When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide 358
theodp writes "Last July, Slashdot reported on Kyle McDonald, the artist who had the Secret Service raid his home at the behest of Apple, who was miffed with Kyle's surreptitious capture of people's expressions as they stared at computers in Apple Stores. A year later, Wired is running McDonald's first-person account of the preparation for and fallout from his People Staring at Computers project. 'I really wasn't expecting the Secret Service,' McDonald begins. 'Maybe an email, or a phone call from Apple. Instead, my first indication that something was "wrong" was a real-life visit from the organization best known for protecting the President of the United States of America.'"
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh god! They didn't put him in the comfy chair did they?!?!?! The poor soul..
Re: (Score:3)
I think the GP meant a fanatical devotion to Pope Jobs.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the most interesting paragraph was this one:
That really sounds like some religious cult.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! (Score:5, Interesting)
The Young Steve Jobs went on a pilgrimage to India in his 20's. People act like they are being ironic when they refer to the cultlike nature of the Apple organization. Jobs knew exactly what he was doing.
The way Apple crassly and commercially manipulate this stuff, it's surprising more spiritually minded people don't call out Apple for it. Then again, Jobs studied under Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi [the-wanderling.com] who was the same huckster cult operator who hooked in on the Beatles.
Jobs set up Apple to be sort of a Moonie outfit. Quite literally cultilike.
Re: (Score:2)
who was the same huckster cult operator who hooked in on the Beatles
However John Lennon was not dupe , John on acid and bad trip:
It got like that, but then I stopped it for I don't know how long, and then I started taking it again just before I met Yoko. I got the message that I should destroy my ego, and I did, you know. I was slowly putting myself together round about Maharishi time. Bit by bit over a two-year period, I had destroyed me ego. I didn't believe I could do anything. I just was nothing. I was shit. Then Derek [Taylor, Apple press officer] tripped me out at his house after he got back from L.A. He sort of said, ``You're all right,'' and pointed out which songs I had written: ``You wrote this,'' and ``You said this,'' and ``You are intelligent, don't be frightened.'' The next week I went to Derek's with Yoko, and we tripped again, and she made me realize that I was me and that it's all right. That was it; I started fighting again, being a loudmouth again and saying, ``I can do this. Fuck it. This is what I want,'' you know. ``I want it, and don't put me down.''
Wrong Indian entirely (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! (Score:5, Interesting)
...so it's like any other company? For a while I worked at a large corporation covering many roles, and I noticed the same air of secrecy, but upon asking, I was given reasons for it.
All training is confidential, because certain statements are easier to convey in an informal setting, but the public would get agitated by them. One training video I watched was incredibly sexist. All the food service jobs were depicted by women, and the operations were handled by men. The video was made in 1970, so it's pretty easy, in an internal setting, to just not care. Another training session included the statement of "don't do X, because it is offensive to group Y". Someone could take offense that group Y was being singled out as being troublesome. Rather than scour every piece of training material, and remake it whenever yet another term is deemed offensive, the training is just declared confidential, and (good) managers start each training session with the phrase "This stuff is really old and a little politically incorrect. Sorry about that."
During the shadowing experience, you're still considered as being in training. You don't know everything, and even if you do know something, there's a good chance you'll screw up the protocol the company wants you to follow. Maybe there's an easy fix for a broken Apple product, but it only works for certain models. A helpful eager newbie might tell the customer the fix, which could void their warranty and make things worse, while an experienced staff member knows to just escalate such issues to someone who can find the appropriate solution for the model.
Once your sales training is complete, you're a salesman. You're in the sales department, not PR. You might hear rumors of a product the company doesn't want to announce yet, so you're not allowed to talk about it. If someone has a major injury on your sales floor, you aren't allowed to speak to the press about it, because you aren't likely to say just the right thing to align with the company image, and you probably don't have all the facts of the situation, anyway.
The first rule of being a corporate minion is that you do not talk about being a corporate minion. You assume you aren't the all-seeing all-knowing god of the world, and you say only what the manager tells you to say, which has been decided by the various committees that are higher up than you are, who are working with a big-picture view of what the company as a whole wants to say to the world.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! (Score:4, Informative)
I did not say I worked at an Apple store. I worked at a large multi-industry multinational corporation that recently celebrated its 100th anniversary. I'd assume the Apple training videos don't date from 1970, but I'd also assume the same reasoning applies for the confidentiality: They'd rather not waste the time and money remaking their training materials whenever someone on the Internet finds something they don't like.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! (Score:4, Interesting)
That really sounds like some religious cult.
Sounds like every NDA ever to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this guy was so shaken up by his horrible treatment that he went to the Apple Store the next day to replace his Mac!
Sheesh.
Re:Nobody expects the spanish inquisition! (Score:5, Insightful)
He was surprised?! (Score:4, Insightful)
He can call it art, most human beings would call it creepy as hell, and last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units. And what if Apple had sold any of these display units? Then you'd have hidden spy equipment inside people's homes, snapping photos and emailing this guy. Also I doubt he programmed in the stores hours, so you could have them snapping photos of employees before and after business was open when they do have an expectation of privacy.
So yeah, if you are doing mass installs of spy software, you can expect a knock on your door.
