> such a viscerally gross violation

How did you reach this conclusion? Because your entire response hinges on this being true.

I highly doubt it is a "violation" in the first place, and certainly not a "gross violation", the courts decided that it was not, as you call it "an amoral and illegal way for him to use people without their consent" (well, maybe amoral, as courts have nothing to say about that).

I'll assume you're asking this genuinely.

For the 'legal' part... you're generally not allowed to install whatever arbitrary software you want on other people's machines without some sort of consent, even in an Apple store. I'm not sure how much more elaboration this needs.

For the 'moral' part... he's taking a small intimate chunk of a person's life without their knowledge or consent and putting it in a picture frame because he finds it interesting and enjoyable. The reason he gives for this is "art". There's not even slight consideration of the people involved other than he considers that intimate chunk of their life and likeness to be his personal medium for "art", the same way clay or watercolors might be to a less terrifying person. Again, there are far worse ways he could create 'art' via nonconsensual intimacy, but my point is that it's fundamentally amoral to use people in that way in the first place.

What's interesting about this is that in this community we read about security researchers that do illegal (but generally not unethical) things, and about large companies that do unethical (but arguably not illegal) things. This guy does the worst of both and somehow people seem to be on his side.

Regarding the "legal" part, having looked into this quite deeply, I believe I was legally in the clear. Both in terms of of publishing the photographs and in terms of installing the app. Keep in mind this was 2011. To install the app today would require circumventing access control policies, but not at the time. If you do have additional elaboration on why you think it was illegal, I would be happy to learn more! Thanks.

It didn’t get to court, so this is not necessarily legal. Also GP is talking from an ethical perspective, and while I hadn’t thought too much about it on my first read, I do agree that the experiment is highly unethical.

It is, he never asks people for there consent. Even apple does that (although in a never read privacy policy) but they do

There are cameras on every street corner. At ATMs. In every store. On public transportation. I never consented to any of this. Art projects that confront people with the reality that they're being recorded and watched are vital to remind people that privacy still matters, and that we should struggle to regain some of the privacy expectations we've lost.

Those cameras don't publish their recordings to the Internet, so your analogy is flawed. You can argue that such cameras are also violations of privacy, of course, but there's a big difference between recording and broadcasting — no matter if the intent of the broadcasting is good.

Yes, there's a big difference. In one case it's an art stunt to draw people's attention to a social question, and in the other case maybe security employees are leering at customers through cameras for their own perverse enjoyment, but who knows because there is zero transparency or accountability.

Art projects still have ethics to them. He could’ve put a singular art installation somewhere for people to use and have their photo taken while they browse a specific art installation.

Violating people’s privacy in order to remind them their privacy is important sounds like the sort of “I’m harming you for your own good” that abusers use.

OP here. Just to clarify, this piece was not primarily designed for the Apple Store audience. I felt that it was important to exhibit the photos in the store, but I knew that the majority of the folks who heard about it would see it online. In the exhibition at the store, people first saw a photo of themselves, with no knowledge that they were posted to the internet. Online, people saw photos of folks in the store. If you have spent time in a big city like NYC, you might recognize the feelings of anonymity and privacy-in-public that I was drawing on. There are certainly "I'm harming you for your own good" style art installations I've made. For example, I had a piece called "Wifi Whisperer" around 2016 that sniffed all the open wifi traffic in a cafe, and a little speaker in the corner would describe what it sniffed. https://soundcloud.com/kyle-mcdonald/whisper I still think there is a place for non-consensual art to surprise and inform, especially in the physical context of an art exhibition or festival. But I also feel this work tends towards provoking fear and anger over any more helpful reactions. And there's the constant danger that in the process of crossing a boundary of consent, or in breaking a social contract that you might do real, even irreversible harm. So instead with projects like https://facework.app/ I find ways to critique face classification, but in a way that everything happens in-browser. Sometimes it's possible to have the feeling of boundary crossing without the dangers.

