Feds visit artist behind People Staring at Computers, confiscate laptop | Hacker News Reader

Feds visit artist behind People Staring at Computers, confiscate laptop

eyeteeth.blogspot.com

50 pointsth0ma550 comments

Pardon the language, but what a jackass. Walking into the apple store doesn't mean that I want to have my photo on your website. I think the "but you were in a public space!" people need to cool it a little bit; maybe them and the "if you have nothing to hide!" people should get together and take a vacation.

This is just incredibly discourteous. Being public to the people in my immediate vicinity, and being public to the billions of people on the internet are not the same thing.

Having his laptop taken is obviously not really an appropriate response.

I'd seriously suggest not going out in public in any major city if you don't want your photo appearing on the internet. I always myself wonder how many people's vacation photos I'm in.

Really? Back this up, please.

I'm sure my photo is taken many, many times per day. I doubt the majority of these photos are taken 18 inches in front of my face, then uploaded to a publicly accessible website.

Being in the background of some kid's facebook photo, or being 1 of several hundred thousand pictures taken by a security camera, and this, are not the same.

I didn't say it was the same, what I'm saying is that by going out in public there is a reasonable risk that you will be photographed and it will appear in public on the internet and it will probably be of enough quality to personally identify you. I don't see why this should be illegal. Is the guy a jackass? For sake of argument, lets say he is.

The author has stated that he will remove any photos that you don't want, so if you don't want them up then just go ask him to take them down.

I'm not sure what you wanted me to back up, could you be specific?

I don't think that you needing to know that you are now part of an art exhibit that he is using photos of you without your permission is really okay as long as he'll "take them down" if you ask.

There's a reason that tv shows and such need you to sign a release if they video tape you in a cab for example before they put it on tv. It's to basically say I'm not going to sue you if I'm humiliated by being on your show. I would bet that anyone he featured who felt humiliated could probably sue him.

There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point).

They probably capture me finger-in-nose more often than artists too. The security cameras do have an appealing lack of pretentiousness, though.

> There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point).

Nitpick: His being an artist isn't relevant here. What he is doing isn't a work of art. It seems like somehow the article's headline is making it seem like art is being censored which isn't the case.

Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art, but there is a legal question of whether or not what he's doing is protected by the First Amendment. It's a novel take on the "public spaces" argument, but not by much. If he had put cameras in the eyes of a statue in a park and recorded people interacting with the statue, would that be forbidden as well?

I get where he's coming from, and I get that some people would be upset by it. That's why we need to have a conversation about what privacy means in this day and age, and how much of a reasonable expectation of it you have in public spaces (and what constitutes a public space). I think the fact that it's the Apple Store in New York is relevant. It's not a Best Buy in Bellingham. That store really is a public place, and the computers within it are basically public in every sense of the word.

The Apple Store is NOT a public place. Neither are their computers. Why would you even think they are? Can Apple ask you to leave their store for any reason? Yes. Could a private citizen or corporation ask you to leave a park? No. They are two very different things.

It also doesn't make a bit of difference that it's in New York and not in Bellingham.

Of course it's private property, and of course it's Apple's call what goes on there. I never claimed it was anything but. My argument was not one of ownership, but one of privacy. I was not using "public" as an antonym for "privately owned", but rather as an antonym for "in private". If I have sex on a public bus, I'm not going to be charged with misusing public property, I'm going to be charged with having sex in public.

> Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? > I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art,

And the article and headline about an "artist" makes it look like a "work of art" is being censored.

And who are you to decide it's a work of art? It's not. If you think otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion.

> That store really is a public place, and the computers within it are basically public in every sense of the word.

They are owned by Apple and you are allowed to use them per Apple's discretion. The same argument extends about public places - the park is public doesn't mean you can go there and take a dump.

Regardless what constitutes a public place, there are norms.

Unpolite yes, but not enough to warrant a visit from the Secret Service.

Hence "Having his laptop taken is obviously not really an appropriate response".

Not saying it warrants a visit from the SS, but if I were Apple I would be concerned too. Some people could potentially distrust Apple stores because of this which would result in loss of business.

