Kyle McDonald’s People Staring at Computers project. Image from Notcot.org
Right now, as your eyes follow this text, the look on your face would probably surprise you. The way we stare at our computer screens can make us look drawn, deadpan and hypnotized, and its a self-portrait many of us never stop to think about.
Photographer Kyle McDonald tried capture this look on the face of strangers. After setting up software at two Apple stores in New York City that forced computers to automatically take one photo every minute and send them back to his server, McDonald then compiled the images into a piece called People Staring at Computers.
The results — which show hundreds of anonymous faces staring blankly at screens — are fascinating, thought-provoking, slightly disturbing … and possibly illegal. McDonald’s project has landed him in hot water with the Secret Service, who confiscated his computer after obtaining a search warrant for computer fraud.
So, aside from the inherently creepy thought of someone taking a picture of your face and saving it at home without you knowing, what exactly has McDonald done wrong? It’s not easy to say, especially when we are photographed in much the same way by other sources.
“My guess is that virtually everyone who appears in this guy’s slide show also appears in the stores’ security video, sometimes perhaps from the same angle(s), and few people would be surprised or offended that they have been monitored in this way,” Craig LaMay, a professor in media law and ethics at Northwestern University, told Mashable.
While privacy violations might be hard to establish, the fact that McDonald put his own software on Apple computers that sent information back to him — what if it had been log-in info or credit card numbers instead of photos? — makes the Secret Service’s actions more understandable.
What do you think? Is McDonald within his rights as an artist to take public photos, or did he invade privacy AND illegally manipulate Apple computers?
It doesn’t seem that his actions are any different then street photography, but I wpuldn’t like my photo taken this way, it just isn’t expected the way a security camera is. The fact that he manipulated Apple property I would think is an issue, unless they don’t care. Just my opinion 🙂
I’m sure it breaks laws of some sort, but should he be prosecuted? There is no expectation of privacy in an apple store. Would this be different if he was standing there taking photos with a DSLR? We need to think of the spirit and not the letter. Hacking the computers is something entirely different, but until Apple stops tracking every step I take and every purchase I make with convoluted and profit driven legal jargon and sells it or maybe until paparazzi becomes an illegal act I don’t understand an issue for apple or that there could be a financial issue for the “models”. Using the images I don’t think is illegal. welcome to the new millennium.
Just because he co-incidentally happened to be taking pictures does not make this a photo issue.
This is a cracking issue – illegal use of and manipulation of another persons or businesses computer equipment. Basically it was a Trojan that was installed. And for that, yes, he should be prosecuted.
But if you insist on making it a photo one, then it’s still wrong. The owner of the store do have the right to deny him taking pictures, because, even if it is publicly accessible, it remains private property.
The issue is how he took the pictures. Effectively a remote Internet video wire tap by a third party on computers he didn’t own. Clearly his motives weren’t nefarious but that’s not the point.
It wasn’t his computer.
The photography isn’t the issue here. Anybody shopping in public these days should be aware that they’re on all kinds of cameras from all directions.
Placing software on someone else’s computer without their permission is illegal. That’s why he’s in trouble.
@Darkslide. Yes, an Apple store or other such location is private property. However, it’s still “in public”.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/ has this to say: A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.
@steven. Learn the law before making sophomoric statements. An Apple store, in fact any store, mall, or shopping center is PRIVATE PROPERTY! A public sidewalk is public property.
He hijacked the Apple Store’s computers for his own purposes. Would you allow someone to put programs on your computer without your knowledge? He has damaged Apple Store’s reputation with the press that has gotten out – now some might not wish to go to the store. The harm he has done is incalculable. What if you were the person wanting to get a job as an Apple Genius, but Apple says they cannot afford to hire you because their sales are off. The penal system
Really? Where is the expectation of privacy being in a public place, staring at a computer that you KNOW has a camera attached to it? The only “trouble” he should be in is if Apple says his actions were against policy. Then I can see him losing his job. But for the government to arrest him is pretty extreme even for our paranoid society.
I saw a video of an old time photographer walking down a public street in New York back in the 70’s and putting his camera IN THE FACES of passers-by to get his “Candid Street Portraits”. He didn’t get a “model release” from them and used these images in gallery displays. Yep! He “Made Money” off of this! So…are we gonna send the Time Cops after him because of it?
What he’s done wring is made money out of it and not told people about it.
CCTV is fine, we know about it when we go into a store, we also know that it won’t get used to make someone money out of our us without a cut or our blessing.
Yes, i think it is an invasion of privacy for sure- even in things like “taxicab confessions,” the people who make it onto the show are required to sign a liability release
I don’t think he should go to jail or anything, but forced to stop doing what he’s been doing