Unpolite yes, but not enough to warrant a visit from the Secret Service.

Hence "Having his laptop taken is obviously not really an appropriate response".

Not saying it warrants a visit from the SS, but if I were Apple I would be concerned too. Some people could potentially distrust Apple stores because of this which would result in loss of business.

There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point).

> There's more to fear from all the security cameras that blanket our cities than from an artist trying to make a point (or non-point).

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.

Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art, but there is a legal question of whether or not what he's doing is protected by the First Amendment. It's a novel take on the "public spaces" argument, but not by much. If he had put cameras in the eyes of a statue in a park and recorded people interacting with the statue, would that be forbidden as well?

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.

The Apple Store is NOT a public place. Neither are their computers. Why would you even think they are? Can Apple ask you to leave their store for any reason? Yes. Could a private citizen or corporation ask you to leave a park? No. They are two very different things.

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

Of course it's private property, and of course it's Apple's call what goes on there. I never claimed it was anything but. My argument was not one of ownership, but one of privacy. I was not using "public" as an antonym for "privately owned", but rather as an antonym for "in private". If I have sex on a public bus, I'm not going to be charged with misusing public property, I'm going to be charged with having sex in public.

> Who are you to decide whether his work is or is not art? > I agree that censorship isn't relevant here in the sense that it's applied to art,

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.

They probably capture me finger-in-nose more often than artists too. The security cameras do have an appealing lack of pretentiousness, though.

I'd seriously suggest not going out in public in any major city if you don't want your photo appearing on the internet. I always myself wonder how many people's vacation photos I'm in.

Really? Back this up, please.

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.

I didn't say it was the same, what I'm saying is that by going out in public there is a reasonable risk that you will be photographed and it will appear in public on the internet and it will probably be of enough quality to personally identify you. I don't see why this should be illegal. Is the guy a jackass? For sake of argument, lets say he is.

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?

I don't think that you needing to know that you are now part of an art exhibit that he is using photos of you without your permission is really okay as long as he'll "take them down" if you ask.

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.