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

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 wrote:
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.

If you put your camera behind a one-way mirror and captured people, that
could be 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.

Here's the result: http://vimeo.com/25958231
Kind of a neat project but also a bit of a freaky 'privacy' invasion.

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.


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.


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.


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."

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.

In article ,
lid 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.

nospam wrote:
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.

- unauthorized access
do you know if he didn't ask "May I install a small program on
the computers that takes photos"?

- to protected computers
Computers accessible to the public aren't protected at all.
Once someone else has access to the hardware, you loose.
(At best your encrypted HD can stop them from reading it
immediately, but not from installing a different bootloader
that allows them to e.g. keylog your password the next time
you access the device.)

And we don't know if there was even a password. If there
was none, or a well known default password, then ... surely
unprotected.

- theft of data
nope. He created his own data.

- identity theft
nope

- DOS
nope

- malware
nope


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

And each guy with a gun could just as easily kill dozens of people
running amok.


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.

Do you know the details for sure?


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

Being an Apple employee is neither sufficient nor necessary to
grant authorisation.


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

That's financial personal gain.


was the collection of photos taken without the
knowledge of the subjects

So? Is that forbidden?


and also taken on private property

And that changes what?


using equipment he didn't own.

So if I borrow a camera, my using it will be criminal?


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

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

Yes, let's sue the universe.


-Wolfgang

On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:40:59 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

{actually important stuff snipped}

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

And each guy with a gun could just as easily kill dozens of people
running amok.

There are dozens of people running amok!? Oh, the horror! Maybe we
do need guys out there with guns! These people might hurt others.
Maybe if they're not too amok we could just stun them? BWFG

DSF (In way too silly mode)

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg 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.

- unauthorized access
do you know if he didn't ask "May I install a small program on
the computers that takes photos"?

according to published reports, he did not ask about installing any
software. he only asked if he could take photos, which more than likely
was interpreted to mean 'in the store with the camera he was carrying'
not via software he was installing.

- to protected computers
Computers accessible to the public aren't protected at all.
Once someone else has access to the hardware, you loose.
(At best your encrypted HD can stop them from reading it
immediately, but not from installing a different bootloader
that allows them to e.g. keylog your password the next time
you access the device.)

he installed his software every single day, because the machines are
wiped at night and re-imaged.

And we don't know if there was even a password. If there
was none, or a well known default password, then ... surely
unprotected.

no password is needed to install to the account that is always logged
in. as far as i know he didn't crack root and install it systemwide,
which wasn't needed anyway.

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.

Do you know the details for sure?

i'm going by published reports.

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

Being an Apple employee is neither sufficient nor necessary to
grant authorisation.

however, *not* being an apple employee means they *can't*.

using equipment he didn't own.

So if I borrow a camera, my using it will be criminal?

he didn't borrow the computers.

In article ,
lid says...

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg 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.

- unauthorized access
do you know if he didn't ask "May I install a small program on
the computers that takes photos"?

according to published reports, he did not ask about installing any
software. he only asked if he could take photos, which more than likely
was interpreted to mean 'in the store with the camera he was carrying'
not via software he was installing.

- to protected computers
Computers accessible to the public aren't protected at all.
Once someone else has access to the hardware, you loose.
(At best your encrypted HD can stop them from reading it
immediately, but not from installing a different bootloader
that allows them to e.g. keylog your password the next time
you access the device.)

he installed his software every single day, because the machines are
wiped at night and re-imaged.

And we don't know if there was even a password. If there
was none, or a well known default password, then ... surely
unprotected.

no password is needed to install to the account that is always logged
in. as far as i know he didn't crack root and install it systemwide,
which wasn't needed anyway.

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.

Do you know the details for sure?

i'm going by published reports.

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

Being an Apple employee is neither sufficient nor necessary to
grant authorisation.

however, *not* being an apple employee means they *can't*.

Why would that be? Sorry, but one does not have to be an employee of a
company to act as its agent. One only has to have a contract allowing
one to do so.

using equipment he didn't own.

So if I borrow a camera, my using it will be criminal?

he didn't borrow the computers.

In article ocal, J.
Clarke wrote:

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

Being an Apple employee is neither sufficient nor necessary to
grant authorisation.

however, *not* being an apple employee means they *can't*.

Why would that be? Sorry, but one does not have to be an employee of a
company to act as its agent. One only has to have a contract allowing
one to do so.

yes it's possible, but why would apple give a rent-a-cop authority to
decide what gets installed on the machines in the store? they're there
to catch shoplifters and deter other crimes, not configure the
machines.

On 7/20/2011 3:31 AM, nospam wrote:
In omain.local, J.
wrote:

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

Being an Apple employee is neither sufficient nor necessary to
grant authorisation.

however, *not* being an apple employee means they *can't*.

Why would that be? Sorry, but one does not have to be an employee of a
company to act as its agent. One only has to have a contract allowing
one to do so.

yes it's possible, but why would apple give a rent-a-cop authority to
decide what gets installed on the machines in the store? they're there
to catch shoplifters and deter other crimes, not configure the
machines.


Google the phrase "apparent authority."




--
Peter