Apple Store Artist Raided By Secret Service 376
An anonymous reader writes "Artist Kyle McDonald wanted to create something that captured people's expressions as they stared at computers. So the 25-year-old artist installed a program on computers in two New York Apple Store locations that would automatically take a photo every minute of whoever was standing in front of the computer. McDonald then uploaded the photos to his Tumblr blog, 'People Staring at Computers,' made a video with the photographs, and set up 'an exhibition' at the Apple stores to show what he had found. Within days, the Secret Service, which investigates computer crimes, had raided McDonald's house, seizing his two laptops, two flash drives and iPod."
nice! (Score:2)
art cannot be the new terrorism for justfying anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't see any art here.
Well, people say that about a lot of things. It's definitely a creative work, and aside from personal preferences, there really isn't much reason to say it's not art.
On the other hand, I certainly don't see any computer fraud, or criminal elevation of privileges, or anything that the Secret Service should be concerned about.
Computer crime. This was using computers unauthorized.
And the reason Apple would take this to the authorities is pretty clear. They don't want people to be worried that if they look at some of their computers, they are going to end up on some artist's web site.
Re:Don't see "art" here (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh... he installed hidden software that took pictures every minute and sent them to him, without the permission of the owner. Things like that tend to get you into trouble. Just ask this guy [msn.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us have RTFA. The guy asked permission from the security people before installing. So - if the owner gives permission, he's in the clear, right?
And, why is it the Secret Service that is investigating this?
Re: (Score:3)
I asked this guy walking by your car if I could take it and he said yes, I am in the clear, right?
Re: (Score:3)
The guy asked a "security guard" (never seen one of them at an Apple store... but whatever) if he could take photographs in the store. That is not the same thing as installing spyware, which is essentially what he did.
Secret Service will handle things like credit card fraud, it may be possible they believed he was doing more than just taking photos.
Re: (Score:3)
installed hidden software
But I thought Macs were immune to malware...
Double standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Where were they when that school in Merion installed spycam software on all the pupil's laptops to record them in their dormrooms?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a completely different situation. The issue is that the artist had no right to install software on a machine without the permission of the machine's owner. The school in Merlon installed (admittedly disgusting) software on computers they owned.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue is that the artist had no right to install software
Ah...it was the installation of some software that was the problem.
Thanks for clearing that one up. The entire country was certainly at risk and getting the Secret Service involved was definitely the right thing to do. There's no way a local policeman could have reprimanded him.
PS: I read the article before posting (hey, it's the way I roll!) and it mentions something about him asking permission before doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it mentions 'something'. It says he asked a few customers if he could take their pictures, although admittedly, he didn't ask all (per the article).
The store, although publicly accessible is private property (privately ow
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's the odd thing about all this: They SHOULD have no ability to install software. They're set up to not allow that sort of thing to the walk-bys. When you walk up to a computer in the Apple Store, you are not logged in as an Administrator.
Re: (Score:2)
So the simple way for this dude would have been to ask the storekeeper about permission. If given permission then it would have been sufficient to display a sign saying "camera monitored area". (every area today is in reality camera monitored - by mobile phones at least - so soon it may be easier to say when an area isn't.)
In that case it may only have been a fact to concern about the people in the pictures, but as long as it's for artistic purposes there is some room. If the pictures were for commercial pu
Re: (Score:3)
They certainly don't have a sign that says "Install whatever you like", and the article makes no mention that he asked permission to install such software. In short, he broke the law, and installed software which 'spies' on people without their consent.
Wrong on so many levels. First they are publicly accessible machines on display specifically for public like people to use. So unless there was a sign saying "do not install software on these computers" I don't see how he did anything wrong. Second you need to show me the law that states it's illegal to install any software on private computers put out in public for use by the public. The only possible criminal case would be if he bypassed some sort of protection that was designed to prevent people from ins
Re:Double standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who gives a fuck if they "owned" those laptops? It's irrelevant to the discussion.
The point of all laws is to prevent harm. Granted, most laws nowadays seem to exist to create advantages for some asshats while causing harm for everybody else (like copyright), and so those laws are actually crimes themselves, but you know what I mean.
Installing the software alone did no harm.
The harm that was done in both cases, was the massive invasion of privacy.
And the additional harm that was done in this case, was the s
Re: (Score:2)
Then am I allowed to install a keylogger? By your logic, it's the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Double standards (Score:5, Informative)
You can, but according to one article (possibly this one, I didn't read it) they wipe every computer in the store nightly.
