
Live and let live, this is not an issue that deserves so much attention... Slow weekend for AI, I suppose.
And I suppose some of the people whose pictures were taken appointed you as their lawyer, hence your indignation?
Live and let live, this is not an issue that deserves so much attention... Slow weekend for AI, I suppose.
This is a discussion forum and I was discussing the issue. You say live and let live so why don't you just shut the heck up and let me post. Especially since you didn't have anything constructive to contribute.
This is a discussion forum and I was discussing the issue. You say live and let live so why don't you just shut the heck up and let me post. Especially since you didn't have anything constructive to contribute.
I did, in my previous post. I suggested that the issue was entirely Apple's fault, since they apparently leave their computers unsecured for anyone to misuse. Further, you have no proof, details, or any indication that the artist did anything illegal, just a journalist article saying so without any supporting facts. He may have simply opened a webpage that makes use of the webcam to collect pictures. Yet you're quick to judge.
Also, I considered your suggestion that I should shut up. It was not approved.
I did, in my previous post. I suggested that the issue was entirely Apple's fault, since they apparently leave their computers unsecured for anyone to misuse. Further, you have no proof, details, or any indication that the artist did anything illegal, just a journalist article saying so without any supporting facts. He may have simply opened a webpage that makes use of the webcam to collect pictures. Yet you're quick to judge.
Also, I considered your suggestion that I should shut up. It was not approved.
I definitely think that Apple should have their demos locked to software downloads and that they should wipe them every night. Too bad you chose to ignore the post that I was replying to which mentioned none of that but DID mention how the store is a public place which was false. Want to try and "call out" my posts then reply to the actual points of my post rather than making non-constructive comments. In case you need an example of what a non-constructive comment is, I have one for you. Grown men using emoticons after a dig at someone have the maturity of a five-year-old.
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.
That's what I thought. Only I thought they did it remotely. Because people go on there and text, IM, download mail, take their own pictures, type documents, etc. And while I can understand that Apple probably doesn't want anyone to download and/or install software on the demo computers, I've never seen a sign specifically stating that you can't.
Furthermore, the stores that I've been in do have a batch of point and shoot cameras on display that are hooked up to computers, so it's certainly possible that someone will take your photo while you're in the store. However, I readily admit that that's far different than having your picture taken by the computer without your knowledge and used for an art project without your knowledge or permission.
Personally, I hate most performance and conceptual art - I think it's usually lazy b.s. When I walk into a museum and see a giant room and a tiny video monitor sitting on (let's say) a skeleton and there's a ten second loop of some idiot saying something indecipherable and the description spews some academic b.s. about how the "artist demonstrates the isolation we all feel in urban society", it makes my blood boil that the museum used donations for this. And what I also think is b.s are those who would claim that the artist did their job because it got a reaction out of me. The smell emanating from the trash compactor room in my apartment building also gets a reaction out of me, but it's certainly not art.
And I say that even though my daughter graduated RISD and used to produce much conceptual art herself.
It's not the criminal acts the "artist" and Apple have to worry about. It's the large number of civil suits that will result from his actions. These will be directed at the "artist" and Apple. The "artist" looks like he's broke so Apple will become the real target.
When people go out in public they pretty much waive their right to privacy at least in respect to being photographed. As far as I know there are no conspicuously posted notices at the Apple store which state that there are no cameras allowed, which makes sense since every device in the store has a camera.
..... I suggested that the issue was entirely Apple's fault, since they apparently leave their computers unsecured for anyone to misuse......
Ahh! I see .... so if you don't lock your door at night and I walk in and steal your money, rape your wife, eat all the food in your fridge and kick your dog ...... it's entirely your fault since you apparently left your door unsecured for anyone to misuse .....
As Arte Johnson would say, very interesting ... stupid but interesting ...
Ahh! I see .... so if you don't lock your door at night and I walk in and steal your money, rape your wife, eat all the food in your fridge and kick your dog ...... it's entirely your fault since you apparently left your door unsecured for anyone to misuse .....
As Arte Johnson would say, very interesting ... stupid but interesting ...
Poor analogy. Trespassing, stealing, rape, and animal cruelty are all criminal offenses, not to mention it would be considered home invasion. If the perpetrator rang the door bell and the victim answered the door, the situation would be the same as you described which has nothing in common with the issue of the Apple store computers which are in a public location and the owners have encouraged the public to play with them. I'm not saying what he did is not against the law but certainly not to the extent to which you have made a comparison.
