Does that mean Nikon's auto-photo mode is illegal?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 9, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    example.

    I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.

    CNN:

    8 July 2011 Last updated at 10:54 ET
    Secret agents raid Apple store webcam 'artist'

    The US Secret Service has raided the home of an artist who collected
    images from webcams in a New York Apple store.

    Kyle McDonald is said to have installed software that photographed
    people looking at laptops then uploaded the pictures to a website.

    Mr McDonald said he had obtained permission from a security guard to
    take photos inside the store.

    Apple declined to comment. However, the Secret Service confirmed that
    its electronic crime division was involved.

    A spokesperson told the BBC that the investigation was taking place
    under US Code Title 18 /1030 which relates to "Fraud and related
    activity in connection with computers."

    Offences covered by the legislation carry a maximum penalty of 20
    years in prison.

    Writing on Twitter, Mr McDonald said: "@secretservice just stopped by
    to investigate [web address removed] and took my laptop. Please assume
    they're reading any e-mails you send me."

    No arrests had been made in the case as of 8 July.
    Staring

    Kyle McDonald's images were uploaded to a page on the blogging site
    Tumblr.

    In the description of People Staring at Computers, the project is
    described as: "A photographic intervention. Custom app installed
    around NYC, taking a picture every minute and uploading it if a face
    is found in the image.

    "Exhibited on site with a remotely triggered app that displayed the
    photos full screen on every available computer."

    The site features a video and series of photographs, apparently
    showing shoppers trying-out computers.

    Comments on the individuals by visitors to the site are also attached
    to the images.

    Mr McDonald, writing on Twitter, said that he had been advised not to
    comment on the case by the online freedom group the Electronic
    Frontier Foundation.
    RichA, Jul 9, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    > automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    > example.
    >
    > I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.


    because he installed software without permission on computers he did
    not own, which took photos of people without their knowledge and sent
    it to his own server.

    in this case the software only took photos, but he could have just as
    easily installed a key logger.

    in other words, it's computer fraud.

    > CNN:
    >
    > 8 July 2011 Last updated at 10:54 ET
    > Secret agents raid Apple store webcam 'artist'
    >
    > The US Secret Service has raided the home of an artist who collected
    > images from webcams in a New York Apple store.
    >
    > Kyle McDonald is said to have installed software that photographed
    > people looking at laptops then uploaded the pictures to a website.
    >
    > Mr McDonald said he had obtained permission from a security guard to
    > take photos inside the store.
    >
    > Apple declined to comment. However, the Secret Service confirmed that
    > its electronic crime division was involved.
    >
    > A spokesperson told the BBC that the investigation was taking place
    > under US Code Title 18 /1030 which relates to "Fraud and related
    > activity in connection with computers."
    nospam, Jul 9, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/9/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    > The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    > automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    > example.
    >
    > I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
    >


    <possible plagery deleted>

    You don't sere because you have no basic understanding. Perhaps if you
    gave an original fact and law based analysis, you would get a meaningful
    response. Don't post and expect others to analyze it for you.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jul 9, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Paul Furman
    <> wrote:

    > I don't think it qualifies as fraud, because he's not stealing money or
    > anything like that... perhaps paid by some gallery to exhibit it? I
    > don't know what the hell the Secret Service should have to do with this
    > though I can imagine someone captured in the work complaining, but maybe
    > a law suit would be their only recourse.


    <http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml>

    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.

    looks like a perfect match.

    > > in this case the software only took photos, but he could have just as
    > > easily installed a key logger.

    >
    > Could have but I don't see any indication of that intent. The guy asked
    > store security for permission and was above board other than to the
    > store visitors.


    he claims he asked someone to take pictures, not to install software on
    their machines to take photos without the consent of the subjects.

    plus, the security guard is not an apple employee so they can't
    authorize it anyway.

    > > in other words, it's computer fraud.

    >
    > wiki: "In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for
    > personal gain or to damage another individual"


    his personal gain was the collection of photos taken without the
    knowledge of the subjects and also taken on private property using
    equipment he didn't own.

    > Maybe could be argued as embarrassing but that's about it.


    no, it's actually quite a bit worse than that.
    nospam, Jul 9, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Paul Furman <> wrote:
    >nospam wrote:
    >> in other words, it's computer fraud.

    >
    >wiki: "In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for
    >personal gain or to damage another individual"
    >
    >Maybe could be argued as embarrassing but that's about it.



