Join 3,430 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


People Staring at Computers
July 8, 2011 10:56 AM   Subscribe

The US Secret Service has raided the home of an artist who collected images from webcams in a New York Apple store. The tumblr is still up, as is a explanation of the project by the artist at F.A.T.
posted by chavenet (68 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
I feel safer every day.
posted by odinsdream at 11:00 AM on July 8, 2011 [6 favorites]


What could this guy have been thinking when he hatched the idea to remotely commandeer privately owned computer systems and gather data from those systems without consent?

How could he not have seen this coming?
posted by mistersquid at 11:00 AM on July 8, 2011 [18 favorites]


F.A.T. previously
posted by finite at 11:02 AM on July 8, 2011


This image from the tumblr should have tipped him off that the feds were on to him.
posted by phunniemee at 11:03 AM on July 8, 2011 [45 favorites]


How could he not have seen this coming?

If you say "but it's art," you don't get in trouble. Instead, the cops get a flush of realization on their faces and say "My mind is blown. You're brilliant!" Then you give them an autograph and go on your way.

And if that doesn't happen, your parents pay for your defense and fine and you get to tell your friends that we live in a fascist police state full of drooling philistines.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:05 AM on July 8, 2011 [26 favorites]


McDonald told Mashable that he tested the waters before he went ahead with his project. Before he started, he apparently asked one security guard and a few Apple Store customers if they'd mind having their pictures taken.

If I say you can come into my house, I don't mean at 4 A.M. while I'm sleeping.
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:09 AM on July 8, 2011 [8 favorites]


If I say you can come into my house, I don't mean at 4 A.M. while I'm sleeping.

Not to mention every other house on your block.
posted by kmz at 11:10 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


He claims that a security guard gave him permission to take photos in the store. Also, you can bet that Apple is taking pictures of the customers too, via security cam. How is that different than the photos he's taking? You are not in your home, there is zero expectation of privacy.
posted by hermitosis at 11:11 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Art that involves surreptitiously gathering data with machines owned by a second party who did not consent to that surveillance is a crime in addition to being art.

The first bad decision was to gather materials for this art project. The second bad decision was to go public with it.

I do abhor the reactionary and misguided behavior of the repressive state apparatus, but this project was ill-considered from the first line of code.
posted by mistersquid at 11:13 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


c'mon, hermitosis ... Don't be that naive.
posted by k5.user at 11:13 AM on July 8, 2011 [6 favorites]


So he got permission to take photos in the Apple store. Could he stand with one of the Apple computers, take pictures of people in a public place, and email them to himself? That sounds legit, right?

But he can't have a computer program do that for him. That's wrong somehow.

The Apple store can take pictures of people in the Apple store, but he can't.

I'm just a little confused by the logic here.
posted by entropone at 11:14 AM on July 8, 2011 [4 favorites]


I'm curious why the Secret Service was involved rather than the FBI. Is that a Title 18 thing?
posted by Horselover Phattie at 11:16 AM on July 8, 2011 [4 favorites]


He claims that a security guard gave him permission to take photos in the store. Also, you can bet that Apple is taking pictures of the customers too, via security cam. How is that different than the photos he's taking? You are not in your home, there is zero expectation of privacy.

I don't think he asked the security guard about taking pictures of everybody with webcams, but rather with his camera. And last I checked, Apple doesn't post their security cam footage on Tumblr (or MobileMe or whatever).

Could he stand with one of the Apple computers, take pictures of people in a public place, and email them to himself? That sounds legit, right?

But he can't have a computer program do that for him. That's wrong somehow.


Can you really not see a difference between open and surreptitious recording?
posted by kmz at 11:17 AM on July 8, 2011 [8 favorites]


Many businesses have policies forbidding patrons from taking pictures or shooting video. I don't know Apple's store policy regarding this, but that's a bit beside the point.

I think the issue here is he installed dial-home software on the computers in the store without the store's knowledge or permission (unless I missed a part where he got permission for this, I haven't read all the articles).
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:18 AM on July 8, 2011


Also, you can bet that Apple is taking pictures of the customers too, via security cam. How is that different than the photos he's taking?

Presumably they aren't putting the pictures on a blog somewhere.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:18 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


entropone:

1. There is a difference between a visible, large, physical person obviously taking pictures of someone and a machine silently and surreptitiously doing it.