Expectation of privacy also during business hours (Score:2)
I would say that everyone has - by default - a reasonable expectation of privacy whenever nobody else is around. Sure, if you are in a park, you can't do certain things that you could in the privacy of your home even if you don't see anyone, because you might not just have noticed someone and so on. However, in a half-public place, such as a store with no customers inside, you should be able to call your family/doctor/etc. or whatever without having to wonder whether someone is monitoring you in secret. (Yo
Re: (Score:2)
I expect a lot of those half-public places to have some sort of surveillance these days, such as a camera. Sure, there's plenty of places you'd reasonably expect there to be no electronic surveillance, such as the middle of the woods, but almost anywhere outside of nature you can reasonably expect to be recorded even if no one else is around.
Re:Expectation of privacy also during business hou (Score:5, Insightful)
You would be completely wrong. You have an expectation that there are video cameras all throughout the store for security reasons. They will at least capture video, they might even capture audio. You have no expectation of privacy in a place open to the public.
Re: (Score:3)
He can call it art, most human beings would call it creepy as hell, and last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units.
He was just doing it as a security measure. [slashdot.org] That's all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He can call it art, most human beings would call it creepy as hell, and last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units...
Yeah, you're right. It's so much less creepy when Google drives down every single road in existence in custom-built vans, capturing every damn thing in a 360-degree view to build a feature in maps that we never asked for in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Two wrongs don't make a right. As I recall, Google did get in trouble for that in various countries, and has since started obscuring some images.
Not equvilient. (Score:2)
You mean the clearly-marked, fairly highly visible van that's driving through a public area, right? The one that has alghorythms that try to blur out people's faces so that they DON'T show up on street view?
Oh yes, that's exactly the same as somebody installing surveillance software on somebody else's property, eavesdropping on their customers, and using said photos in their entirety without permission.
When I saw the google van go by, I waved. If somebody had installed software without permission on my comp
Re: (Score:2)
And what if Apple had sold any of these display units? Then you'd have hidden spy equipment inside people's homes, snapping photos and emailing this guy.
I suppose the lesson there is that if you buy an ex-demo laptop - or anything else with user-modifiable software - then flatten it and reinstall as soon as you get it home.
And do that with your clothes on.
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:4, Insightful)
He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise.
Try walking into a store and setting up a video camera on a self to watch customers and employees, and see what the store does. At the very least you will get thrown out, if not have the police called on you. Spying is spying, and the people he filmed never game him express permission to film them. Simply calling it "art" does not absolve him from any possible criminal liability.
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to give express permission to be filmed in public for noncommercial reasons.
But you do need express permission to install software on a computer belonging to someone else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A shop is a private establishment.
No, it is not. Any private property that is open to the public is public space. If you don't like it, lock the door and put a sign that read 'private property, keep out'. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
WRONG a place with public access is still private property you can and in fact some places have LAWS (enforced by actual Police if needed) that are inside what is allowed by the general city laws.
You can
1 forbid weapons/guns
2 require certain language (no swearing ect)
3 require certain behavior
4 exclude non-service animals
5 just about anything else (certain things run afoul of nondiscrimination laws)
and if you violate these LAWS you can be BANNED from that property (and afterwards be jailed for trespassing i
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:5, Interesting)
He asked the Apple employee if he could film so filing was clearly OK. That was all the permission he needed. Besides that he even states in the piece that lots of people film/take pictures in the Apple store.
Asking to take pictures inside a store is not the same as asking an Apple employee to install secret software to take pictures of customers.
Apple clearly made no effort to claim copyright to any extent that would prohibit the taking of picture/video. If they had they should have made employees aware and posted signs.
This is not about copyright. This was about malware and invasion of privacy.
He didn't exceed his authorization as the system was clearly on display for use. There were no passwords, the system had no lock downs which he exceeded, and he never disabled any piece of software such as the “freezer” program.
No where was there permission to install. My neighbor leaves his garage door open sometimes. That doesn't mean I can borrow his tools without asking him first.
There also was no reasonable expectation of privacy. This was a public place even though it was private owned. Any place which the public generally has access to is a public place. This includes movie theaters, theme parks, and other locations which one can be banned from. A home is not a public place because the general public is not welcomed. A private club might not be a public place because it is exclusive to the members of said club.
And where are the rights of owners of the private place? You can take a picture inside a movie theater. I think they would mind it if you set up a web cam without their permission.
The right to publicity generally would not apply here either. These pictures were of the general public and there was no intent to use (even in practice) any person picture publicly whom could claim such a right. Right of publicity applies to celebrities, actors, models, and so on. Not random people that nobody could name. If you brought a lawsuit the accuser would win exactly $0.
No where was this mentioned about right to publicity. This was about spying and the rights of Apple and individuals.
This is coming from a privacy advocate. I don't think there should be cameras everywhere (government or private). However this person (artist or not) was of no threat to any persons privacy. What is a threat to your privacy is all the store cameras, government cameras, and so forth which are all over the place. Your cellular phone is a privacy threat, your web browsing is a privacy threat, your credit/debit cards are a privacy threat, your drivers license is a privacy threat, your license plate is a privacy threat, your social security number is a privacy threat. This one little project is not a privacy threat.
We do not have omnipotence or precognition. After the fact, this individual poses little risk. When Apple discovered the spyware, they could not have known what the intent was or who did it. Was this targeting the public or a person specifically? The artist also could have said it was for an art project but spies don't generally tell the truth about what they are doing.
