...until you get to the part where she took out her cell phone to record the pat down and was arrested when she refused to put it away. That specific conversation probably took, what, all of 30 seconds to happen (including her taking out the phone)?
As a follow-up to this line of thought:
The Apple computer took the photo, but the code was written and installed by McDonald and then transmitted via that code. So while the computer was owned my Apple, the picture was taken by the installed code.
So does the person who owns the machine that "clicks the shutter button" to take a photo own the copyright, or is it owned by the person who wrote the code that causes the machine to "click the shutter button" to take a photo?
Fair enough. The article wasn't as clear as it could have been on a couple of points, but I will say that I think it is unlikely the artist would have thought it was "okay" if it weren't an employee of a store. Just a guess though.
I'm not so sure about the permission thing. It doesn't say that he specifically asked them for permission to use the photo, but they were in a public place. And then there's the whole issue of who actually owns the copyright of a photograph. The person who took it or the person who owns the camera? does he even need their permission? I don't think he does.
Of course, that's also part of why I wondered if he shooed people away from whatever computer he had installed the software on. My guess, though, is that he stood near the computer and asked people if he could take their picture. This actually makes some sense because he could take their photo with a handheld camera, compare it against photos taken by the webcam, and then only use photos of people who had agreed to have their pictures taken. Granted, that's a good bit of speculation on my part, but that's how I likely would have done it if I had come up with the idea.
McDonald, who has a master’s degree in electronic arts, admits the project might make some people uncomfortable. Before he began, he got permission from Apple’s security guards to take photos in the store, then asked customers if he could take their photos (with a camera). Had they all said no, he says, he wouldn’t have proceeded. He also refrained from putting the code for the photo-taking program online, as he does with most of his projects, because he recognized that the technology behind his art project could be used for less benign purposes. If someone sees themselves in his collection and wants to be removed, he will remove them.
Soooo...he had permission from the store security guard(s), and he asked customers if he could take their picutres (albeit with a camera; presumably handheld)? Those seem to be rather important facts, no?
The real questions seem to be whether he asked those two questions every day and whether he prevented people from using whatever machine(s) he had installed the software on if they said, "no," to his picture question.
I'm not seeing a big problem here. I'm not even seeing how it's all that creepy. Perhaps it was a bit disingenuous to ask to take a photo when he was really taking pictures with a webcam, but telling them about the webcams would have ruined the project (potentially). Perhaps he also should have discussed it with a store manager, but, even so, at best he violated an obscure, previously unstated store policy and might end up banned from the store.
The biggest problem seems to be the store employee who went and installed it to other machines (assuming I read the article correctly). I'm trying to figure out why he would do that without knowing full well what the program was doing.
So you're saying that a small fraction of a percent of people is justification for putting a giant firewall around a country and bringing national borders into the digital space more than they already are? I find that difficult to believe.
It's more likely this has to do with the fraction of the fraction of the percent of the world's population that are pedophiles. Clearly, this is about protecting the children...
This is truly saddening. The beauty of the internet is that, with few exceptions, information generally flows freely across national borders. Information and culture is freely shared in the online community, and it has all been humming along just fine for the past couple of decades; increasing our understanding of one another.
Efforts, such as this one, to put up national borders in the digital space will impact that shared understanding and bring plenty of negatives along with it. And for what? People in France will still be able to access banned information if they want. In the same way that I could walk across the border between the USA and Canada at any number of points without going through an official border crossing, users seeking banned information will just have to take a slightly more circuitous route to find it.
And all the rest of us need to worry about as a result is increased censorship. Terrific.
I think it's great that Hotz is donating the remaining funds to the EFF, but I'm still waiting for Sony to refund me some money for removing a feature that I paid for (with the expectation being that I would have access to it indefinitely).
It's like a car dealer coming back to me three years after I bought my car, taking the spare tire back, and telling me that I can't get another one.