2. There is a difference between Apple, Inc, taking and securing CCTV pictures of me from a fair distance (with warning notices posted) and some unknown-to-me person taking detailed close-up photographs without any notice or alerting me in any way, then posting them on the internet.
posted by bonaldi at 11:19 AM on July 8, 2011 [5 favorites]


You are not in your home, there is zero expectation of privacy.

Thank goodness we have New York lawyers here to give us cogent legal analysis of, for example, the effect of Section 50 of the New York Civil Rights Law (which has nothing to do with expectation of privacy) on this case!
posted by The Bellman at 11:22 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


I think the issue here is he installed dial-home software on the computers in the store without the store's knowledge or permission

Given the involvement of the Secret Service, which investigates computer crimes, you can be fairly sure that is the case.

If I came over to your apartment and asked if I could take some pictures, and you said sure, would you really think that permission included installing software on your computer without your knowledge so that I could use it to send pictures to me remotely whenever I felt like it? I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the permission.
posted by grouse at 11:22 AM on July 8, 2011 [6 favorites]


how is "getting permission from the security guard" the same as "getting permission from the store"? i mean, is the security guard even employed by apple, or is he employed by another company that apple contracts? ignoring all the other issues of hidden vs open recording and posting of the images - how is that legitimate permission? would any reasonable person think that a security guard can actually give that sort of consent?
posted by nadawi at 11:22 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Can you really not see a difference between open and surreptitious recording?

I was photographed once without my knowledge while out and about in the city, and the image became a Getty image and has turned up in two different newspapers. Everyone involved made money off the image, except for me. Presumably if I made a stink about it, they would remove the image.

I don't really see the difference between that and this.
posted by hermitosis at 11:23 AM on July 8, 2011


I don't really see the difference between that and this.

The difference is that the photographers in your case did not install software on anyone's computers without their knowledge or permission for the purpose of remote control and surveillance. They used their own cameras. It's a huge difference.
posted by grouse at 11:25 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Not to mention that the CCTV images are (typically) overwritten with new images every few days unless there is some evidence a crime was committed, and are not made publicly available on youtube. The fact that both are taken in a quasi-public space (private property but open to the public on defined terms and between defined times) should in no way be definitive of the question.

(That said, under the commentary to the Second Restatement of Torts at 652, it very well may be -- I think in reality the only charges the artist might face here would relate to commandeering computer resources that were not his).
posted by modernnomad at 11:25 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


You are not in your home, there is zero expectation of privacy

You're in a GIANT BRIGHTLY-LIT GLASS BOX in a heavily-trafficked public area of New York City, there's zero expectation of privacy.

Given that the Secret Service is involved, I'm guessing the crime here was "installed software on someone else's computer without permission" (which is a crime unless you're the RIAA) rather than "violating Apple's store policy" (not a crime) or "taking pictures in public of public people" (probably not a Secret Service matter).
posted by hattifattener at 11:25 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Illegal use of a computer network, obnoxious invasion of privacy, but most of all, really, really boring.
posted by tommyD at 11:27 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


While I understand that the SS has responsibility for electronic crimes since President A. E. Neuman signed the Patriot Act, this seems like an epic waste of time. The roles of the SS Electronic Crimes Task Forces is to prioritize based on:

- Significant economic or community impact,
- Participation of multiple-district or transnational organized criminal groups,
- Use of new technology as a means to commit crime.

This barely counts under the first, obviously not part of the second, and we'll see on the third. In other words: a waste of time.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 11:30 AM on July 8, 2011


which is a crime unless you're the RIAA

"The RIAA did it too!" is not really a defense likely to make me more sympathetic.
posted by kmz at 11:31 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


The difference is that the photographers in your case did not install software on anyone's computers without their knowledge or permission for the purpose of remote control and surveillance.

These were not "anyone's computers", they were floor models in an Apple Store. There is a difference there, but yes he should not have installed this sort of software on computers that weren't his without permission.
posted by Hoopo at 11:34 AM on July 8, 2011


sorry--I meant "there is a difference there in terms of the expectation of privacy"
posted by Hoopo at 11:35 AM on July 8, 2011


a heavily-trafficked public area of New York City

A privately owned store is not a public area.
posted by spicynuts at 11:37 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Hi, Derrick from the News of the World, mind if we have a conversation, you talk, i listen."
posted by clavdivs at 11:37 AM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


According to Wikipedia, Malware:

1) consists of programming (code, scripts, active content, and other software)
2) designed to disrupt or deny operation,
3) gather information that leads to loss of privacy or exploitation,
4) gain unauthorized access to system resources,
5) and other abusive behavior.