Everybody who enters an Apple store is already being recorded by hidden video cameras without their consent. Loss prevention. Unless you think being photographed in addition to being unknowingly video recorded is a grave privacy violation, I don't get your point.

Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence. The difference is security cameras announce their presence by being visible and obvious. Installing spyware on an Apple Store laptop to capture people’s images and upload them for your own amusement is not obvious, was never announced and most people would find gross and abusive. At the very least the security cameras come with liability if abused and cause harm to the customer.

> Those security cameras aren’t hidden and always have a sign somewhere in the store noting their presence.

My understanding is that this is not a legal requirement and is rather something stores do solely to scare away potential burglars.

Apple don’t post video montages of their security footage online and ask people to look at the faces of the shoppers and see if they can read some meaning into the lack of emotion on their faces.

When you enter an Apple store you are trusting Apple implicitly with your safety and security during your visit. That they might take security video as part of that is a reasonable component of that trust relationship. Being forced to participate as a model in an art exhibit by a random third party with no relationship to Apple violates that trust. It’s no wonder Apple would have a concern.

It’s not remotely comparable to security surveillance, and the artist doesn’t even seem particularly to be trying to draw that comparison, so I’m not sure why people are seeing this as about ‘always being on camera’.

Because that's the point. The art is about telling people that they are being recorded. Just that apple won't brodcast there faces doesn't mean no one will see them. Or they are not being recorded

That wasn’t how I read the article. The artist seems fascinated by the way people look emotionless when interacting with computers, not with drawing attention to surveillance mechanisms. He wanted to create a moment of connection between the people in the store and commented mainly on how people ignored one another and kept looking at the computer. I really don’t know where people get the idea the artist’s intent was particularly focused on corporate surveillance.

Of course, death of the artist and all that - if people read it as a piece about surveillance capitalism then that’s what the art is about regardless of what the artist thinks it’s about.

> Unless you think being photographed in addition

Author also emphasises that visitors are making photographs of the shop, and other visitors in that shop. Without consent.

I'm trying to understand where the line lies. As I don't see it, but gauging by the heated reactions in the threads here, many apparently see a clear and obvious line.

The difference is you know those cameras are there and that they’re recording. It’s their single purpose for public safety. You don’t expect the laptop at Apple to be uploading your image to some sick weirdos “art project”.

Parent didn't mean violation of the law, they meant personal violation.

This ^. I am fine with the art. as long as either he asks permision saying that's tge same thing apple is dooing or if not blurring the faces of people when he goes to exbit them later.

OP here. Thanks for taking the time to share the (scary) connection you made while reading. While this story has been picked up by security folks, I am definitely not a security researcher :) This project did help me to think more explicitly about security, founding a NYC-based group called "artsec" where security researchers and media artists worked together. One of the members was Samy Kamkar, who you may know for the infamous "Samy is my hero" MySpace worm. His case, also investigated by the USSS, actually went to court and ended with a 3-year ban from touching a computer. This is just to say that the relationship between "art" and "research" (and even "pranks") is not always clear. I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal. It is also undeniably art. I set out to make it as art, and it has been exhibited and written about as art. You can call it bad art, you can say it's similar to a prank, but unfortunately it's still art. Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves. I appreciate hearing your side. Thanks.

As a privacy enthusiast, I am very mildly (because I was not directly affected) annoyed that you undertook this project. I see your post discussing it as tacitly attempting to move the overton window in a direction you want it to go.

> Whether it was ethical or not is a much more complicated question, and something that we each have to decide for ourselves.

(from the article:)

> What was probably 10 minutes felt like 30.

I don't know if it "felt like 30" because the task felt boring or because you were concerned about being caught, but if it's the latter then I think you know that it was at _least_ on the far side of "ethical".

> I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal.

(from the article:)

> After the one-minute-exhibition ended, we made a staggered exit from the store

Also doesn't seem like you really thought it was totally legal if you left the store that way.