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:4, Insightful)
At the very least you will get thrown out, if not have the police called on you.
And that is the only thing they could do, also calling the police is excessive. Ask him to leave with his equipment, everything remaining will be taken to the trash. Unless he refuse to leave or become violent, there is no need to involve the police. Not much bad were done because this was a public space where there is no expectation of privacy anyway. Do something useful, go rage about all the other camera that is filming everyone, everywhere without anyone's consent.
I don't like being secretly filmed and I don't like his 'art' project, but this is clearly a case of abuse and intimidation, a symptom of police state and yet an other proof that fascism live on in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:4, Informative)
He asked permission and they allowed him to do this. RTFA.
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:5, Insightful)
He asked permission and they allowed him to do this. RTFA.
No, RTFA. He asked if it was okay to take photos in the store. He never asked if it was okay to install software on the machines and have those Apple-owned machines take the photos. And certainly, he never asked about taking photos from every computer of every visitor to the store who used a computer and publishing them online. After all, if he really asked permission, would he have had to hide it:
I looked around to double check that there were no terms of service I was missing. If there were, and if it said anything about “installing applications”, I would have had to go back home and write an HTML5 or Flash version.
Or:
The app was maybe two megabytes, and took 15 seconds to download. Sometimes I would open another tab and load Flickr or Open Processing so I had an excuse if someone asked why I was comparing every single computer.
Or:
One of them got a little excited and tweeted about the pictures, not realizing the project wasn’t done yet. Fortunately, only a few people noticed, and it didn’t get much attention.
Or:
After the one-minute-exhibition ended, we made a staggered exit from the store and met at the Starbucks up the street.
Or:
If I were wiser, I may have split “People Staring at Computers” in two... The other piece would have been the in-store intervention. I’d use the same photo app, but they’d be uploaded directly to an anonymous photo host instead of my server. I’d replace the screensaver with an app that downloaded and exhibited these photos. Done properly, there would be no one to point fingers at, and people might be able to focus on questions about privacy and surveillance instead of arguing about art and intentionality. I wouldn’t be able to claim authorship of course, but I would be in a position to actually join the discussion and participate in the criticism.
None of that is the actions or sentiments of someone who "asked permission" for what he was doing. Rather, as he notes, he asked if he could "take photos in the store" and later if he could "shoot video". It's permission creep: a positive response to 'can I take a picture here' doesn't imply 'I can install hidden networked cameras and publish photos of thousands of pictures taken over the course of weeks'.
Re: (Score:2)
He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise.
I was going to post about spyware being illegal or something like that, but then I remembered that corporations are spying on us all of the time.
Where the fuck is the government institution that I can call to go and raid their residences and offices? Oh yeah, I forgot: in our new Corporatocracy I am an ant, and they are giants.
Ants sometimes get stepped on; nobody really gives a fuck.
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:4, Insightful)
"He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise."
I'm sure the terms of use also don't specifically exclude smashing the equipment with a sledgehammer or peeing on it.
Cars parked in a public parking lot don't have little signs saying "please don't slash tires" or "please don't mod my engine" either. It's implicit when it isn't your property that you aren't supposed to do such things.
On top of that, the law regarding photographing people in public is pretty clear. It's okay to do so, but you need to seek permission for most types of distribution of those photos. "Art" is not a "get out of jail free" card, and any real artist should know that when it comes to exhibiting their works if the people in them are identifiable.
Re:He was surprised?! (Score:5, Informative)
He checked the terms of use and found no restrictions against installing software, spyware or otherwise..
Except for, you know, the The Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:
Whoever--
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization...
--knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
--intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
--intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under subsections (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this section. Such authority of the United States Secret Service shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General."
Re: (Score:3)
last I checked you aren't supposed to be installing hidden spy equipment on Apple's display units.
FTFA, he checked and it was not against any TOS
Not against TOS != Not against any law
Re: (Score:2)
FTFA, he checked and it was not against any TOS
I'm pretty sure that murder isn't specially mentioned in any TOS either. A TOS however clearly says that you must abide by "local, state, and federal laws". Installing software without permission and spying on people probably fall under government laws and not a TOS. Use some common sense.
Moron (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really need a law to know that this is wrong?
Just because something might be legal, doesn't mean it is right.
Change out "small Mom & Pop store" for "Apple store" and see how you feel about this guy's art project.
I don't require a law to say please and thank you, or to know that a business is a business, not a playground for your art project.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll play devil's advocate for a bit, since most comments so far seem to boil down to "everyone involved is an idiot", "this is not art" and/or "privacy, privacy, privacy!". I do think there is some room for the opposite point of view. From reading the article (I know, I know), it seems to me that he's been thinking about privacy, the lack thereof in our modern society, and its implications, for quite a while. Moreover, he's put his money where his mouth is and experimented on himself, and writes about his
Re: (Score:3)
it's an overreaction, for sure (Score:5, Insightful)
but you are kind of a dick if you transgress against people by taking unauthorized pictures of them with equipment that isn't yours and then using the pictures without their permission
so i'm not very sympathetic to the stalkerific "artist"
but i'm sure we'll see a lot of comments here about the violations of the federal government in this situation, completely ignoring the violations committed by this douchebag
Re: (Score:2)
As an avid fan of "people doing what's right", I find I can't really support anybody in this case.
