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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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...

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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."