Complete BS. They'll wipe and reinstall whenever someone borks a display model (rare, but it happens), and they keep software updated for the most part, but they don't do full wipes every night. [source: many friends working in the Apple Store]
Re:Double standards (Score:4, Informative)
Absolutely untrue. The computers at Apple Stores have Deep Freeze on them, and they do indeed wipe themselves and re-image nightly. Source: I worked at an Apple Store and installed the images.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought they were there to run software on as part of your appraisal as to whether to buy one or not.
Correct. That is one of the things they are there for.
If you are an artist it makes sense to run software relating to your art.
But it absolutely *does not* mean using it to make your art. He most certainly wasn't just "testing the software".
I don't know whether he has any plans to upgrade his existing Apple setup or not, but going into the shop to have a play is the point isn't it? They don't make you sign anything relating to what you can and can't run, and it doesn't seem as though anything improper was done here - no fraud, impersonation, malicious code designed to do harm.
The fraud was leaving software operating without permission in order to do something Apple most certainly does not want customer to do, which is spy on other customers.
If the people going into the shop didn't realise computer watches you in America as well as Soviet Russia, then they learnt something. No crime I can see.
That's some seriously messed up logic. You may as well say, "if people walking into dark alleys don't realize that's where you get mugged, they learnt something. No crime I can
Sony BMG (Score:3, Interesting)
Admin Privs?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this marked interesting? ~/Applications/ is on the path. "Installation" is copying the executable to a directory and "running" is invoking from the command line using a fully qualified path. Put an entry in the login items and the program will run again at account login. No admin rights needed as Unix lets a user control her directories and run programs. This security hole is found every where. It's actually considered a feature, as in, "I have the right to run whatever program I want on hardware I o
Re: (Score:3)
At the start of their investigation, the Secret Service had to ensure it was not staging for a larger attack. In this case someone was using Apple's computers but they didn't know who.
Wait... a few Apple display model computers in two stores count as Financial/Critical Infrastructure? Since when?
Re: (Score:3)
He asked the door mat (security guard) for permission to use computers belonging to the Apple stores. Since he did not have permission of the computer owner he triggered this law.
Since an Apple store is not a public place and he did not have the stores permission, the people he photographed who did not give their permission now have a civil right to sue him pursuant to the law.
If he's affiliated with any college/school/museum or business they both may be guilty of conspiracy to commit a violation of the law
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem I have with this isn't that he got in trouble, it's that the Secret Service showed up. Normally you would think the local police would handle this kind of thing but here we have the feds getting involved. That automatically moves it into toontown level stupidity. He's liable to serv a concurrent life sentence for every violation when they get around to making an example of him. Can't they limit themselves to finding Bin Laden's minions and leave this kind of stuff to the locals?
Some dumbass (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, and I agree (Score:3)
I went and installed a little FFT python TKinter script I wrote at the local store to see if it would run and what it would look like. I just plugged in my thumb drive and dragged over the script then ran it, so perhaps "install" is a strong word. I was so impressed with how the TKinter looked native on OSX I bought a macbook pro. I think my actions were completely legitimate. They have them there to try things so I did.
I don't think computer crimes is the right thing to go after him for. The machines a
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think computer crimes is the right thing to go after him for. The machines are there for you to use and they don't have any conditions of use that you agree to. Taking pictures of people for a (seemingly) commercial endeavor without their permission should be the charge.
Installation of software to secretly broadcast webcam or surveillance images to your blog is not a legitimate in-store demo. Lying to the store manager or security guard about the changes you will be making to their systems is unmistakably fraud and trespass.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely your argument will hold in a court!
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a policy at Apple stores that doesn't allow the customer to try the computers out? Isn't installation one of the things a prospective customer would want to see? I know as a Mac user, I'd show off the install feature since it's one of the best things about Mac OS X compared to other OSes.
Really? They've got apt?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he should've asked first. No matter what he was trying to do.
Firstly, as to your point, I'm sure they'd allow it if you brought in something that you needed to be able to run and wanted to make sure it would work ok. They'd probably help with the installation if there were any issues, too, (and offer that same help if you bought the machine). It's really in your best interest not to try to be clandestine and ethically shady about this sort of thing.
Secondly, they would probably want to wipe their mac
Makes sense (Score:2)
Or not, but well, they want to make sure
Wait a second (Score:4, Insightful)
So he had no idea when he came up with this project that he might get in trouble with the law even though he _thinks_ he is on the right side of the law? Either this guy is trying to make a point by getting in the grey area (FTFA, he is a consultant for EFF), or a moron. In either way, he is going to need a lot of luck.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, what? Some guy breaks law, enforcement goes after him. Farewell freedom?