The artist (yeah, I'll grant him the liberal use of the term, and give him the freedom to declare his work as art) should have considered the effect of his work on others... not just the final product, but the production. He could have worked with the store to come to a mutually-acceptable agreement, he could have staged the pictures with actual models making the expressions seen in the surreptitious photos, or
Re: (Score:2)
you're right, every actor in this situation is basically a douchebag apocalypse: everyone violating everyone else
Re: (Score:2)
douchebag apocalypse
I think you've just found a new and much better title for your current project. :)
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple, once offended, could have sent a letter, or a lawyer, a C&D notice, or maybe just shoot for a restraining order against the artist ever entering their stores again.
So Apple is to investigate why secret software was installed on their computers? Or would they do as any other company and call the authorities and let them deal with it. After the fact, we know he was just an artist but Apple (and more importantly the Secrete Service) couldn't have known that. Why was the Secret Service involved? I suppose this fell under their jurisdiction and not the FBI.
To draw in the federal government to raid the guy's house? That's pretty extreme. It's so extreme that I wonder if there's more to this story than we're being told. I mean, it makes sense in a jumping-to-conclusions sort of way. The guy installed his own application onto every computer in a store, without management approval. That's malicious activity, and could be construed as a target malware attack.
You make it sound like Apple championed a raid. I'm pretty sure that the government decided on that course of action without Apple's opinion. Apple reported the issue and the Secret Service took it from there. Also remember at the time, other than the artist, no one at the Secret Service or Apple could be sure of the intent of this malware.
Apple's supposed to be a computer company, though. would it have really been so hard to look at the program and see what it did? Maybe send the guy a final picture of the manager holding a note reading "We're uninstalling your program; don't ever set foot in here again", and be done with it? They instead chose to go straight to the nuclear option.
Again Apple is not a computer crimes investigative company. There are specialized companies and agencies for that. And again, they informed the authorities who took it from there. Apple is not responsible for the actions of the authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect Apple to have been fully involved in the case. It would have to have been one of their staff who noticed the guy installing application (or the app itself), one of their legal representatives who passed it to the Secret Service, and once the Secret Service's investigation showed who it was and (roughly) what was going on, they probably got a call asking "Is this one of your guys?" to make sure the Secret Service wasn't about to raid the home of a hired security consultant or the like.
Somewhere al
Re:it's an overreaction, for sure (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd expect Apple to have been fully involved in the case. It would have to have been one of their staff who noticed the guy installing application (or the app itself), one of their legal representatives who passed it to the Secret Service, and once the Secret Service's investigation showed who it was and (roughly) what was going on, they probably got a call asking "Is this one of your guys?" to make sure the Secret Service wasn't about to raid the home of a hired security consultant or the like.
So you are saying Apple other than handing off the information (and the computers) to the authorities has to be involved with every step? When you report a crime to the police, are you involved with every step of their investigation? The police and Secret Service probably want to do the investigation on their own. The last time someone took something from my car, I didn't tag along with the detective or ask the tech guys if they processed the fingerprints.
Somewhere along the line, an Apple representative made the decision to screw up this guy's life for a while. That's bad enough to disgust me.
What kind of nonsense is this? They reported a computer to the authorities. The authorities took it from there. This artist who broke laws has no consequences to his own actions? Just above you said that Apple should have been more involved but then you blame them for actions that they didn't take even though they were not more involved. If someone breaks into my house and steals things; I report it to the police. The police put the thief into jail where he gets stabbed to death, you are saying that I screwed this guy's life?
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying Apple other than handing off the information (and the computers) to the authorities has to be involved with every step?
No, but at some point they would have been consulted to see if they wanted to proceed.
When you report a crime to the police, are you involved with every step of their investigation? The police and Secret Service probably want to do the investigation on their own. The last time someone took something from my car, I didn't tag along with the detective or ask the tech guys if they processed the fingerprints.
If they had ever caught someone, you'd be asked if you wanted to press charges. If they had suspects, there's a good chance you'd be shown a set of pictures and be asked if you recognize anyone.
This artist who broke laws has no consequences to his own actions?
The artist should face consequences, but of the "mild discomfort and inconvenience" variety that the Apple stores faced when they couldn't explain what the display computers had just done.
Just above you said that Apple should have been more involved but then you blame them for actions that they didn't take even though they were not more involved.
In TFA, the artist mentions that he had pict
The guy essentially installed malware/spyware (Score:5, Interesting)
He basically installed malware/spyware onto Apple store computer and he calls that "art". Are botnets just another form of "expression"? Give me a break. There was not permission from the store owners and no informed consent from the subjects. The guy is creepy as hell.
New Response When The SS Comes A-Knockin' (Score:4, Funny)
They'll taze you, but it'll have been worth it.
Not your computer, so don't fuck with it. (Score:2)
You don't own that physical object, therefore not yours to play with.
He should've done it the time-honored way (Score:2)
Used only his equipment, and set it up to take photos in the women's bathroom.
If Apple had done it (Score:3)
Alternately, the guy could have gone through a bit more effort and used a telephoto lens to get essentially the same photos through the window, or even wandered around inside the store with a camera; we already know that that's legal.