Most people in this thread are addressing the legality/morality of installing an app on all those computers in the Apple Stores, but what about the unauthorized use of all those people's likenesses? I'm not familiar with New York state law, but in a lot of states, you can't use photos of people commercially without their consent.

You make a living from art projects. Maybe you didn't make any money from this art project, so you didn't directly profit from the use of these photos, but I would think a reasonable person would see your online portfolio as an advertisement or promotion of your services.

In the original article you talk about how it should have been alright to take the photos:

> I tried to think of a busy public space full of computers, and the Apple Store seemed so obvious.

Apple Stores are quite clearly not "public space", they are private spaces that they allow most members of the public access to. If the photos were taken with a telephoto lens through the glass walls, they'd be totally in the clear (though IANAL). Still creepy, but legally in the clear.

> Apple Stores are quite clearly not "public space", they are private spaces that they allow most members of the public access to.

The definition of "public" vs "private" in the context of property is fairly distinct from the one used in the context of privacy law. Obviously an Apple store is a privately-owned property, but in terms of privacy law it's very overtly public - you are allowed to take photos there, and people inside an Apple store would not (or at least, should not) believe that they are "in private".

In short, private property (like retail stores) "generally open to the public" allows photography by default, and you're good to go unless there's a "No photos" sign put up by the proprieter.

> If the photos were taken with a telephoto lens through the glass walls, they'd be totally in the clear (though IANAL).

For the sake of discussion on this point, let's pretend that the Apple store is unambiguously private in all senses, like your residence would be.

I believe that in the relevant jurisdiction taking photos of it would be legal under the conditions that:

(a) the photo was taken from somewhere public

(b) the owners/occupants of the building made no attempt to prevent it

(c) the photo is not of a "sensitive" location (bedroom, bathroom, changing room, etcetera)

(d) the photo does not contain genitalia (this is illegal to do without consent, even in completely public scenarios)

(e) the photo was taken with ordinary photographic equipment (so no zooming in from 10km away)

So obviously the first four are no problem at all, but a telephoto lens specifically might get you in trouble on point (e). Not too relevant to the Apple store, but it's an interesting point of discussion.

Thanks for spending time thinking through some of this :)

I think it "felt like 30" because I was nervous. Not because I thought it was illegal or unethical, but because I was breaking social norms. I see this as different from acting "unethically", and closer to what Erving Goffman would call a "breaching experiment".

I definitely did not want to raise any flags in the store itself, hence the staggered exit and furtive behavior. Again, not because I thought it was illegal or unethical, but because there was a certain way I wanted to see everything play out. If I got kicked out before I had a chance to exhibit the work, it would have made for a distractingly complicated story. I think this point is difficult for some folks who can only see this as a prank or security research, and don't understand how artists think and work and craft stories.

Regarding the question of what constitutes "public space" and legality of of using peoples likenesses for profit, there are some other great responses in this thread which explain the details (like the one here by sellyme). It's interesting for me to hear how most folks on HN assume that photography in the US operates more like the EU.

I want to respond to you here because I think you've captured my point quite well in two ways, though maybe unintentionally. I really hope this gives you some personal insight somehow.

(Part I)

> I understood (and still believe) what I did was legal.

As you mentioned before, this work produced anger and fear, but you believe it was legal. I take that to mean that people in general understand what you did was wrong (morally) but the snapshot of the legal code at the time hadn't caught up with this intuition yet (as far as you know).

From a practical standpoint, I get why this is important to you. I don't have much to add on the legal side because I'm not a lawyer and I think it's focusing on a detail that glosses over the big picture of your actions. I feel like you're fixating on it for that exact purpose, though.

"I thought of violating rights in a way legislators hadn't even dreamed up yet! Violated tons of people's rights along the way, but the important thing is that I found a spot where those legislators forgot to dot the i's and cross the t's. That's what we should focus on". I wholeheartedly disagree. I think the focus is, and should remain, the people involved.

Whether you found a loophole or not is, in my mind, such a distant inconsequential second to the primary focus of your actions and their effects. You doing them in a possibly legally creative way is focusing on the wrong thing.

