I never really understood why Kyle was so confused about the negative reactions. For someone who tried to be so in tune with people's feelings, he seemed to be missing something incredibly obvious: violation of expectation.
Yes, when you're in public you have no legal expectation of privacy. However, when you're using a computer at an Apple store, you're also not expecting that the webcam is snapping photos of you that will be posted online.
What he misses entirely is that what constitutes "legal" is not entirely congruent with social norms. Especially as it relates to what will happen to us in public. Legality defines the hard boundaries of our social expectations. We normally set those boundaries at a point where someone is "harmed". The broad social contract is that we won't trample all over each other, physically or emotionally, so we establish laws at the boundaries. Cross the boundary and you face punishment.
For example, it's not illegal to take photos of people on the street, yet US society has a love-hate relationship with the paparazzi. They're not breaking the law, but there are plenty of people who... uh... strongly dislike them. Kyle crossed over in to the same territory. Not illegal, but definitely hanging out on the fringes of socially acceptably behavior.
Yeah, Kyle seems to be missing some sort of social intelligence that most people possess -- or maybe career incentives make him choose to ignore or rationalize away what his social intelligence is telling him about how people are going to react.
EDIT: removed sentence that probably overstepped HN norms around meanness.
No different than if he had walked into the store, stood across the table from someone looking at a computer, and stared into their eyes.
That would freak most people out. There would be complaints, and he'd be escorted out & told to not return.
Legal? yes, but only because we'd rather not have laws applying the police power of the state against nigh unto every conceivable human interaction however defined.
Not only is that not "no different", it's not even close. Nobody expects that if you stare at them, photos of them will start appearing on a web server as part of an art exhibition (or in any tangible form other than a person's memory, for that matter).
Fine. "no less" than, in answer to those (him) trying to spin it as something perfectly legal/acceptable which nobody should be concerned/outraged/surprised about. If staring at strangers in stores will get you thrown off the premises, how much more so when staring at thousands of strangers and publishing their reactions?
Last I heard computer intrusion was felony with broad conditions that can be met fairly easily - when you use a computer without permission or when you overstep the implicit or explicit permission you have to use said computer (apologies if I'm wrong but didn't he install his app without explicit permission?).
Thus I wouldn't be at all certain that the artist here hasn't gone over the lines of legality.
I'm hardly a fan of Apple policies in general but it seems to me that here that sending the Secret Service after this guy is a both legal and appropriate act.
I disagree with the parent's claim that legal boundaries are the hard boundaries. Many legal boundaries are extraordinarily fuzzy, often to the detriment of civil liberties ("disorderly conduct" is a real crime for example). Oddly enough, here is a situation where a somewhat fuzzy law seems somewhat appropriate.
I believe he only mentions getting permission to photograph. It seems that he took at as a permission to install an app that would photograph. Maybe there was something I missed. If so, show me a quote.
Agreed. I doubt he was seriously confused about people's expectations. It seems like he's just trying to act innocent after the fact. "Oh I asked permission to do something tangentially related to my project and parts of the project might have even been legal!"
Or maybe I'm wrong and after years of relinquishing your own privacy, you simply have no respect for the privacy of others.
His lengthy post doesn't mention asking permission to install the app or explaining what it was for to a store employee. Where does your understanding come from?
when you're using a computer at an Apple store, you're also not expecting that the webcam is snapping photos of you that will be posted online
Really?? Over the years, I've become conditioned to assume that if I see any kind of camera lens pointing in my general direction, I am being recorded and that data is going somewhere.
I think what's not congruent with social norms is that people still assume that cameras are turned off and aren't recording them & being saved somewhere.
I also don't think we're done discussing this topic.. when people start wearing Google glasses everywhere, will everyone finally admit to themselves that they are being recorded almost all the time?
> I think what's not congruent with social norms is that people still assume that cameras are turned off and aren't recording them & being saved somewhere.
No, people assume that security cameras will be used for their intended purpose. Our expectations are guided by context. The camera is the tip of the iceberg. Behind it is a whole set of intentions. What it will record, who will view it, and what will be done with that recording. The fact that it's a security camera provides implied answers to all of the "what, who, why" questions.
The rules of these contexts aren't written down in any rule book, because if we did that, we'd spend our whole lives writing out rule books rather than living.
I'm not suggesting that what Kyle did should be illegal. No one was harmed. Some people might have felt uncomfortable, but no one was harmed.
I am saying that we should be free to dislike him for it. He won't be harmed, but it might make him feel a little uncomfortable. Then again, maybe it won't.
I understand. I guess I feel that I can't tell which cameras are security cameras anymore. Do they have to be mounted on a ceiling in a corner with a tinted dome? EDIT: If I install Prey on my PC, does my PC camera then qualify as a security camera?