So is the only thing that's wrong is that he used the computer's camera's? Didn't warn people? Is Apple out any money due to this? If they'd contacted the guy and said "Cool, but ask us next time", we wouldn't even be reading about this. What if it had happened in a Best Buy instead - better or worse than this?
Re: (Score:2)
So is the only thing that's wrong is that he used the computer's camera's?
Yes. Without Apple's permission.
Didn't warn people?
No he did not. And he did not get their permission. Read up on public photography vs private photography.
Is Apple out any money due to this?
That is irrelevant.
If they'd contacted the guy and said "Cool, but ask us next time", we wouldn't even be reading about this.
Someone unknowingly installs software on your computer. That appears to spy on people and uploads to an unknown account outside their servers. Do you contact the person or do you contact the authorities? Apple chose to contact the authorities. There may be bigger legal questions involved.
What if it had happened in a Best Buy instead - better or worse than this?
I suspect the same exact thing would have happened.
As it says in the article (Score:2)
One of the purpose of art is to challenge any and all social norms.
His project was interesting and did not really violate privacy because none is expected in an Apple store. As far as we know, Apple keylogs everything people do on their computer in their store. Yet one sees people do all sort of private things on these computers: write CVs, log onto FB, read mail, and so on.
His project draws attention to the fact that Apple likely does record things about their users, and it does it in a fun way that is fra
Re: (Score:2)
His project was interesting and did not really violate privacy because none is expected in an Apple store. As far as we know, Apple keylogs everything people do on their computer in their store. Yet one sees people do all sort of private things on these computers: write CVs, log onto FB, read mail, and so on.
Installing software onto Apple's computers without their permission violates no laws for you? And do you know what Apple does or are you making wild accusations without proof?
His project draws attention to the fact that Apple likely does record things about their users, and it does it in a fun way that is frankly not very intrusive. This is probably why Apple didn't like it.
You can postulate whatever reason you want for Apple not liking it., but if I installed the same software on your computer, it wouldn't really what particular reason you didn't like it, would it?
What I find most striking (Score:2)
The guy gets his home raided by SS-goons, sicced on him by Apple, and his first inclination is: Yay, let's go buy another Apple product!
BS artsy spin included (Score:2)
I learned that I was more honest, with myself and with others, when I knew everyone could see what I was saying.
No, that's not being more honest.
That's being more paranoid and closing off what you really want to say.
Artists like to put a positive, deep-thought spin on their works. At least he didn't throw in 50 cent words in describing his projects.
The Secret Service and Computer-Related Crimes (Score:3)
Electronic Crime Task Forces
On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed into law H.R. 3162, the USA PATRIOT Act. The U.S. Secret Service was mandated by this Act to establish a nationwide network of Electronic Crimes Task Forces (ECTFs). The concept of the ECTF network is to bring together not only federal, state and local law enforcement, but also prosecutors, private industry and academia. The common purpose is the prevention, detection, mitigation and aggressive investigation of attacks on the nation's financial and critical infrastructures.
The Secret Service's ECTF and Electronic Crimes Working Group initiatives prioritize investigative cases that involve electronic crimes. These initiatives provide necessary support and resources to field investigations that meet any one of the following criteria:
Significant economic or community impact
Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations
Use of schemes involving new technology
Electronic Crimes Task Forces and Working Groups [secretservice.gov]
Criminal Investigations
Identity Crimes - Identity crimes are defined as the misuse of personal or financial identifiers in order to gain something of value and/or facilitate other criminal activity. The Secret Service is the primary federal agency tasked with investigating identity theft/fraud and its related activities under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028. Identity crimes are some of the fastest growing and most serious economic crimes in the United States for both financial institutions and persons whose identifying information has been illegally used. The Secret Service records criminal complaints, assists victims in contacting other relevant investigative and consumer protection agencies and works with other federal, state and local law enforcement and reporting agencies to identify perpetrators.
Identity crimes investigated by the Secret Service include, but are not limited to, the following:
Credit Card/Access Device Fraud (Skimming)
Check Fraud
Bank Fraud
False Identification Fraud
Passport/Visa Fraud
Identity Theft
Computer Fraud - Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1030, authorizes the Secret Service to investigate computer crimes. Violations enforced under this statute include unauthorized access to protected computers, theft of data such as personal identification used to commit identity theft, denial of service attacks used for extortion or disruption of e-commerce and malware (malicious software) distribution to include viruses intended for financial gain.
Criminal Investigations [secretservice.gov]
The "spy camera" project that exposes kids can cast you into very deep water.
Forensic Services
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, Congress mandated the U.S. Secret Service to provide forensic/technical assistance in matters involving missing and exploited children. On April 30, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the PROTECT Act of 2003, known as the "Amber Alert Bill," which gave full authorization to the U.S. Secret Service in this area.
Forensic Services [secretservice.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep I find it is amazing just how much crap people will put up with before they rise up. And it also makes you wonder about historical revoultions, and current revolutions, and get some insight as to just how bad life can be or could have been in those places. I think that in the case of the "West" it still has a long way to go, and can get much, much worse before people vote with their fists and pitchforks.
Re: (Score:3)
So, hang on... Apple had no part in this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy was PLAYING Big Brother and using computers which did not BELONG to him.
The right to control what one OWNS is fundamental to liberty.
He didn't own the machines he exploited.
Shit on him and anyone like him be they Big Government or merely some wanker artist.
