I could be wrong, don't remember for sure, but I believe photo laws state that even on private property, where there is no expectation of property, you must only cease when asked to leave. You can still keep photos taken prior to being asked to leave.

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.

You're right. As long as the security guard said is was okay.

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

Let’s be clear about the known facts: 1) McDonald claims he received permission from a security guard, but I didn't see any evidence or video proof to support this assertion. 2) McDonald claims he received permission from the security guard, but he fails to provide any information for what he was approved to do. -Clearly, filming from a public space, outside and apple store through a window and into an apple store is not really the central point here (policies of this nature would be the purview of the mall – and that's not even clear!) - McDonald, apparently, was filming within an apple store, which, correct me if I am wrong, is not technically a public space since it is a commercially zoned space, paid for by apple. - McDonald provides no information to suggest that he received authorization to film apple customers, likely a violation of apple store policy and security regulations. Last I checked, I didn't see a sign informing customers that by entering this apple store you waive your right to protest apple’s right to use your image for free. Ya, that’s right cause it doesn't exist. Apple security monitoring of clients in stores seems pretty straight forward and in line with any other retail outlet.

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.

Based on the fact that this is a federal investigation and the warrant specified Title 18 Section 1030, this has nothing to do with the rights of the people in the photos. I also don't think the potential charges have anything to do with wiretapping or capturing any data. It's all about unauthorized access to Apple's computers. It's a federal case not because of anything actually crossing state lines but because the computers are connected to the internet and therefore could potentially be involved in interstate commerce.

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?

We havent seen the warrant. We have only been told one charge the "artist" claims. That to me doesn't paint a holistic picture of reality.

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...

Excellent interpretation. I agree with your reasoning.