Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

> In the end, if Apple hadn't so vehemently condemned the piece, it would have been resigned to live as just another quick F.A.T. Lab project, and part of my ongoing curiosity exploring computer-mediated interaction. But because they had the project taken offline, and my computer confiscated, Apple managed to give it more attention than I could have ever attracted. The reporters using headlines with "artist" in scare quotes got the media artists mad. The censorship and search warrant got the freedom of speech people mad. The feeling of privacy invasion, or just the awareness of surveillance, took care of everyone else. Apple created an amazing discussion I never could have planned.

Sounds about right

View on HN

This phrasing of „vehemently condemned“ is a bit odd.

It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down. Even in the author’s own admission, they could have given him much more trouble. It seems reasonable for Apple not to give their blessing to this sort of project, both to „protect“ their customers and discourage the installation of what looks like malware on a bunch of their computers.

I guess Apple also reported the artist to the secret service, but given that he installed what appeared to be Malware on a bunch of computers, it’s not an entirely unreasonable response.

The artist probably knew that if he’d been straightforward with Apple about the project he wanted to do and asked for permission for it, rather than vaguely asking whether he can take some pictures/video, he wouldn’t have gotten permission.

In the end it seems like it mostly worked out. The artist got to do the project, and only got a little trouble for operating what many would consider a legal grey zone, and he got a buch of discussion and exposure from it.

>It seems apple only asked the pictures be taken down.

Sending law enforcement to confiscate their belongings seems pretty in line with "vehemently condemned". Personally I don't think his art project was entirely ethically in the clear so to speak, but this seems like nitpicky semantics considering they sent him a legal nastygram that referenced a criminal investigation that they themselves initiated.

>"Those violations of the CFAA give rise to a civil cause of action by Apple, and the display of the images and video is causing ongoing harm to Apple. There is also a criminal investigation related to those violations of the CFAA. Furthermore, the images and video may violate the privacy/publicity rights of the individuals pictured therein, including but not limited to Apple employees."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com