When people go out in public they pretty much waive their right to privacy at least in respect to being photographed. As far as I know there are no conspicuously posted notices at the Apple store which state that there are no cameras allowed, which makes sense since every device in the store has a camera.
The issue would be publishing/distributing the photographs. If someone takes your picture on the bus, it's cool. If the person takes that picture and makes a huge billboard ad, then that's when the problem pops up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Poor analogy. Trespassing, stealing, rape, and animal cruelty are all criminal offenses, not to mention it would be considered home invasion. If the perpetrator rang the door bell and the victim answered the door, the situation would be the same as you described which has nothing in common with the issue of the Apple store computers which are in a public location and the owners have encouraged the public to play with them. I'm not saying what he did is not against the law but certainly not to the extent to which you have made a comparison.
I think his main point is that you can't solely blame the victim of a crime just because you think they could have mitigated their damages.
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)...
I'm with you there, and I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a webcam issue already.
Most of you are just talking out your ass, not having any legal understanding of the issues. I guess this is a public forum and all, but sheesh. These are complex issues that are not trivial to understand just because you think they should be and type a lot of words into your computer.
The most likely thing he'll get busted for is sneaking software onto Apple's computers because Apple has boatloads of smart and powerful attorneys.
But something you guys are mostly skipping over is that he is a (self-proclaimed) artist, and he took many, many close-up photos of individuals without a model release. So what, you say? Public venue? Well, it was private property, but more important than that is that you cannot gain from such photos in any case. That doesn't mean just a direct monetary gain, it means indirect gain as well. A artist or photographer's online portfolio is self-promotion, and self-promotion is a commercial purpose. If he was a bricklayer and did this as a prank, I'm not sure how that would pan out, but if he is an artist, and he gains from this action as a portfolio piece, he could easily find himself in deep shit. Besides being an asshole. Let's hope none of the people he stole photographs of is in hiding from a stalker.
People need to understand the (complex) laws around model releases. The ASMP (American Society of Media Professionals) has good reference materials.
Poor analogy. Trespassing, stealing, rape, and animal cruelty are all criminal offenses, not to mention it would be considered home invasion. If the perpetrator rang the door bell and the victim answered the door, the situation would be the same as you described which has nothing in common with the issue of the Apple store computers which are in a public location and the owners have encouraged the public to play with them. I'm not saying what he did is not against the law but certainly not to the extent to which you have made a comparison.
First of all, my comparison was "over the top" deliberately ... guess you didn't "get that" .... sorry, next time I'll try to make it more obvious.
Secondly, it appears that you agree that his action is possibly/probably against the law .... but you still think Apple is entirely at fault for encouraging the public to play with them .... making it easy to break the law.
Strange "code of ethics" if you ask me. Maybe, if you're determined to find Apple at fault, one can look at it that way, but not if you're trying to be neutral. imo.
I'm wondering why the Secret Service is involved. Shouldn't this be the purview of the FBI? Unless the President or some other official dropped by the Apple Store and was photographed?
Yeah, seems like they've been doing a lot of these busts lately, if I'm reading some of these articles lately? What's up with this?
Yes, but I thought their electronics focus was still protecting financial or critical infrastructure since they are part of Homeland Security and before that Treasury. I guess their purview can be a lot more broad than that including general corporate/consumer issues like this Apple Store.
Reminds me of Warehouse 13:
-Pete, "Secret Service mam."
-Victim, "Secret service? Why is the Secret Service involved in this?"
Comments
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.
The search warrant was issued based on computer fraud. The issue is not taking picture of those people. The issue is unauthorized computer access. Basically, the software he installed gave him access to the computer from a remote location without consent from the computer owner (Apple). The other issue he might face is that this might be considered video surveillance since he still get photos from inside the Apple Store after they close, which could reveal "trade secretes". He is not being charged of anything yet and this is just an investigation.
Clearly, the guard neglected his Apple training because they are supposed to say "As it turns out, you can."
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.
The apple store isn't a public place. It is a store owned by Apple. If the management at a particular store decides they don't want you there for any reason that doesn't fall sighing anti-discrimination laws (ethnicity/race, gender, religion), then they have every right to kick you out. Why? Because it's PRIVATELY owned and not a public place.
The computers in the store are for demos NOT public use. If you go into the Apple Store expecting to write your 20-page history essay, you will be in for a rude awakening.