I'm pretty undisturbed by what the guy did. At worst it violated some poeple's sense of "I'm in public but don't want to be photographed" as well as wasted some CPU cycles and bandwidth (and, I guess, electricity) of a major company. Both of those are pretty small things in my book. At best it made some kooky "art".

Anyway, going by the above definition I see how his code/acts pretty clearly fell under #3 and #4. So as you reap, so shall you sow. He should have (and probably did given his background) undersood what he was getting into from the start.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:38 AM on July 8, 2011


there is a difference there in terms of the expectation of privacy

Thanks, that was a little confusing before that clarification. But the unauthorized installation of remote-control surveillance software is the problem, not a varying expectation of privacy. I think the expectation of privacy from photography discussion is a red herring.
posted by grouse at 11:39 AM on July 8, 2011


In hindsight, what tommyD said.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:39 AM on July 8, 2011


You're in a GIANT BRIGHTLY-LIT GLASS BOX in a heavily-trafficked public area of New York City, there's zero expectation of privacy.

Whatever about privacy, I feel I should have the right not to be part of someone's crappy and lazy art project. Or 'intervention' as it is called on one of the web sites.

And I think the average person does not expect to have their image captured in a computer in an Apple Store and sent over the internet to a private party not involved in any way or sense with Apple, without any controls over how the image will be used, and without any sort of indication of what is happening. Maybe they should, but I think not expecting this to happen falls under a reasonable expectation.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 11:42 AM on July 8, 2011


The crime is that this guy installed malware on a bunch of apple machines, forget about the photos.
posted by empath at 11:52 AM on July 8, 2011 [4 favorites]


You're in a GIANT BRIGHTLY-LIT GLASS BOX in a heavily-trafficked public area of New York City, there's zero expectation of privacy.

Although the SS is probably involved because of the surreptitious use of a computer system, the issue here is not one of privacy. Rather, there's an argument that the artist has appropriated the likenesses of the individuals for commercial purposes, and thus infringed upon their right to publicity. It could be argued that all the people involved also have a claim under the Landam act for misappropriation of their likeness to advertise a product, although that would be a trickier case, perhaps involving a suit against Apple for negligently failing to safeguard consumers' personal information.

I'm not sure the latter would succeed, or should. But an infringement suit against the artist? Most definitely. Unless the law has changed since 2000, it's a misdemeanor in NY to appropriate someone's portrait without written permission, and New Yorkers can file a civil suit for economic damages - and exemplary (punitive) damages if there is any evidence of the artist ignoring requests for removal. IANAL, and doubt there is much money to be made out of suing this fellow, but a groveling public apology to each individual read alound and posted on YouTube seems like a fitting remedy.
posted by anigbrowl at 11:59 AM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Lanham Act, not Landam act. Sorry.
posted by anigbrowl at 12:01 PM on July 8, 2011


I remember when I was a kid visiting a computer store. I did "something" to an Atari 400 -- I forget exactly what, maybe I wrote a dumb little BASIC program.

I thought I had broken the thing, and I was terrified for days that the FBI was going to look for me. Eventually I decided it was a silly thought and that I was overreacting.

Now I have closure. I wasn't overreacting at all, I just had the wrong agency.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:07 PM on July 8, 2011 [4 favorites]


Meanwhile, more and more police surveillance cameras are put out in our public spaces while they in turn crack down citizen photography of public officials.

Yes, this art was most likely illegal, and worse yet, boring, barely showing the amazing and socially disruptive possibilities of combining machine learning with public surveillance networks. But it's still revealing that they're going after him with guns blazing.

Perhaps a more interesting "art" project would be a crowd-sourced network of webcams pointed outside of apartment windows, uploading to a central server with something like the Predator object recognition and tracking software running against the feeds. It would begin to raise actual questions in the public about the possibilities of a surveillance state. Tie it into a Facebook / Mechanical Turk identity matching system and we're getting somewhere more interesting.
posted by formless at 12:30 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'm generally Mr. Liberty, and I agree that you have little (but not no!) expectation of privacy in an Apple store - but installing "phone-home" software is definitely, definitely past the bounds. We only have his word for it that it isn't a keylogger or something nefarious - and "secret monitoring" software is in fact pretty nefarious all on its own.