Can you explain that bit for me?
Re: (Score:2)
I also believe that in many jurisdictions they differentiate between displaying as a work of art and publishing something commercially fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(FTFA, he is a consultant for EFF)
No, TFA says he is consulting with EFF, not that he is a consultant for EFF. He is asking them for legal advice.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Great exposure (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, you can't really ask for any better PR than having your project mentioned on national news. As long as he stays out of jail (go EFF!) then he'll come out on top in the end.
He's a developer of OpenFrameworks (Score:2)
A creative coding suite... I hope the SS doesn't impede my C++ art.
It's like a gallery of stereotypes (Score:2)
I like how every shot he posted has some sort of stereotypical nature about it. It's like characters in a movie or something. I also find it interesting how many people look angry?
They shouldn't have gone after him... (Score:2, Insightful)
* Got permission
* Glorified art project
Seriously, what a waste of tax money.
Re:They shouldn't have gone after him... (Score:5, Insightful)
* Got permission
It sounds like a security guard gave him permission to take a few shots in the store, not to install webcam software on their laptops.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also an apple store is not a public place, it's private property that's open to the public which is MUCH different than say a park.
Re: (Score:3)
No, every Apple store is a public conveyance. They may be privately owned, but the mere fact they are a store makes them a public place.
Re: (Score:2)
Errm, I mean a public place...conveyance refers to transportation..not sure there's much of that going on in Apple stores.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is not an issue of photography in a public place. The guy is in hot water for computer hacking or some nonsense. He is legally protected in that you can take pictures of people in stores without their consent as long as they are afforded "reasonable privacy" (you aren't photographing them in the bathroom or locker room).
A store, while privately owned, is considered public space. You can take pictures of people inside a store unless the STORE clearly posts limitations against it. Apple doesn't do this
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can, by the police.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Anything that isn't government property is private property. In a public space you are free to do "things deemed reasonable" such as "reasonable speech". In private property that is open to the public, such as a store or a mall, you are not free. The freedom you have is "you may enter without permission" but you have no freedom with regards to anything else. For example, an Apple Store can forbid political speech, they can forbid soliciting, they can forbid skateboards and rollerskates, they can e
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah all that except you are wrong...at least in California.
In 1979, the California Supreme Court [107 Cal.App.4th 109] concluded that “a privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are quasi public unless they are listed as a 'private club'.
Re:They shouldn't have gone after him... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court disagrees with your AC opinion:
“A privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”
While the wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.
Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.
Re: (Score:2)
While the [Supreme Court]wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.
Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.
As you pointed out, it was a 1st amendment ruling so your argument that a "shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules" can't do that does not follow from the ruling.
|
I'd go so far as to say the ruling applies to 1st amendment rights in the common spaces of the shopping center, not individual stores. The SC likened shopping center to a town commons, so a store could stop you from exercising your 1st amendment rights to pass out literature in their store, for example.
Re:They shouldn't have gone after him... (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court disagrees with your AC opinion
The California Supreme Court disagrees.
The US Supreme Court decision was more constrained:
In American constitutional law, the Pruneyard decision is famous for its role in establishing two important rules:
under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights.
In refusing to follow Pruneyard, the state supreme courts of New York and Wisconsin both attacked it as an unprincipled and whimsical decision. In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights also considered and refused to follow Pruneyard in a United Kingdom case.
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [wikipedia.org]
I think a distinction can be made between the interior of the stores that border the commons and the commons itself.
I do not like deception. Using bait used to draw subjects to the hidden camera. Public performance without the knowledge or consent of the participants. This does have the look or smell of "free speech."
Proportionality (Score:3)
When the Apple store is so upset about someone installing a reasonably innocent piece of software on one of their publicly available computers that they need the Secret Service to handle it I get serious doubts about both the Secret Service's and Apple's sound judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Secretly taking pictures of people without their concent is "relatively innocent" now?
Re: (Score:2)
It has always been "overtly innocent" to take pictures of people in public.
IAAP (I am a photographer).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that this wasn't in the public. This was on Apple's private property.
Apple's private property would be Apple's offices. Their retail stores are not afforded private property status because, imagine this, they are a store and invite the public in.
Also, it appears to have been done at least partially without people's consent under conditions that they would not have expected to be photographed.