Re:The Man does what he wants (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy was PLAYING Big Brother and using computers which did not BELONG to him.
Yeah, and all those people wandering around Apple stores STEALING processor cycles should all get the same treatment! /sarcasm
Those machines are obviously there for people to play with, and as far as I know there is nothing saying what they can and can't be used for. Using the webcam to capture images is not necessarily any less legitimate than using the web browser to browse web sites.
People are bizarrely schizophrenic about being photographed. His program is basicly the same as CCTV. CCTV has been around for ages, recording everone day after day. I'd bet there are even a few CCTV cameras in the Apple stores in question. Nobody cares. It's just easier to ignore it. But when you see your own face staring back at you from some computer screen somewhere, everything changes.
People are totally in denial about the death of privacy, and they're just itching to shoot the messenger, because there's nothing else that can be done about it at this point.
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the point: We've all already begun to acknowledge the death of privacy. Most of us know that yes, we stand a chance of being recorded at any time, at any place. That's oooold news, Admiral Burrito. With this knowledge in hand, the point of contention is now, "How well is access to that information controlled?"
Consider Mr. J. Random Dork, in an Apple store, aggregating thousands of photos of strangers without consent, for his own purposes. He is showing people, by his own conduct, that he is not a very good steward of the information he is collecting. He didn't ask the subjects, he didn't ask the venue, he didn't ask legal counsel, he didn't even ask his peers. In fact he deliberately avoided all those responsible inquiries because he knew his project was objectionable to all of them from the outset. Directing anger at him is not "shooting the messenger". Once you're writing your own code, you've pretty much moved beyond the "messenger" role and into the "perpetrator" role.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with what you are saying, but also keep in mind that according to the article he actually obtained permission from Apple employees to do what he was doing.
His observations and ideas are quite interesting if you read them. How he went about obtaining the data he needed may have been undesirable from a certain point of view. They were already being recorded on camera, but may not have expected to be recorded on the web cameras themselves.
I absolutely don't like it, but I know that I have no privacy
Re: (Score:2)
Big brother decides who will do what even if it's not against one of his laws. Anyone at anytime can be pounded on for anything.
True. Big Brother didn't do a thing here, though, except investigate and then return his equipment. While the government is usually quite dickish, according to the article they only did what was somewhat "fair". The major inconvenience for the guy was having his equipment confiscated, but it seems it was returned in a couple of months.
Having said that, let me veer off for a second. Slashdot has quite a few pro and anti Apple people, and that's fine. I'm not one for Apple products, but I don't automatically
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes. Obviously vandalizing the store's equipment is a crime. The guy should have been forced to pay the store's fees to wipe the Macs clean.
Nevertheless there are still TONS of articles I can link to about Apple's recent bad behavior. Just yesterday there was an article about Apple telling store owners to stop selling Samsung phones. Where do they get off doing that???
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We decry the loss of privacy in this country and yet when it's done for "art" some people are shocked that anybody could be upset.
It is a poignant question, isn't it? You have done a good job with the above statement of pointing out the hypocrisy from one perspective. Another worth a bit of exploration is the legal perspective.
Cell phones, network providers, and cloud services spy on people's most intimate activities, even when they have a far more reasonable expectation of privacy than people in a retail s
Re: (Score:2)
Although I agree that it was rude and morally wrong, I cannot accept that the SS were a reasonable response. He was just behaving like a college kid and a beat officer (sorry, that shows my age) would have been an appropriate response. Have a word with him rather than waste thousands of $$$ on something that would not run against a good lawyer. I think he must have snapped someone with their mistress and the wife saw it.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property.
2) he wasn't using his own equipment, he was installing software on Apple's machines.
3) Apple doesn't "forbid" you from using your own cameras and recording equipment in their stores to "record what they witness in plain sight", it just frowns on you effectively installing hidden cameras to capture people's images without them knowing.
Yes, highly "tyrannical" of a private business deciding that installing hidden camera and spyware software on computers owned by them in a place of business owned/rented by them without asking permission (of either Apple or the unsuspecting customers) and trying to handwave it away with a "it's not mentioned that this sort of behaviour is explicitly forbidden therefore it's ok" was something it was not happy about.
Mmm. I'm sure Apple is quaking in its boots that an Apple hater is thinks their decision to put a stop to a guy secretly recording its customers using its own display computers with spyware is a bad one.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks (Score:5, Informative)
1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property.
Maybe by your definition, but by law it is open to the public and thus public.
2) he wasn't using his own equipment, he was installing software on Apple's machines.
Which is allowed. They have a very generous policy for use of their display machines, choosing to wipe them every night rather than try to enforce some kind of demo mode. I think he abused this policy, but it was not a crime.
3) Apple doesn't "forbid" you from using your own cameras and recording equipment in their stores to "record what they witness in plain sight", it just frowns on you effectively installing hidden cameras to capture people's images without them knowing.
Frowning is one thing - calling the Secret Service is another!
Re: (Score:2)
"1) The Apple Store is not a "public facility" it is private property."
Just because something is privately owned, doesn't mean it can't be a public space. The Apple store is open to the public, so it is a public facility.
The OP was clearly calling Apple "tyrannical" for daring to dictate what was allowed in a "public" space, as if it had no right do do that. Apple's retail stores are, by definition, private property.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's it. From this point forward when I hear someone waxing beautifically about hwo "great" Apple is, I will be linking to this story. And others. To show them how tyrannical the company has truly become.