(Part II) > It is also undeniably art.

I assume this is based on me using "art" in quotes in another response, and you misunderstanding why I used the quotes.

So, imagine someone was punching people and the reason they gave was "boredom". I would use quotes there too, not because I doubt whether or not they were experiencing boredom, but because the word is being used as though it were a sufficient explanation of their actions. While it might be part of the explanation, it glosses over the most salient part of their action: the punching people bit. They also had a desire to punch people, and that desire is not encapsulated in the standard definition of "boredom", but they're using it as though it were in a way to gloss over it, even though it's the most important part of the whole thing. I think it's a sneaky trick to deny personal culpability so I'm putting the word in quotes.

Similarly, your use of "art" feels the same. Whether the end result had any artistic merit is beyond the scope of my comments. I'm saying that "art" as a motivation glosses over the most salient part of your actions: your desire to take something private irrespective of others desires to give that. The standard definition of 'art' doesn't adequately encapsulate that desire: I wouldn't say the most salient aspect of artists is that they behave in this manner. I think it's similarly a sneaky way to try and deny personal culpability by masking the most salient feature behind a more accepted term. But, to be crystal clear, what you did was take moments of people's lives they might not have wanted you to have and turned it into a spectacle for yourself... whether this resulted in art or salad is such a wildly distant second consideration it's practically immaterial (as far as me and others with similar reactions are concerned), let alone whether or not the resulting art or salad is legitimate... it's why your words echo the character in the movie saying "I was gentle".

For what it's worth though, I think it's nice to see you do sort of care on some level how your actions impact others, gives me a little bit of hope.

You're comparing a guy who took pictures of people in an Apple store to a child murderer? I have difficulty with this analogy.

I agree with that assessment.

To my mind, the act of capturing faces in and off itself isn't even the reason why he was investigated. Consent from members of the public is an entirely separate discussion.

This boils entirely down to him not having formal consent from Apple. He simply walked into the store and quite literally installed a small application on each Macbook without Apple's consent.

> I remember being a bit nervous on the first visit.

> Not because I thought I was doing anything wrong, or because I was worried about getting "caught". It was more like stage fright. It was a performance, and there was no telling what would happen next. I had made preparations, and I was excited to see the results.

> I walked into the store and pulled out my sketchbook. I made a map of the store, including all the tables, and counted how many computers were at each table. Each store has something like 50 machines. More than half were in use. I went to the first open computer and typed in a short URL to download the app. I looked around to double check that there were no terms of service I was missing. If there were, and if it said anything about "installing applications", I would have had to go back home and write an HTML5 or Flash version.

> The app was maybe two megabytes, and took 15 seconds to download. Sometimes I would open another tab and load Flickr or Open Processing so I had an excuse if someone asked why I was comparing every single computer. In the process, I learned there are in fact some minor differences between Java on the different machines.

> What was probably 10 minutes felt like 30. I looked at my sketchbook to make sure all the open computers were checked off, and decided that was enough. Hundreds of photos had already started pouring in. Before leaving, I sat on a bench for a few minutes to watch people. Thinking about their posture, their gestures, their expressions. Months later a friend would tell me, "those faces are synonymous with the faces we have when we are alone". We all really looked the same. I checked the upload page from my iPod to confirm that everything was running, and left the store.

Moreover, at some point, one of those devices was being serviced by a technician. His application took pictures at that time.

https://www.wired.com/2012/07/people-staring-at-computers/

All of that in and of itself would have been enough to be considered "crossing red lines and boundaries". It's staggering how he believed that taking pictures of persons was the bigger legal liability he was exposing himself to.

If anything, if he'd understood the importance of obtaining consent for using a publicly available terminal, the better option would have been taking his project to a public institution - public library, university, town hall,... - and have the application installed having up front legal consent and support from the collaborating institution.

> He simply walked into the store and quite literally installed a small application on each Macbook without Apple's consent.