The law states that you can’t photograph somebody who has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” By being in an Apple Store, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, unless you rent the place out for a private viewing, or you are in the bathroom.
Re: (Score:2)
EFF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well places like shopping malls, though they are privately owned, are deemed pseudo public spaces, because your presence is obvious. He didn't do anything really. Now doing it in a private residence however, this would be illegal. But it was an open-to-the-public store. Extremely creepy yes, but not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more than one question here, though.
Was what he did wrong? (I'd say so.) Was it illegal? (Could be - ask a lawyer.) What shade of illegal was it (tort, misdemeanor, felony, whatever) if it was? Was the Secret Service raid justified? What should have been done?
There's this current of Slashdot thought that says that, if you're doing something wrong, measures taken against you because of it are right. That attitude really isn't compatible with the rule of law, and doesn't work well with a fr
Spying on Apple customers? (Score:3, Funny)
Idiot artist (Score:5, Interesting)
As predicted - most did. Next he says "Most just hit escape".
Couldn't help but laugh at his naivety. Of course people would hit escape - they don't want their picture taken you twat!
He asked a security guard for permission? (Score:2)
It sounds like he asked some rent-a-cop if he could take people's pictures, and then gained access to computers in the Apple Stores to take these pictures without the permission of someone who actually had authority to grant that permission. The article is pretty scant on details, though, and only really tells things from his side, so it's hard to tell what really happened at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
This to me sounds like implicit permission to use the cameras, as well as implicit permission to install software. Any legal line this man may have crossed is beyond the act of simply using the camera, or installing software. He had implicit permission to do those two things.
Re: (Score:3)
The devices on display are set up explicitly so that the public will have access to (and in fact are encouraged to explore) their features, which includes the webcam on them.
This to me sounds like implicit permission to use the cameras, as well as implicit permission to install software. Any legal line this man may have crossed is beyond the act of simply using the camera, or installing software. He had implicit permission to do those two things.
I doubt that. You can use the webcam on them to take photos (using Photo booth, etc.), but to suggest that a customer is implicitly allowed to install software that surreptitiously photographs other customers and then displays them in public is ridiculous. If what you suggest were the case, then that would mean Apple is implicitly allowing people to install keyloggers or similar malware. Just because Apple didn't post a sign saying, "don't install surveillance software, malware, worms, viruses, trojan hors
Re:He asked a security guard for permission? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like he asked some rent-a-cop if he could take people's pictures, and then gained access to computers in the Apple Stores to take these pictures without the permission of someone who actually had authority to grant that permission. The article is pretty scant on details, though, and only really tells things from his side, so it's hard to tell what really happened at this point.
That's probably what he did, and I think he's trying to just cover his tracks. I think he was hoping for a "ask for forgiveness rather than for permission" situation.
He should have gone to the Apple Store manager, told them explicitly what he wants to do: "I'm going to install software on all the Macs in this store, which will randomly take photos of your customers and upload the photos to my website, which I'll then display publicly for my art project." Then when they said, "no," go find something else to do with his time.
Slightly more detail and WTH did he expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The potential penalty is absurd, but if you: Install software without permission on 100 machines at two stores that each take and upload a picture to your personal server every minute. Return every day, for several days, doing so since apple wipes the machines every day. Remotely trigger the software to show a slide show of your making (calling doing so "arranging an exhibition"), what the hell would you expect? No charges have been made yet, I hope he does not do jail time, but he deserves a smack upside the head.
Ideally Apple should lock down the DVD drives and USB ports at the stores, requiring an admin to mount a drive, though I have no clue how to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally Apple should lock down the DVD drives and USB ports at the stores, requiring an admin to mount a drive, though I have no clue how to do that.
The goal is to sell hardware, not lock it down. Unless you are trying to sell a computer to a guy wearing a tin-foil hat, why would you want to lock it down to potential buyers?
Besides, you can muck with Macs at the Apple store using the free wireless much easier.
Very dubious grounds (Score:4, Insightful)
1.He installed unauthorized software on a computer not belonging to him, a security guard would not have the authority to give this person permission to do this, the Security guard i bet technically doesn't work for Apple, but will work for a security firm that has a contract with the store.
2.Yes in apple stores you can use the camera, but would you think it's ok for Apple to store those pictures and upload them to a public website, no i doubt you would
3.Technically he is not in a public space, he is in a apple store who can prohibit people from taking pictures, a lot of shops will not allow you to take pictures in there store.
4. It cannot be assumed people are aware there pictures are being taken, not everyone is computer literate and would notice things such as the camera light.