    The issue is surely covered by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which
    would appear not to be limited to fraud.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_fraud
    Bruce, Jul 9, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <090720111214413805%>,
    d says...
    >
    > In article <>, Paul Furman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > I don't think it qualifies as fraud, because he's not stealing money or
    > > anything like that... perhaps paid by some gallery to exhibit it? I
    > > don't know what the hell the Secret Service should have to do with this
    > > though I can imagine someone captured in the work complaining, but maybe
    > > a law suit would be their only recourse.

    >
    > <http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml>
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > looks like a perfect match.
    >
    > > > in this case the software only took photos, but he could have just as
    > > > easily installed a key logger.

    > >
    > > Could have but I don't see any indication of that intent. The guy asked
    > > store security for permission and was above board other than to the
    > > store visitors.

    >
    > he claims he asked someone to take pictures, not to install software on
    > their machines to take photos without the consent of the subjects.
    >
    > plus, the security guard is not an apple employee so they can't
    > authorize it anyway.
    >
    > > > in other words, it's computer fraud.

    > >
    > > wiki: "In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for
    > > personal gain or to damage another individual"

    >
    > his personal gain was the collection of photos taken without the
    > knowledge of the subjects and also taken on private property using
    > equipment he didn't own.
    >
    > > Maybe could be argued as embarrassing but that's about it.

    >
    > no, it's actually quite a bit worse than that.


    Might prove to be an interesting case. For example they say they can
    investigate "unauthorized access to protected computers". But what is a
    "protected computer" and what is "unauthorized access"? If a security
    guard said that he could take pictures was that "authorization" and if
    the computers were in a location easily accessible to a member of the
    public and not set up with passwords were they "protected"?

    The whole area of computer crime is an area of the law that is still in
    the formative stage.

    I can't see where taking pictures of people on private property using
    equipment installed by or at the behest of the owner or lessee of the
    property would be any kind of "fraud"--if it is then all use of security
    cameras is "fraud" and that doesn't pass the giggle test.

    Someone other than the property owner or lessee taking data captured by
    those cameras and diverting it for his own use is another story--there
    it can be argued that he defrauded the rightful owner of that data of
    any profits that he made from its use.

    It's unlikely that the persons photographed would have any recourse
    unless they could argue that their likeness was used for commercial
    purposes without their consent.
    J. Clarke, Jul 9, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    > automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    > example.
    >
    > I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
    >

    Trespassing, unlawful access to computers (hacking, hence the US Secret
    Service) to start with.

    > CNN:
    >
    > 8 July 2011 Last updated at 10:54 ET
    > Secret agents raid Apple store webcam 'artist'
    >
    > The US Secret Service has raided the home of an artist who collected
    > images from webcams in a New York Apple store.
    >
    > Kyle McDonald is said to have installed software that photographed
    > people looking at laptops then uploaded the pictures to a website.
    >

    Unauthorized use of private property (Conversion in criminal code terms)
    Apple owns those computers until they are sold. Neither Apple nor the
    store management granted permission to install software onto those
    computers.

    >
    > Mr McDonald said he had obtained permission from a security guard to
    > take photos inside the store.
    >

    Irrelevant, the security guard has no authority to grant permission to
    install software onto private property, nor can he grant permission to
    "take photos in the store" If he was an employee of the Apple Store, he
    could authorize photos within the shop, however he certainly could NOT
    grant permission to use images of the customers without their consent. I
    would say it's the same as if a security guard gave a third party access
    to your kitchen to make lunch, or in the valet parking to use your car.
    >
    > Apple declined to comment. However, the Secret Service confirmed that
    > its electronic crime division was involved.
    >
    > A spokesperson told the BBC that the investigation was taking place
    > under US Code Title 18 /1030 which relates to "Fraud and related
    > activity in connection with computers."
    >

    He installed remote software onto privately owned computers. So let's
    presume that you bought that MacBook, took it home. If he has access to
    remotely control the webcam, what else can he access? Would you enjoy
    finding a photo of you sitting around at home in your skivvies and bunny
    slippers. Because "some artist" had a dumb artwork blog? Apple I would
    imagine would be very liable, as they sold the infected MacBook.

    >
    > Offences covered by the legislation carry a maximum penalty of 20
    > years in prison.
    >

    Sounds good, give him the max.

    [edit]
    >
    > Mr McDonald, writing on Twitter, said that he had been advised not to
    > comment on the case by the online freedom group the Electronic
    > Frontier Foundation.
    >

    Good advice, which Mr. McDonald seemed to ignore.