The article mentions Title 18 Section 1030 - probably (a)(5). He could potentially be prosecuted (a federal felony) for accessing a computer connected to the internet without permission. Since it wasn't a computer owned by the U.S. government or anything special, I think they need to show that he exploited his access for financial gain or that the damages exceeded $5,000. I can't imagine removing his program from a dozen macs would exceed $5,000, but they could try to show that. My guess is that unless there's more to this story, this won't result in a prosecution.

(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if— (A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; - 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access ¬devices

If section 1030 doesn't fit, 1029 certainly does.

How can you honestly think this won’t be prosecuted? He installed spyware on over 100 computers (Apple will have to come down hard to deter future instances of this nature and push for prosecution).

The “artist” has also publicly admitted to doing so and provided the prosecution with more than enough evidence to see this through. It wasn't but an hour ago that the supposed “artist” received word from the EFF that he should just shut his mouth.

The computers were setup in mind with visitors being able to access them, he accessed them. The software he wrote would not require elevated privileges. He even asked a security guard whether he had permission to photograph in the store.

I fail to see how it's unauthorized, also the recordings were made in a public space where there is no expectation of privacy. Even if privacy could be argued in a public space, I'm sure the Apple stores / malls have the requisite notices that people are being recorded, should they think they are not. There's a decent chance of a good defense.

It's going to be difficult for Apple to argue that the computers were not meant to be used this way, infact Apple provides software (Photobooth) to take pictures and upload them to the internet on its computers.

Are the feds seriously trying to assert that Apple had no idea how to configure their computers to enforce their access policy? Even if they couldn't figure this out a simple piece of tape over the camera would suffice.

If Apple doesn't want people doing this to their computers they should post notices that one should not access their computers until they have read and signed the acceptable use policy.

You're right. As long as the security guard said is was okay.

I mean, it is a public space, paid for by our tax dollars, owned and run by the local government.

Let’s be clear about the known facts: 1) McDonald claims he received permission from a security guard, but I didn't see any evidence or video proof to support this assertion. 2) McDonald claims he received permission from the security guard, but he fails to provide any information for what he was approved to do. -Clearly, filming from a public space, outside and apple store through a window and into an apple store is not really the central point here (policies of this nature would be the purview of the mall – and that's not even clear!) - McDonald, apparently, was filming within an apple store, which, correct me if I am wrong, is not technically a public space since it is a commercially zoned space, paid for by apple. - McDonald provides no information to suggest that he received authorization to film apple customers, likely a violation of apple store policy and security regulations. Last I checked, I didn't see a sign informing customers that by entering this apple store you waive your right to protest apple’s right to use your image for free. Ya, that’s right cause it doesn't exist. Apple security monitoring of clients in stores seems pretty straight forward and in line with any other retail outlet.

Accesses: I would argue it’s not an issue of access but the fact that he installed a program on these computers. Even if the terminals did not require elevated privileges (which you will see apple change in the coming days), it is the unauthorized introduction of a program, which violates the law. Again, access doesn't mean permission to augment settings.

Additionally, it is interesting to note “12 states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.” It is conceivable that the spyware in question infringed upon privacy laws in these states. That would be another charge.

Photobooth has little to do with this situation as far as I can tell. Did customers agree to the service agreement or terms of service when demoing the computer? Answer, no. Because apple had no intention of allowing those pictures to be uploaded to the Net, right? Did these customers sign or digitally endorse a new kind of privacy policy that was presented by apple in order to use the demo computer? Answer, no. I mean really. Even if they did, would apple have been in a position to inform customers about potential spyware applications that were maliciously added to the demo computers? Answer, no. I mean come on.

This is pretty clear, cut and dry. Whether or not McDonald is using art to cover his tracks or whether he is really that ignorant is best left to the courts. I am sure he can plead out, but he definitely gets zero sympathy from me.