Ok, I'm with you on the privacy thing. You know Apple has security cameras at their stores, so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. But take a minute and think about what this guy did - he wrote literal spyware. Specifically, he wrote a program, secretly installed it on a computer he didn't own and used that program to relay information back to him. If he did that at my office, on my equipment (ok, the company equipment) I'd lose my mind. I'd call the the cops, FBI, and yeah, sure, the secret ser
Re: (Score:2)
What if this guy wasn't an artist? What if worked for a competitor who was trying to get a headcount at a certain store? Would that change the story? I love art as much as the next man, and sure, it's an interesting idea, but the but the guy has earned what he's received.
I believe that intent is an important facet of the law, and has plenty of precedent - thus the definitions of murder vs. manslaughter.
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks (Score:5, Informative)
>>>the apple store is not a public facility but a private one
According to New York and most state laws, a private venue that has been opened to the general citizenry is no longer a private area. It is defined as a "public facility" and therefore has to abide by the state's non-discrimination, non-smoking, and other laws.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to New York and most state laws, a private venue that has been opened to the general citizenry is no longer a private area. It is defined as a "public facility" and therefore has to abide by the state's non-discrimination, non-smoking, and other laws.
What? A store is private unless it is owned by government facility. Then it may be considered public. As for discrimination, by the Commerce Clause, all businesses selling to the public must abide by appropriate laws. Selling to the public does not make a private store public. That's why many stores can throw you out for having no shirt or shoes. They can't throw you out because you are not Caucasian.
Regardless, you missed the point:
Re: (Score:2)
>>>What? A store is private unless it is owned by government facility.
Well. You're wrong. There are many categories in the law, but to boil it down to the largest 3: Private, public, and public facility. "Private" is your home or business or farm. "Public" is the government which is collectively-owned by the people.
And "public facility" is a private area that has been voluntarily opened to the public, such as a store or bar or mall. It differs from a private home, because you don't have to let
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And "public facility" is a private area that has been voluntarily opened to the public, such as a store or bar or mall. It differs from a private home, because you don't have to let black people into your home. Or women. Or people under age 21. You are allowed to discriminate. BUT the moment you open the doors to everybody, such as converting your home or office into a store or restaurant, then you go from "private" to "public facility" and you are no longer allowed to refuse service.
You are confusing "public accommodation" but private ownership which is expressly defined in the Commerce Clause with public ownership. Inside a business can be considered private. The owners of a private business can have CC recording but must disclose this to any patrons. Police cannot install hidden microphones inside a restaurant and record conversations without a search warrant for example. Recording individuals in a public park is permissible. However, you still missed the point: Illegally inst
Re:Apple's now worse than Microsucks (Score:4, Informative)
Did YOU read it? He asked if he could take pictures, and was told sure. He DIDN'T ask to install hidden webcam software, and reading the article he was clearly trying to not get caught doing so by making sure no one was watching him, and having tabs to other websites open that he could switch to if someone came by.
of he "had permission", why the sneakiness?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? It's much more complicated then you want it to look like, I guess:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. A store is private property. This is obvious.
Only if you're not a lawyer. Lawyers will happily argue that white is black if someone pays them to.
And if the store really is 'obviously' private property, the government wouldn't be able to prohibit behaviour there such as smoking which is perfectly legal otherwise.
BTW, I'd add that when I was testing the tablets at a local retailer, there were many hours of video on some where someone had left the camera recording the people who used them.
Re: (Score:2)
The store is open to the public, they would have trouble selling to them if it was not.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is a bit hard to follow, but what appears to have happened is this guy asked for permission from an employee at an Apple store if he could take pictures inside the store. The employee said sure, no problem. So what does he do? He installs spyware on the demo machines inside the Apple store, which uses the built in camera to take pictures of people using the computers and uploads them to a publicly viewable web site.. Now this may have been "art", but the Secret Service called it something else. This isn't much different than installing a key logger on the machines as an "art" project (yes, "scare quotes" is intentional). Not really something good.
Yes. This is 'art' like Christo's [wikipedia.org] stuff is art. The main difference is that Christo has managed a reputation and hired his own lawyers to invade public and private spaces. As TFA pointed out artists often like to push the envelope to get people to notice. Well, he certainly did that..... Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now this may have been "art", but the Secret Service called it something else.
No, they didn't. They investigated for some time and found no evidence of any law being breached. That's why the guy wasn't prosecuted. It's in TFA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AmerCIA.
"We're keeping an eye on you, buddy."
Now, you have to consult with the EFF, before you want to take pictures of people shopping in a mall.
Way to fucking go, land of Jefferson.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Informative)
The photos were gathered by going to Apple retail stores and secretly installing an application on Macs that would snap a photo using the Mac's built-in webcam iSight every minute and uploading photos if a face of an unsuspecting customer was detected.
I suspect that's the tricky bit that brought down the wrath.
Re: (Score:3)
"I do thing it was wrong to take pictures of people without their consent."
Hi, welcome to PUBLIC VENUE.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Informative)
...he asked an Apple employee for permission, which was granted.
No, he claimed he asked a Security Guard (which may mean the guard worked for Apple, or might mean he worked for a company that was contracted by Apple) if he could take pictures in the store.