People who go to the Apple Store do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact that their likeness will not be published and distributed without their knowledge or consent. That's why model/talent release forms exist. If the dude wants to call himself an artist then clearly his form of art is more akin to photography. Guess what, photographers have to get permission from their subjects before publishing/distributing those works. It's SOP so if thousand of art photographers know this then why doesn't he?
The apple store isn't a public place. It is a store owned by Apple. If the management at a particular store decides they don't want you there for any reason that doesn't fall sighing anti-discrimination laws (ethnicity/race, gender, religion), then they have every right to kick you out. Why? Because it's PRIVATELY owned and not a public place.
The computers in the store are for demos NOT public use. If you go into the Apple Store expecting to write your 20-page history essay, you will be in for a rude awakening.
People who go to the Apple Store do in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fact that their likeness will not be published and distributed without their knowledge or consent. That's why model/talent release forms exist. If the dude wants to call himself an artist then clearly his form of art is more akin to photography. Guess what, photographers have to get permission from their subjects before publishing/distributing those works. It's SOP so if thousand of art photographers know this then why doesn't he?
And I suppose some of the people whose pictures were taken appointed you as their lawyer, hence your indignation?
Live and let live, this is not an issue that deserves so much attention... Slow weekend for AI, I suppose.
And I suppose some of the people whose pictures were taken appointed you as their lawyer, hence your indignation?
Live and let live, this is not an issue that deserves so much attention... Slow weekend for AI, I suppose.
This is a discussion forum and I was discussing the issue. You say live and let live so why don't you just shut the heck up and let me post. Especially since you didn't have anything constructive to contribute.
This is a discussion forum and I was discussing the issue. You say live and let live so why don't you just shut the heck up and let me post. Especially since you didn't have anything constructive to contribute.
I did, in my previous post. I suggested that the issue was entirely Apple's fault, since they apparently leave their computers unsecured for anyone to misuse. Further, you have no proof, details, or any indication that the artist did anything illegal, just a journalist article saying so without any supporting facts. He may have simply opened a webpage that makes use of the webcam to collect pictures. Yet you're quick to judge.
Also, I considered your suggestion that I should shut up. It was not approved.
I did, in my previous post. I suggested that the issue was entirely Apple's fault, since they apparently leave their computers unsecured for anyone to misuse. Further, you have no proof, details, or any indication that the artist did anything illegal, just a journalist article saying so without any supporting facts. He may have simply opened a webpage that makes use of the webcam to collect pictures. Yet you're quick to judge.
Also, I considered your suggestion that I should shut up. It was not approved.
I definitely think that Apple should have their demos locked to software downloads and that they should wipe them every night. Too bad you chose to ignore the post that I was replying to which mentioned none of that but DID mention how the store is a public place which was false. Want to try and "call out" my posts then reply to the actual points of my post rather than making non-constructive comments. In case you need an example of what a non-constructive comment is, I have one for you. Grown men using emoticons after a dig at someone have the maturity of a five-year-old.
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.
That's what I thought. Only I thought they did it remotely. Because people go on there and text, IM, download mail, take their own pictures, type documents, etc. And while I can understand that Apple probably doesn't want anyone to download and/or install software on the demo computers, I've never seen a sign specifically stating that you can't.
Furthermore, the stores that I've been in do have a batch of point and shoot cameras on display that are hooked up to computers, so it's certainly possible that someone will take your photo while you're in the store. However, I readily admit that that's far different than having your picture taken by the computer without your knowledge and used for an art project without your knowledge or permission.
Personally, I hate most performance and conceptual art - I think it's usually lazy b.s. When I walk into a museum and see a giant room and a tiny video monitor sitting on (let's say) a skeleton and there's a ten second loop of some idiot saying something indecipherable and the description spews some academic b.s. about how the "artist demonstrates the isolation we all feel in urban society", it makes my blood boil that the museum used donations for this. And what I also think is b.s are those who would claim that the artist did their job because it got a reaction out of me. The smell emanating from the trash compactor room in my apartment building also gets a reaction out of me, but it's certainly not art.
And I say that even though my daughter graduated RISD and used to produce much conceptual art herself.
It's not the criminal acts the "artist" and Apple have to worry about. It's the large number of civil suits that will result from his actions. These will be directed at the "artist" and Apple. The "artist" looks like he's broke so Apple will become the real target.
When people go out in public they pretty much waive their right to privacy at least in respect to being photographed. As far as I know there are no conspicuously posted notices at the Apple store which state that there are no cameras allowed, which makes sense since every device in the store has a camera.