5.There is nothing against the law of taking pictures of people on a beach for instance and posting them on the web, one it's a public area, and also would tend to be more obvious carrying around a camera taking snaps.
6.there is very little difference legally had he set up a laptop in changing room and done the same thing
1984 Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
In 1948, George Orwell arrived on the cultural scene with his novel 1984. In it, citizens are watched at every minute and suspicious activity results in search and seizure by secret police.
In 1984, Apple computer arrived on the cultural scene with their 1984 television ad. In it, the Macintosh computer is introduced as a means to individual expression and freedom from oppression.
In 2011, Kyle McDonald arrived on the cultural scene with his People Staring at Computers art project. In it, he demonstrates the use of Apple computers to observe citizens every minute. Apple's complaint results in search and seizure by Secret Service.
The parallels go on and on ... the US is a country in a continuous state of war, school was caught using Apple computer technology to accuse a student observed eating pill-shaped candy in his home of drug use, there are certainly parallels between Bradley Manning's and Winston Smith's incarcerations, state secrets are sacrosanct and facts are routinely rewritten. Happy 1984.
Everyone here is wrong on this. (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I see it he did two things and both of them are perfectly legal:
Taking pictures of people in public places is legal many times over, it's not even worth discussing.
Using the computers that were put there for public use, is completely legal as well. He did not sign any contract saying what he would or would not do on them, there was no agreement signed that he would not install software on them. They're just offered up for public usage and installing software is such usage.
I don't see anything legally, ethically or morally wrong with what he did. In fact, I hope he sues the bejeezus out of the thugs who broke into his house and stole his equipment.
Re:Secret Service??!? (Score:5, Funny)
Installing kitchens is a crime now??? I"d better call my cousin and warn him!
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to be photographed in stores, you should work with your representative to make it illegal. What's happened here is that a guy doing something entirely legal is being intimidated by the authorities. No matter how much you value your privacy in semi-public places, you can't be in favor of that.
Re: (Score:2)
What if he installed audio bugs in the stores and streamed the signal on line. Would that be entirely legal?
Re: (Score:2)
That would probably fall foul of wiretapping statutes. But there's no such statute for visual information. In any case, he's accused of unauthorized computer access, not wiretapping. Quite obviously ridiculous, since Apple allows people to use their computers. Unless you have to agree to terms of service before you use a computer in an Apple store, there's no case against this guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if their is any "expectation of privacy" when you walk in to a shop and use device laid out for the public?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have to agree to terms of service before you use a computer in an Apple store
That's what I was wondering about too... I've been inside Apple Stores MANY times, and I've never seen anything which tells you that certain actions aren't allowed on their computers. You can't do things that are illegal of course, but anything not explicitly illegal seems like it would be fair game.
Re: (Score:3)
What if he installed audio bugs ...
What if he murdered the first three customers in line?
But he didn't.
Taking pictures of people in public isn't illegal, but recording them with audio is. Murdering people is also illegal. Because this guy did something a lot of people on here don't like doesn't make it equivalent to placing audio bugs or killing people.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe you and I are the only 2 people in this entire thread who can see this for what it is -- legal pictures of people in public used for art. This guy should get a pro bono constitutional lawyer and sue his way into enough money for his next exhibition.
Re: (Score:2)
The secret service? Maybe. This guy looks more like a wannabe secret service guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me google that for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Tumblr+blog+wiki [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You never know!
an undercover or other SS agent might have been caught on camera browsing apple products while he should be working...
Next thing he knows his picture is splashed on a little knows blog that hardly anyone will see.
His bosses fill their panties in fear that he's been outed and raid the poor students place to get the stuff off line before anyone sees it...
causing the incident to be widely know and all the images seen by thousands of people who out of all them their will be one who say's "Hey did
Scope (Score:2)
Yeah, that bugged me as well. I thought the Secret Service was only charged with going after counterfeiters, and the obviously related task of protecting the president from assassination.
Re: (Score:3)
We know a) He had permission.
No, we don't. He only said he had permission, received from a security guard, who isn't authorized to give that permission. And I like how you managed to get your panties in a knot and turn this issue into an anti-Obama rant.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
No you are missing the point. This has huge bearing on the actual problem. The real issue is that corporations & their paid puppets can do whatever they want. The rest of us have to pay taxes, follow the rules, and abide by the law - even if we think we have the I's dotted and T's crossed as this guy did, you still end up standing before the man. That, my cowardly friend, is the "actual problem".