    Mike
    Mike, Jul 9, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 09/07/2011 5:25 PM, Mike wrote:
    > On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    >> Mr McDonald, writing on Twitter, said that he had been advised not to
    >> comment on the case by the online freedom group the Electronic
    >> Frontier Foundation.
    > >

    > Good advice, which Mr. McDonald seemed to ignore.
    >
    > Mike


    And inspite of legal advice, he continues

    http://peoplestaringatcomputers.tumblr.com/

    Mike
    Mike, Jul 9, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 09/07/2011 5:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > I notice the last shot was of a resident Apple Store "Geek" with a "hand
    > to the face" by-stander behind him. I wonder if that was when the reveal
    > was discovered and the "work of art" cut short.
    >

    I wondered that too. I would guess somebody in the Apple Store, their
    net admin or their ISP noticed odd network traffic. Saw it as hacking
    and notified the US Secret Service (USSS). I doubt the USSS found it by
    accident.

    Mike
    Mike, Jul 9, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 09/07/2011 6:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    > This from "Mashable.com"
    >
    > "Over the course of the project, McDonald set up roughly 100 Apple store
    > computers to call his servers every minute. That’s a lot of network
    > traffic, and he learned that Apple monitors traffic in its stores when
    > he received a photo from a Cupertino computer of what appeared to be an
    > Apple technician. The technician had apparently traced the traffic to
    > the site McDonald used to upload the program to Apple Store computers —
    > and installed it himself.
    > McDonald figured that Apple had decided the program wasn't a big deal.
    > That was until four Secret Service men in suits woke him up on Thursday
    > morning with a search warrant for computer fraud. They confiscated two
    > computers, an iPod, and two flash drives, and told McDonald that Apple
    > would contact him separately."
    >
    > I guess "contact separately" means Apple's attorneys will be contacting
    > you soon.
    >

    I can imagine years of civil litigation, as all his "subjects" didn't
    sign releases, so each has a right to sue his ass to the stone ages...

    Mike
    Mike, Jul 9, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    vishalkharat61

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    wht about mcse ? How To Use That ?
    vishalkharat61, Jul 9, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    vishalkharat61

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    NIce

    :sheep:listen::eating::trytofly::wink::bowl::):yell::congrats::turtle::turtle::yell::eating::stupido3::lol:
    vishalkharat61, Jul 9, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    vishalkharat61

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    s dnb

    :yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::yell::handkiss::yell:abs
    vishalkharat61, Jul 9, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/9/2011 9:24 PM, Rich wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote in news:4e18a562$0$12453
    > $-secrets.com:
    >
    >> On 7/9/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    >>> automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    >>> example.
    >>>
    >>> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
    >>>

    >>
    >> <possible plagery deleted>
    >>
    >> You don't sere because you have no basic understanding. Perhaps if you
    >> gave an original fact and law based analysis, you would get a

    > meaningful
    >> response. Don't post and expect others to analyze it for you.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I didn't attempt to explain it, because I didn't understand the illegal
    > part. English too difficult for you, c--- face? "Law based analysis!"
    > Where did you get your law degree?


    So you resort to personal insults. Crawl back under a rock. You have no
    analytical ability. You have no factual credibility.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jul 10, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:00:36 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 7/9/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    >> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    >> automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    >> example.
    >>
    >> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
    >>

    >
    ><possible plagery deleted>
    >
    >You don't sere because you have no basic understanding. Perhaps if you
    >gave an original fact and law based analysis, you would get a meaningful
    >response. Don't post and expect others to analyze it for you.


    That's exactly what I see others doing in this thread, so it would
    seem to be a not-unreasonable expectation.
    John A., Jul 10, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    > The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    > automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    > example.
    >
    > I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.
    >

    Just out of curiousity Richard, when you "test" various cameras and
    lenses at the local Henry's store, or their photo show. Do you have
    permission and releases to post the other customers and staff members to
    the Internet? Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.

    Mike
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    ASCII Guest

    Mike wrote:
    >Posting without people's consent is ILLEGAL.


    Does that extend to shots taken in a public place,
    or in the case of a store, shots taken with their permission?
    ASCII, Jul 10, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:30:17 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-07-09 10:23:16 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> The mode that allows you to take photos over a time period,
    >> automatically. That mode is used now for wildlife photography as one
    >> example.

    >
    >So?
    >>
    >> I don't quite get why what this guy did was illegal.