Some people might have felt uncomfortable
Art is supposed to provoke an emotional response, be it positive or negative. I love it when people walk up to a painting a say something like "This painting looks very angry. I don't like it at all." That's exactly what art is about and only people who are comfortable with being uncomfortable will fully appreciate it.
> I guess I feel that I can't tell which cameras are security cameras anymore.
Do you really expect that any camera put up in public is taking your picture to be posted on a website somewhere as part of an exhibit?
As hackers and engineers, we live in a world of specifications, rules, and absolutes. Most people aren't like us. You can't nail down the exact line between "right and wrong", because there is no exact line. It's a moving target, but asking whether something is right or wrong is asking the wrong question. Instead, ask yourself how your actions will make the other person feel. If you suspect it will make them uncomfortable, then ask yourself if it's worth it.
Be honest with yourself about it. Kyle knew something was up, because he felt the need to conceal his actions. Maybe he still would have gone ahead with the project, but he seems unwilling to admit that what he was doing was in any kind of gray area.
> Art is supposed to provoke an emotional response, be it positive or negative. I love it when people walk up to a painting a say something like "This painting looks very angry. I don't like it at all." That's exactly what art is about and only people who are comfortable with being uncomfortable will fully appreciate it.
Sure. Personally, I found Kyle's project deeply interesting. I was drawn to the idea like the scent of BBQ on the grill (mmmm, BBQ), because I love to "feel". I don't mean to judge him or his project. I don't even mean to say that I think he shouldn't have done it. I just think that we should be aware of the difference between a painting that is offensive to those who choose to see it and commandeering someone's privacy in the name of art.
There's a vitally important distinction here though. If I walk up to a painting and say I don't like it, I've voluntarily subjected myself to that uncomfortable experience. Heck, I've probably deliberately walked into a venue whose express purpose is for showcasing the art (e.g. a gallery, or an art museum).
But in this case people are being made uncomfortable against their will. And that's not ok.
Though as was noted, we subconsciously KNOW we are being recorded by security cameras. Where is the difference?
I find the project to be unsettling and interesting at the same time. It is interesting to be able to turn the recording results back over to the public and draw some conclusions from them.
For instance, there was a comment worrying about "the computer" de-socializing us as a species. It seems to me that a "stone face" is just the default expression when we are not directly conveying non-verbal information. How often do you think you make faces during deep sleep?
Do people normally smile at things they are considering buying? This is a genuine question. I can't remember smiling at an inanimate object i was thinking of purchasing. That being said, i DO smile and laugh or cringe at times while reading a book on a computer, or watching a video, so maybe there ARE times?
> Though as was noted, we subconsciously KNOW we are being recorded by security cameras. Where is the difference?
Expectation.
I expect that security cameras record me.
I do not expect that the recordings will be posted on the internet.
I do expect that whoever is recording them will take some reasonable measures to secure their contents.
Those are just my expectations. There's no law against violating these expectations, but can't we all agree that the world is a more pleasant place when we respect others' expectations and avoid trampling on them where possible?
My expectations are not obsolete. There's a big difference between public web cams, in-store security cameras, and the web cam on a MacBook at an Apple Store.
This is a really good illustration of just how out of touch hackers can be. Just because you found what you believe to be an exception does not mean that everyone's expectations are invalid.
I bounce back and forth on this line thinking that Kyle, while not aware of his social abnormalities, is helping or hurting society. By having someone look at "us" all differently he sheds an interesting light on the individual, but it also is unnerving and crosses boundaries that we would never have thought someone could so easily broach. It is one of the problems with being too close to any subject you're working with (art, a patient, a paper, a project): you get desensitized to anything odd about 'it', but others are just experiencing the phenomena for the first time.
"For example, it's not illegal to take photos of people on the street, yet US society has a love-hate relationship with the paparazzi. They're not breaking the law, but there are plenty of people who... uh... strongly dislike them. Kyle crossed over in to the same territory."
I think the motivations are different here, although the acts are similar the reasons are not.
Yes, when you're in public you have no legal expectation of privacy. However, when you're using a computer at an Apple store, you're also not expecting that the webcam is snapping photos of you that will be posted online.
What he misses entirely is that what constitutes "legal" is not entirely congruent with social norms. Especially as it relates to what will happen to us in public. Legality defines the hard boundaries of our social expectations. We normally set those boundaries at a point where someone is "harmed". The broad social contract is that we won't trample all over each other, physically or emotionally, so we establish laws at the boundaries. Cross the boundary and you face punishment.
For example, it's not illegal to take photos of people on the street, yet US society has a love-hate relationship with the paparazzi. They're not breaking the law, but there are plenty of people who... uh... strongly dislike them. Kyle crossed over in to the same territory. Not illegal, but definitely hanging out on the fringes of socially acceptably behavior.