..... I suggested that the issue was entirely Apple's fault, since they apparently leave their computers unsecured for anyone to misuse......
Ahh! I see .... so if you don't lock your door at night and I walk in and steal your money, rape your wife, eat all the food in your fridge and kick your dog ...... it's entirely your fault since you apparently left your door unsecured for anyone to misuse .....
As Arte Johnson would say, very interesting ... stupid but interesting ...
Ahh! I see .... so if you don't lock your door at night and I walk in and steal your money, rape your wife, eat all the food in your fridge and kick your dog ...... it's entirely your fault since you apparently left your door unsecured for anyone to misuse .....
As Arte Johnson would say, very interesting ... stupid but interesting ...
Poor analogy. Trespassing, stealing, rape, and animal cruelty are all criminal offenses, not to mention it would be considered home invasion. If the perpetrator rang the door bell and the victim answered the door, the situation would be the same as you described which has nothing in common with the issue of the Apple store computers which are in a public location and the owners have encouraged the public to play with them. I'm not saying what he did is not against the law but certainly not to the extent to which you have made a comparison.
When people go out in public they pretty much waive their right to privacy at least in respect to being photographed. As far as I know there are no conspicuously posted notices at the Apple store which state that there are no cameras allowed, which makes sense since every device in the store has a camera.
The issue would be publishing/distributing the photographs. If someone takes your picture on the bus, it's cool. If the person takes that picture and makes a huge billboard ad, then that's when the problem pops up.
Poor analogy. Trespassing, stealing, rape, and animal cruelty are all criminal offenses, not to mention it would be considered home invasion. If the perpetrator rang the door bell and the victim answered the door, the situation would be the same as you described which has nothing in common with the issue of the Apple store computers which are in a public location and the owners have encouraged the public to play with them. I'm not saying what he did is not against the law but certainly not to the extent to which you have made a comparison.
I think his main point is that you can't solely blame the victim of a crime just because you think they could have mitigated their damages.
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)...
I'm with you there, and I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a webcam issue already.
The most likely thing he'll get busted for is sneaking software onto Apple's computers because Apple has boatloads of smart and powerful attorneys.
But something you guys are mostly skipping over is that he is a (self-proclaimed) artist, and he took many, many close-up photos of individuals without a model release. So what, you say? Public venue? Well, it was private property, but more important than that is that you cannot gain from such photos in any case. That doesn't mean just a direct monetary gain, it means indirect gain as well. A artist or photographer's online portfolio is self-promotion, and self-promotion is a commercial purpose. If he was a bricklayer and did this as a prank, I'm not sure how that would pan out, but if he is an artist, and he gains from this action as a portfolio piece, he could easily find himself in deep shit. Besides being an asshole. Let's hope none of the people he stole photographs of is in hiding from a stalker.
People need to understand the (complex) laws around model releases. The ASMP (American Society of Media Professionals) has good reference materials.
Poor analogy. Trespassing, stealing, rape, and animal cruelty are all criminal offenses, not to mention it would be considered home invasion. If the perpetrator rang the door bell and the victim answered the door, the situation would be the same as you described which has nothing in common with the issue of the Apple store computers which are in a public location and the owners have encouraged the public to play with them. I'm not saying what he did is not against the law but certainly not to the extent to which you have made a comparison.
First of all, my comparison was "over the top" deliberately ... guess you didn't "get that" .... sorry, next time I'll try to make it more obvious.
Secondly, it appears that you agree that his action is possibly/probably against the law .... but you still think Apple is entirely at fault for encouraging the public to play with them .... making it easy to break the law.
Strange "code of ethics" if you ask me. Maybe, if you're determined to find Apple at fault, one can look at it that way, but not if you're trying to be neutral. imo.
I'm wondering why the Secret Service is involved. Shouldn't this be the purview of the FBI? Unless the President or some other official dropped by the Apple Store and was photographed?
Yeah, seems like they've been doing a lot of these busts lately, if I'm reading some of these articles lately? What's up with this?
Yes, but I thought their electronics focus was still protecting financial or critical infrastructure since they are part of Homeland Security and before that Treasury. I guess their purview can be a lot more broad than that including general corporate/consumer issues like this Apple Store.
Reminds me of Warehouse 13:
-Pete, "Secret Service mam."
-Victim, "Secret service? Why is the Secret Service involved in this?"
Suckers!