People install free software on computers in Apple Stores all the time though, don't they? It's part of testing out the computers, and expected by Apple. As mentioned in the story, Apple resets the computers each night.

My guess would be this is part of why they decided they didn't have a legal case against him. But it's just a guess.

The interesting aspect of it is that the only reason you and me discuss it is because of Apple's (natural) reaction to a camera backdoor install in their public computers.

We're not exactly caring about the artistic value of it, but the author might get positive returns on this project (fame, money, inspiration) only because it's a little bit wrong (maybe a little bit legal still).

If the core artistic value was of concern, which is to show people what they look like while talking on a computer, which the author confessed was fine with consent since he himself noticed it while he knew he was filming himself, then we d probably brush it of "yeah right sure, like when we read" and basta.

It's like the surrounding story is of more interest than the art piece and I think that's where the author should dig next time: he should find something that both strike by its artistic value while being made in interesting circumstances, to reach optimal value for us and him and lasting fame !

I think it says a lot also about the state of art these days where the work tends to be secondary to the circumstances because it's easier to generate quick loudness while hard to generate a long lasting hum like the ancients could with technique. But it's an impressive attempt nonetheless ! I think he's on to something with using software techniques.

> People install free software on computers in Apple Stores all the time though, don't they? It's part of testing out the computers

But he wasn't testing out the computers, which was what they were intended for and he knew that. That's why it was abusive of him.

I bet, especially back in 2011 (only 29% of US population with smart phone), people often went and used their computers for free for short personal tasks too, say checking email.

Is that obviously abusive (and specifically criminal?) too? Maybe not?

So it depends on what you are installing software for. I thin it's not just a question of "simply walking into the store and quite literally installing a small application" being obviously illegal and/or abusive. That's all I'm saying, it's not so clearcut that simply becuase he installed software means it's "abusive" (let alone criminal).

Hi, if you have any reference on why I needed consent to install an app in the Apple Store, I would love to hear! Because the case never went to court I didn't get a chance to hear a prosecutor spell it out. And my attorney at the time was unsure how they could possibly make that case, so I didn't get it from him either. But a lot of people here in the comments seem to believe that the case is clear. I'm not sure whether it's hubris, or if my attorney just didn't have the imagination of HN ;) Thanks!

So, this is the first time I read about your case. I couldn't help but think of Aaron Swartz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz

Basically, he downloaded open access journals from an academic repository. But he did it by physically connecting a laptop to the MIT university network and hiding the device in a servicing space without authorization.

Downloading open access papers isn't an issue in and of itself. In fact, it's pointed out that Swartz wasn't prosecuted for theft or copyright violations. The charges mainly were founded on alleged fraud and breaking and entering.

https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/8637/90...

The law applies in Aaron's case was the CFAA. The same law under which you faced scrutiny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

Just like you, Aaron Swartz got into the sights of the Secret Service at the time. The difference between you and him is that Swartz was actually arrested, arraigned and finally indicted by a federal grand jury.

(The CFAA stipulates that the Secret Service has the authority to investigate you under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(d)(1) see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030)

> the case is clear

On the contrary.

The big criticism on the CFAA is that its application has spilled over into tort law and contract law. It's a law which defines computer and wire fraud in incredibly broad terms and phrases. This leads to criminal convictions within a civil law context. The CFAA creates a up a massive potential for being made liable for daily, unassuming actions - e.g. sharing a password - transforming a misdemeanor into a felony really fast depending on the context / circumstances.

As a result, the CFAA is an example of a law where the bar / standards for prosecution are determined / tested / evaluated on a per-case basis through the judicial process.

It's also why it's so hard to get clear cut answers from the EFF or your lawyers. Sure, there's precedent, but it remains unclear how things would have panned out in your specific case since it never went to court.

In Aaron's case, it was later pointed out that MIT didn't even actively seek federal prosecution:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324809004578637...

> why I needed consent

That's the thing. Strictly speaking: it's a choice, not an obligation. Laws and moral values or principles aren't preemptive. They don't stop you from doing something anyway. Their purpose is to create a formal framework of consequences that tie into your behavior.