Based on the fact that this is a federal investigation and the warrant specified Title 18 Section 1030, this has nothing to do with the rights of the people in the photos. I also don't think the potential charges have anything to do with wiretapping or capturing any data. It's all about unauthorized access to Apple's computers. It's a federal case not because of anything actually crossing state lines but because the computers are connected to the internet and therefore could potentially be involved in interstate commerce.

I think it's really important that people understand how easily you can cross that line and end up in deep legal trouble. What's the legal difference between this and if I walked into an Apple store and installed my latest iPad app on a few display models?

We havent seen the warrant. We have only been told one charge the "artist" claims. That to me doesn't paint a holistic picture of reality.

The criminal statute on unauthorized access seems pretty clear so perhaps McDonald 'just' violated that as a standalone matter. If so, ok - next (jail).

To answer your question about the difference between this and your scenario is best summed up by the arrival or lack thereof the Secret Service.

Agree, it is very important for folks to better understand how easy it is (for some) to cross the line into legal trouble. The EFF provides a few solid overviews on these issues. Would avoid these waters in general, but I digress...

Excellent interpretation. I agree with your reasoning.

I could be wrong, don't remember for sure, but I believe photo laws state that even on private property, where there is no expectation of property, you must only cease when asked to leave. You can still keep photos taken prior to being asked to leave.

I have also had Apple employees at MacWorld tell me that since I was a far drive from their campus labs that I could always go to an Apple Store and install and test my software. I am sure this is not an officially endorsed thing, but it is something many people are suggested to do.

Many many youtube videos in the past have hit near meme status for a short time at least being made entirely in an Apple Store. At least half a million views or so. Apple has never C&D'd these performances.

I see the points people are making, but I have to be honest, were it my idea, I would never have thought I would have had a computer taken from me for it. More like simply asked to stop.

PhotoBooth does not delete images, they all end up rather hidden in the camera roll. Anyone can go in there and upload them to any site they desire.

How do sites like "pics of my ex gf" and "pics of random strangers" etc become allowed if this is not? In both those examples, the person the photo was taken of did not consent. There are a million adult'ish sites that take photo submissions.

They have to show intent and damages. Unless I'm misunderstanding, he didn't delete or disrupt any data nor did he capture anything except photos of people in a public place. The computers he accessed were unlocked and on public display (again, unless I'm misunderstanding this). Though he may not have had explicit permission to install anything, I don't think there are any statements posted in Apple stores that tell you not to install anything. (I've personally installed apps on display iOS devices a number of times to try them out.)

It could be hard to show the damages. These are display models in a store that I would suspect are regularly wiped clean anyways. If it really is 100 computers, that could approach the $5,000 figure though.

But they still need to consider his intent. A judge wouldn't even be able to accept a guilty plea from him if he didn't include his intent to cause damage in his allocution. He's made it pretty clear that his intent was to create some form of art. (Unless there's something more to the story.)

It's not a case I'd want to bring before a judge or jury, based on my understanding of the facts. That doesn't mean that they won't push for a plea deal or try the case just for the experience. I think section 1030 cases are still relatively rare.

> He installed spyware on over 100 computers

Get over yourself. He installed a simple app that takes and emails photos. He put it on computers that don't save state so there's no more clean-up then flicking the switch and rebooting them all.

Sony wrote a rootkit, one that caused actual damages, and put it on thousands, if not millions, of home PCs.

Why so much outrage at this photo project? Photographer steal your soul?

>I can't imagine removing his program from a dozen macs would exceed $5,000,

if to use Randal Schwartz's $68K restitution (in mid-90s prices) to Intel for copying a file between hosts as a precedent ...

Apparently, the spyware was embedded on over 100 macs. That is at least what is known at the present time. Say apple hires a guy to clean those 100 machines and it takes 1 hour at a rate of??? We get above 5k in no time. Plus, do you really think apple is just going to check those 100 machines he admitted to infecting? Wouldnt you run a check on every single machine in that store? It wont take long to go from 5k to 500k.

The machines are wiped automatically at night. The cost to apple to remove his software is no greater than what they do anyway...

