

The Art of Surprise (commentary on" illegally" installing software) - apgwoz
http://code.technically.us/post/7381180099/the-art-of-surprise

======
reduxredacted
I have to come out on the side of Apple on this one, but this is also a big
case of serious over-reaction. While I did find the idea rather interesting,
as a former employee of CompUSA in my youth, I was endlessly frustrated by
pranksters ( _prankster_ , _artist_ \-- that depends on who's shoes you occupy
at the time).

Every single day we had someone come in and try the old "echo y|format c:",
create various silly GWBASIC:

    
    
         10 PRINT "Something Really Profane"
         20 GOTO 10
    

or at worst, insert virus infected floppy disks (yes, that was how long ago I
worked there), or otherwise make the demo machines, both Mac and PC, non-
functional.

We had a guy create a DOS TSR app that made the internal speakers spit out
beeps at random intervals, random lengths and random pitches, all precisely
timed. We thought it had to be an employee, since someone would have otherwise
noticed a customer methodically visiting each machine.

I knew it was an employee, because I was the one who did it. No member of the
Secret Service came knocking on my door. Thanks to the lack of video cameras
at the time, I didn't even get reprimanded (my direct boss knew I did it, but
thought it was _art_ , or at least, rather funny, and it was done on a
Wednesday in the summer, so it was minimally disruptive ... it also didn't
involve taking pictures of folks without their knowledge ... legal or
otherwise, that just has an ick factor to it).

 _EDIT:_ Didn't like that last sentence, needed more dots.

------
gallerytungsten
I think "illegally installing software" is a red herring.

Rather, the issue is "Spy Camera Artist." It's possible that most of the folks
photographed for his show have no idea; and might not be happy.

While photography in a public place is protected, private property photography
is at the discretion of the property owner.

Apple might come to the idea that unwittingly photographed customers could sue
them for invasion of privacy. Hence, they went after him.

There are plenty of other reasons and explanations as well.

~~~
jrockway
Apple stores, assuming anyone is allowed to shop there, are "public places"
under the law.

Apple's computers, arguably, are not supposed to be used to take pictures of
people at the Apple store. But that's Apple's problem, not mine.

~~~
rdp
An Apple Store is private property.

~~~
dangrossman
He said public place, not public property. A private property can be a public
place in the legal world.

------
gaius
It's about the audience. If you walk into a store, you take it for granted
that you'll be on CCTV that the store only films in case the cops need it. You
do not grant permission for any random person to use that footage for their
own ends. Well this is no different from someone sneaking in an stealing the
CCTV tapes. Sorry, but the store were absolutely within their rights to have
him arrested.

~~~
soundslikeneon
No different from breaking and entering followed by theft? Come on. The reason
this is a big debate in the first place is that people seem so compelled to
shoehorn new technologies and new abilities into old categories. The world we
live in is full of cameras and we as a society aren't sure how we feel about
that yet. But making that leap to 'theft' simply for lack of a better analogy
is dangerous.

------
ddw
I have no idea what Apple's justification was for going to the authorities
(and I hate to defend them), but I think they have a valid case regarding the
privacy of their customers.

Imagine if Apple installed the software instead of the artist. Without warning
their customers before they approached the laptop, there would have been an
uproar.

That said, cool idea.

------
GHFigs
Would this post have been written if McDonald had installed the software on
hundreds of computers in public libraries instead? How about if the software
was a keylogger?

------
molecule
Is the Secret Service's complaint in this case available? Otherwise: seems
like a lot of speculation on something that's not yet known.