Liability then is the probability you're going to be held accountable in a court of law.

(In the same vain: copyright doesn't stop you from actually copying protected works. It only has carries weight if it actually gets enforced. That is, the rights holders decides to seek damages, and/or the state seeks to prosecute you. And even then, you really only face hard consequences - fines, damages, jail time - if a court rules in the plaintiff's favor.)

The CFAA specifically explicitly mentions the condition "without authorization" a grand total of 10 times when it defines violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a).

All in all, when you entered the store, went to a machine and installed that program, paying attention that you didn't have to agree to any terms of service, you very much entered that grey, murky, muddled area of broad interpretation of the CFAA, contract and tort law.

Not having that explicit consent or authorization creates a liability: if you were spotted or caught, you'd potentially face consequences per the legal framework and its interpretation in a court of law.

... and that's exactly what happened to you.

Probably someone at the Apple store caught onto what you were doing, made an internal report which found its way to Apple's legal team. Corporate legal compliance provides a playbook and one of those steps involves notifying law enforcement and, ultimately, the Secret Service.

Unlike Aaron Swartz, you were lucky in that the authorities felt that there wasn't enough grounds to make a case against you and press formal charges before federal court. From their perspective, that's a cost / benefit trade off: it's just not worth spending time and resources pursuing legal action if the outcome is already tenuous from the outset.

> a lot of people here in the comments seem to believe

There's a difference between legal truth and moral truth.

From the point of view of the legal framework, all you did was expose yourself to several legal liabilities. The legal framework itself doesn't hold any opinions whether that's smart or dumb. You were lucky that there were no serious consequences beyond a visit by the Secret Service.

The public, however, look at your actions through a moral lens. They see someone who willingly exposed themselves to such liability, and members of the public can/will hold and voice personal opinions about what happened.

While you never went to court, there's a consensus that your behavior did cross a moral line. Put more succinctly: "Who in their right mind would do a guerilla style installation of a desktop application on Macbooks in the Apple store and assume there's no potential for serious legal consequences?"

That's value attribution akin to "Why would you decide to run a red light in downtown Manhattan, in front of dozens of witnesses, law enforcement camera's,... and run the risk of getting caught?"

People on here feel like you made a bad judgement call regardless of who you are, or the project in and off itself. And that's even perfectly compatible with how they feel about the CFAA, Apple, the U.S. Secret Service and so on.

Wow, incredible response! I appreciate you taking the time to respond :)

I am very familiar with Aaron's case. I think your analysis is correct: some people believe I made a bad judgement call, and the CFAA is broad enough that this created a liability, even though we cannot know whether it was legal. I think my frustration with most armchair-analysis (not including you, CaptArmchair) is that folks confuse their moral certainty (I "made a bad judgement call") with legal certainty ("this is the kind of thing the CFAA protects us from"). But the law is a lot more complicated.

For me the concern is exactly (d)(1). When the CFAA is overly broad, and the ability to investigate is granted to all "offenses", where does that leave us? Can Apple cry "CFAA!" at anything they don't like? In practice, there are some checks and balances: in this case, Judge Lois Bloom decided to sign the warrant; Judge Judith Philips refused to prosecute. Is this enough? To me, seeing the ways the CFAA has been abused in other cases, it's not so clear.

> When the CFAA is overly broad, and the ability to investigate is granted to all "offenses", where does that leave us?

Good question. The "offenses" are defined in the (a), and here you see the scope of the problem. It's a terse summation that describes what amounts to an offense under the CFAA in very general terms, and therein lies the problem.

(a)(5) for instance is a catch-all:

"Whoever knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;"

Both "damage" as well as "protected" can be broadly interpreted. This leaves definitively asserting the interpretation of those terms in the hands of courts. And that's problematic.

> Can Apple cry "CFAA!" at anything they don't like?

Strictly speaking: Yes. Of course, Apple can only start civil cases under tort law and contract law. Equivalent to anyone, they can notify / inform law enforcement. It's the prerogative of the latter to decide on steps necessary.