He did not ask for, or receive, permission to install software on the computers.
Re:Only in America... (Score:5, Informative)
"You can take pictures if you want, but to publish them in any way, be it a magazine, website or artistic display, you need to get permission from the individuals in the pictures to do so. It's called a model release and every ethical photographer knows about them. "
You're not a photographer, then, because in public venues, you have no right.
Yes, I do photography and film. Yes, I attended school for it.
Quit talking if you're not educated on the subject/hold any certification.
The Photographer's Attorney (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I do photography and film. Yes, I attended school for it.
But were you sleeping in class?
In general, when people are in public, you may photograph them. The use of the photographs can be restricted due to certain privacy rights. The rights for a person to certain kinds of privacy are recognized in most states, but differently for each one. It is, therefore, tricky to know what you can do. The safest approach is to follow the most restrictive one. Privacy rights can be subdivided into four areas.
The first is "invasion of privacy" or "intrusion upon another's seclusion." It happens when someone actually intrudes a person's private domain that would be considered offensive to the average person. As a photographer, the act of going on someone's land without permission would violate this privacy. You don't have to take the photo or publish the photo for the action to be unlawful. Some courts have found an invasion of privacy even when photographing someone in public. In those cases, the photographers harass their subjects, use hidden cameras, or wait for a woman's skirt to be blown at a fun house. It also is unlawful to view and photograph people inside of residences or other places where privacy is expected (businesses are ok), even when the photographer is standing in public.
The second is the public disclosure of private facts.
The third right of privacy is the portrayal of a person in false light. This happens often with photographs, but usually because of the caption. It requires someone to be publicly portrayed in a false manner in which an ordinary person would find the portrayal offensive. To be liable, the publisher of the photograph must have known or recklessly disregarded the probably falsity of what is represented. It is similar to defamation, when someone's reputation is damaged by a statement that is known or should be known to be false. False light does not require that the person was damaged.
The fourth right of privacy is very different from the other three. It is the commercial appropriation of someone's name or likeness without permission, or misappropriation. It also is known as the right of publicity. It happens when someone uses the name or likeness of another without consent to gain some commercial benefit. It usually occurs when a photograph of a person is used in an advertisement without the person's permission. That is why model releases are so important-they show that you have the person's permission to use the person's name or likeness. Permission is not required for editorial or newsworthy publications.
Be sure to consider other's rights of privacy before you click the shutter.
Take my advice; get professional help.
PhotoAttorney
Rights of Privacy Concerns for Photographers [photoattorney.com]
Nothing in the law is ever that simple. (Score:3)
Sorry, your entire highlighting doesn't work in such a case. There is ZERO expectation of privacy.
Spy cam software secretly put in place by a third party.
Installed for the purpose of capturing candid close-up images of customers using demo machines.
Not part of the legitimate and expected in-store surveillance system.
Not so gross a conceit as placing cameras behind the bathroom mirrors --- but not so very different a conception either.
Shots to be Instantly uploaded to the web as "art "or "entertainment ---"
without the consent of the participants to their possible public humiliation and with a very
Re:Blatant waste of tax payers money (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this blatant wasting of tax payers money? Clearly secret service was involved because of a) pressured by Apple lobbyists, or b) their buds in Government made it to act for "the good" of their corporate overlords.
As the TFA points out, the Secret Service performed an investigation. That is, somebody thought something was weird, it got bounced up the chain to a couple of field agents who acted professionally, even displayed a teensy tiny bit of humor ("We're from the FBI, maam, we don't have a sense of humor that we are aware of.") and compassion, spent some time and in the end, decided it wasn't a big deal. Remember, these guys didn't know what goofball artiste was up to. They just got a report of somebody installing what literally amounts to spyware on private computers.
If somebody did that where I work, you can bet there would be a bunch of people both in uniform and plainclothes wandering about asking pointed questions.
If anything, this reaffirms my (very limited) faith in the system. Nobody called in the SWAT team. Nobody went to jail. Yes, people were inconvenienced, but that happens every day around rush hour. Money was spent. In retrospect they didn't really need to do that, but that is what is great about hindsight.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a chance to upgrade!
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apple [theoatmeal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is legal to take your picture inside a public business without your knowledge. See security camera's in nearly every business.
I believe by law any place that has CC recording must disclaim that you are being recorded inside the place of business, thus it isn't without your knowledge. As for outside security cameras, that problem falls into public view. If you are in public view, you have no expectation of privacy.
It is legal to take pictures of the public without knowledge and no expectation of privacy by a private 3rd party.
If you are in the public view. This was inside an Apple store. There is some expectation of privacy
Why is this an issue at all? Seems like a huge waste of resources to me.
An unknown person installed software on Apple computers without their knowledge or approval. The software took pic
Re: (Score:3)
I really dislike when corporations decide to abuse the law like this. It makes my view of Apple even more cynical.
Please describe what abuse has occurred. Apple detected a computer intrusion at their stores. The software was being used to secretly record people and upload images to an outside server. Apple reported it to the authorities who happen to be the Secret Service. The Secret Service investigated. They questioned the individual and confiscated his computers. Please tell me how any of this is abusing the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wowsers MacTavish.
the goddamned secret service is who you call in these cases [floridalawfirm.com]
I hope you are not a lawyer. You would be a very bad one.
Re: (Score:2)