    >
    >If that is the case, your ability to read and actually comprehend just
    >what it was you read, is very much in question.
    >
    >Read the story again and see if there are any clues you might pick up.
    >
    >>
    >> CNN:
    >>
    >> 8 July 2011 Last updated at 10:54 ET
    >> Secret agents raid Apple store webcam 'artist'
    >>
    >> The US Secret Service has raided the home of an artist who collected
    >> images from webcams in a New York Apple store.

    >
    >Good!
    >Why does the term "artist" seem dubious?
    >This guy is a criminal hacker.
    >
    >...and installing clandestine, software such as this is illegal hacking.
    >
    >>
    >> Kyle McDonald is said to have installed software that photographed
    >> people looking at laptops then uploaded the pictures to a website.
    >>
    >> Mr McDonald said he had obtained permission from a security guard to
    >> take photos inside the store.

    >
    >The "security guard" has the authority to permit access to store
    >computers for the purposes of hacking? I doubt it.
    >
    >My BS radar detector is flashing.


    Oh, I totally believe that he did in fact ask the security guard(s) if
    he could take photos in the store, neglecting to mention, of course,
    that he would be doing so by way of the clandestinely installed app.

    And I totally believe the guard(s) said "sure, go ahead."

    I suspect he was carrying a camera, or maybe a phone.

    Basically, he believed he probably would not have gotten permission if
    he had been honest about what he wanted to do.

    >Somehow, considering he hacked about 100 computers at 2 different
    >stores, If his BS story is true, don't believe that security guard, or
    >perhaps the in-store rent-a-cop agency still has a job/contract.


    If they were let go it wasn't for telling the guy it was ok to take
    photos; it was for not catching him installing the software.
    John A., Jul 10, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 17:25:30 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

    >On 09/07/2011 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:
    > >
    >> Mr McDonald said he had obtained permission from a security guard to
    >> take photos inside the store.
    > >

    >Irrelevant, the security guard has no authority to grant permission to
    >install software onto private property, nor can he grant permission to
    >"take photos in the store" If he was an employee of the Apple Store, he
    >could authorize photos within the shop, however he certainly could NOT
    >grant permission to use images of the customers without their consent. I
    >would say it's the same as if a security guard gave a third party access
    >to your kitchen to make lunch, or in the valet parking to use your car.


    Not necessarily. It would be reasonable to assume that if a security
    guard tells you it's okay to do something, and gives no indication
    they are bending the rules for you, then you do have permission to do
    it. Likewise if you were given permission to do something by an
    imposter guard - they are an apparent agent of the establishment, so
    you are not at fault for doing something they tell you it's ok to do.

    But that doesn't matter in this case since Mr McDonald did something
    he was not told he could do; per the account given here, he
    misrepresented his intentions to the guard when supposedly seeking
    permission.
    John A., Jul 10, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:16:04 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

    >On 09/07/2011 6:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >> This from "Mashable.com"
    >>
    >> "Over the course of the project, McDonald set up roughly 100 Apple store
    >> computers to call his servers every minute. That’s a lot of network
    >> traffic, and he learned that Apple monitors traffic in its stores when
    >> he received a photo from a Cupertino computer of what appeared to be an
    >> Apple technician. The technician had apparently traced the traffic to
    >> the site McDonald used to upload the program to Apple Store computers —
    >> and installed it himself.
    >> McDonald figured that Apple had decided the program wasn't a big deal.
    >> That was until four Secret Service men in suits woke him up on Thursday
    >> morning with a search warrant for computer fraud. They confiscated two
    >> computers, an iPod, and two flash drives, and told McDonald that Apple
    >> would contact him separately."
    >>
    >> I guess "contact separately" means Apple's attorneys will be contacting
    >> you soon.
    > >

    >I can imagine years of civil litigation, as all his "subjects" didn't
    >sign releases, so each has a right to sue his ass to the stone ages...


    They wouldn't need to sign releases if it were artistic use.

    If he had been honest with Apple about his plans and they had agreed
    to allow it as part of an ad campaign ("these are real people's
    reactions to the new Apple Whatzit"), then they would need to have
    releases since that would be commercial use.

    Or that's as I understand it, anyway.
    John A., Jul 10, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. English Patient
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,805
    Old Gringo
    Oct 4, 2004
  2. Click

    What does auto mean when using long zooms?

    Click, Sep 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,541
    Tom Oehser
    Sep 25, 2003
  3. Kelvin @ SG
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    568
    *Vanguard*
    Feb 6, 2004
  4. johns
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    515
    johns
    Feb 6, 2004
  5. John Ritchie

    What does "driver does not support your hardware" mean?

    John Ritchie, Aug 2, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    728
    John Ritchie
    Aug 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page