Also strictly speaking, prosecution doesn't happen at the behest of an individual plaintiff (e.g. Apple) but at the behest of the state (hence why cases are named United States versus ...).

> In practice, there are some checks and balances: in this case, Judge Lois Bloom decided to sign the warrant; Judge Judith Philips refused to prosecute. Is this enough?

That's the question at heart. The legal branch of government, Congress, has voted and backed the CFAA into law. In doing so, it leaves the interpretations of the CFAA to the judicial branch of government.

How problematic an overly broad law applied to an extremely complex, and rapidly changing technological and societal context can be, is demonstrated by cases like yours and Aaron's.

Having law enforcement knocking on your door, or being outright arrested raise questions about the proportionality with which the state responds to a suspicion, and how that then ripples through and harms individual citizens.

However, the judicial system also allows room for re-interpretation and clarification of laws. Just last month, a case under the CFAA was ruled by SCOTUS curbing the scope of the CFAA: Van Buren vs. United States

> In a six-three decision, the US Supreme Court yesterday ruled in Van Buren v. United States that Federal prosecutors may not go after authorized individuals who access databases for unauthorized purposes under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Politico reports. The incident in question in Van Buren v. United States concerned an ex-officer caught searching a license plate database in return for a bribe.

> Though explaining the decision as a product of the law’s language, not its effects, Justice Barrett wrote in the majority ruling, “The Government’s interpretation of the statute would attach criminal penalties to a breathtaking amount of commonplace computer activity" including “using a pseudonym on Facebook.” Justice Thomas in a dissenting opinion observed, “Much of the Federal Code criminalizes common activity," and “discomfort” with that fact “does not give us authority to alter statutes.”

> Technology and advocacy groups like the National Whistleblower Center had raised concerns that the standing interpretation of the law jeopardized free speech and security research in addition to criminalizing trivial terms of service violations. Organizations like the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, on the other hand, worry that narrowing the scope of the CFAA will limit prosecutors’ ability to tackle “insider threats.” A CNN Supreme Court analyst said the ruling will require Governments and companies “to be far more specific in their policies governing access to databases.”

https://thecyberwire.com/newsletters/policy-briefing/3/107

It just goes to show that the discussion about the language of the CFAA is also at loggerheads at the highest judicial court. However, here SCOTUS clearly signals to lower courts that the scope and interpretation of the CFAA actually does have limits.

Both sides do have a valid argument though. On the one hand, in it's current form, the vagueness of the CFAA causes issues when it comes to "freedom of press" rights e.g. investigative journalism, however the CFAA also protects your business as it gives law enforcement the authority to go after ransomware groups.

To my mind, for all its vagueness, the CFAA is a prime example of democracy in action as the innate vagueness is discussed in the public debate (media), as well as in courts (SCOTUS, courts, precedents,...) as well as in Congress. In that regard, I don't think there will ever be a gold standard everyone can and will agree on. It will be more of a continued debate that might yield subsequent rulings and amending bills in the future, as technology and society changes throughout the next decade(s). It's up to us to have that debate.

Just want to say thanks again for the great comment. I was following Van Buren, and it was a certainly vindication. I agree with you there is a push and pull. Here's hoping that debate & discussion that needs to happen plays out in a way that puts the people first, instead of expanding protections to the government and big corps.

Did you read the commentary?

>I'm not sure I would make this piece today, anyway. I'm increasingly critical of artwork that attempts to engage with the theme of surveillance by replicating systems of surveillance. How fruitful can a conversation be about consent and privacy, when an artist does not seek their subject's consent?

Taking selfies in an apple store reminds you of child murder? You consider these things the same, or even similar?

Hrm, yeah, based on that I'm not going to consider your opinion very important.

By the fade-out of your comment, it seems your accurate assessment of this individual's bloviation is insufficiently self-important for the HN crowd. This is why I never post here. Worse comments than Slashdot.