Fair point. But if you were the regional manager at Apple, would you take that chance? More to the point if you were an executive at apple with the your PR team breathing down your neck would you tell them argue your point to the press? Or would you hire a bunch of high priced consultants to preform tests to authenticate and verify the security of the machines and stores in question? Yup, you would pay for the security PR umbrella without question and without hesitation. Again, well over $5k. Also, can you add "indirect costs" into the equation? If so, we have gone from +5k to near $1m in a matter of paragraphs. NEXT....

Are you trying to provide an example of the stupid things a lawyer could invent to blow this out of proportion, or are you actually arguing that there are any damages?

IANAL but here's my argument if I was his defense lawyer:

When you walk into an Apple store Apple openly invites you to use their computers. There are no instructions on what you are and are not allowed to do on the computers, no warnings against installing software or that specific types of programs are not allowed to be installed. The computers are mostly not locked down, the fact that Apple wipes the computers every night shows that Apple expects customers to use the computers in anyway they see fit. Apple's open invitation to use the computers means it is not possible to "trespass" onto these computers.

An Apple store contains hundreds of cameras, the cameras are prominent features in most of the devices and customers will be aware of them. Customers routinely take pictures of each other, of the employees and everything in the store. While using the cameras, they test uploading pictures to internet services such as email, Facebook, and others. There is no expectation of privacy and any reasonable customer should expect that their picture might be taken and uploaded to the internet.

You are indeed NAL.

Apply the same logic to using computers in an Apple store to launch a DDOS. You hardly have to change your argument, and yet it reveals how absurd it is.

There are specific laws against launching a DDOS. What law are you suggesting he violated?

Neither of us are lawyers; we are not qualified to have a discussion of which laws he violated. I am pointing out that - ignoring the legality of what he did (I suspect the response might involve suspicions of keyloggers present in the his code, because I'm a bit paranoid) - your argument makes no sense.

What law are you referring to?

DDOS attackers are charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. They charged one of the kids from the Anonymous DDOS on Scientology with "unauthorized impairment of a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (a) (5) (A) (i), (B) (i)." http://secretdox.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/usa-v-guzner-plea-...

I realize this is the same statute that they are going to come after this guy but they couldn't get him for impairment of a protected computer. They would have to try charging him for unauthorized access, but my point is that Apple is implicitly authorizing everyone in their stores to access their computers.

Now it appears that project may be in jeopardy.

The "project" would be the least of my worries.

How did the "artist" get the photos off the webcam?

Installing spyware on the computers at the apple store. This is a very one-sided and dishonest blogpost since they leave out a lot of information.

http://mashable.com/2011/07/07/secret-service-apple-store-ar...

Ha! “McDonald set up roughly 100 Apple store computers to call his servers every minute.” Better get a real good attorney buddy, get your affairs in order, and give your cat to your mom, cause boy you are in a lot of trouble.

On the plus side, he could probably get a job with that school system in Pennsylvania. He seems qualified.

rimshot

Why doesn't apple secure their equipment? What about the millions of cameras in every store and building and ATM? Why are people worried about a few laptop cameras "spying" on them when they're spied upon as soon as they walk out of the house?

Cameras, cameras everywhere, and not a shred of privacy left.

Why doesn't apple secure their equipment?

Because the benefit of letting people do whatever they feel like on the display units in the store - while a good number of them are shopping for said equipment - is worth more than the cost of automatically wiping the machines each night.

So the guy used the store's property without their permission. He installed his own software on their computers and contacted his own servers. And then he advertised it.

Come on dude, be a grownup. This is the behaviour of a jackass, to quote the top comment.

Now why the SS is involved (see what I did there? haha) I don't know. Maybe they don't like non-government sanctioned backdoors in Apple computers.

Just wait until this happens and it's not an artist who did it. Everyone here saying it's no big deal will do a 180. It's not his intent but his actions.

... and it's not an artist who did it.

Define "artist."

Best I can tell it's "someone who who declares 'I am an artist!'"

I don't have a problem with that, but I am skeptical of people trying to excuse arbitrary behavior by hiding behind "But it's art."

We have become a society obsessed with bureaucracy. We worship it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com