The moment he installs his program without permission on one machine he's breaking the law. The fact that he came back and did it day after day is pretty gratuitous.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:32 PM on July 8, 2011


Surprised they leave the computers open to this sort of thing. Isn't there a way to lock down an Apple so that apps can't be installed?
posted by orme at 12:35 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


The crime is that this guy installed malware on a bunch of apple machines, forget about the photos.

To me that's the major issue as well, but it's interesting to see the differences in how this was handled versus the Sony/BMG rootkit incident.
posted by Challahtronix at 12:36 PM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


Of course, this is small beans - if law enforcement has all this spare time to hassle some loser who basically hurt no one, why aren't they after the banksters or the torturers?

We're going to see this guy for the high jump, just because he's an easy victim and the system is extra-sadistic these days to small fry, while extra-friendly to those special connected people.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:36 PM on July 8, 2011


Isn't there a way to lock down an Apple so that apps can't be installed?

They could always bring back At Ease.
posted by kmz at 12:38 PM on July 8, 2011


> it's interesting to see the differences in how this was handled versus the Sony/BMG rootkit incident.

Really, that's an unfair comparison. The Sony rootkit was installed on hundreds of thousands of machines, not just a few dozen. The artist in this case did in fact reveal what he was doing, whereas Sony never did, they were found out. The Sony rootkit actually installed new operating system software which gained root access, the epitome of hacking, whereas the artist's program ran simply as an app with user permissions. The rootkit in fact destabilized systems, causing serious misery for the people who experienced it, the artist's program caused no such issues.

And of course, as you remember the Sony managers involved served decades in jail for their cr... oh, wait, nothing happened?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:40 PM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


I am not a lawyer. That said: installing software on a computer without authorization of said computer's owner is a great way to get the Secret Service to knock on your door.

They have a word for that: hacking. This was benign, but it didn't need to be.

(Microsoft has permission as part of the EULA for Windows. So does Apple with OSX. This isn't that, not by the longest of shots.)
posted by andreaazure at 12:42 PM on July 8, 2011


If his "art" were a even a fraction less banal, I might be able to gin up some sympathy for him... In other accounts of this around the web, the discussion gets wrapped around the fact that he apparently DID ask Apple security people if it was OK to photograph people in the store, and they did say, "Yes." But that point is immaterial to his actual crime, such as it is - the Secret Service is visiting him because he installed unauthorized software onto computers that did not belong to him (hacking), not because the software he installed took video of people unaware they were being taped...
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 12:46 PM on July 8, 2011


By the way, I have a new legal rule I propose for American law. It's called the Fairness In Corporate Crime rule, and it states that if a corporation is convicted of breaking a law that an individual would face jail time for, at least one officer of the court needs to spend at least that much time in jail, and if no other candidate is found, the CEO must assume legal responsibility and do the time.

The fact that a corporation can commit a crime that you or I would do hard time for and avoid any consequences for the criminals who planned and implemented that crime is deeply abhorrent to most thinking people - and a source of ongoing joy to a small group of psychopaths bent on destroying the world...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:50 PM on July 8, 2011 [2 favorites]


A number of people would have a fit if we were talking about government installing ubiquitous cameras (like the UK) for security and safety reasons, but somehow this artist's unauthorized use of part of a private company's security apparatus - including the broadcast of that company's customer's actions in that company's store - is OK, just because he calls it "art"? This is a f*cked-up project. The only thing "original" about it is that he's hacked private cameras for his own use - to aggrandize himself via his "art". This is 'art"? If so, then "art" is bankrupt.
posted by Vibrissae at 12:52 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


entropone writes "But he can't have a computer program do that for him. That's wrong somehow.

"The Apple store can take pictures of people in the Apple store, but he can't.

"I'm just a little confused by the logic here."


A couple problems none of which involve the actual picture taking:

He should have a model release for this kind of commercial art photography.
He committed a text book unauthorized access to computer resources crime.

Compare and contrast with say Speakers Corner.

hermitosis writes "I was photographed once without my knowledge while out and about in the city, and the image became a Getty image and has turned up in two different newspapers. Everyone involved made money off the image, except for me. Presumably if I made a stink about it, they would remove the image. "

If they don't have a model release and the image wasn't a news image (just because it appeared in a newspaper doesn't make it a news image) then ya, you'd have little trouble getting the image pulled.

Mister Fabulous writes "This barely counts under the first, obviously not part of the second, and we'll see on the third. In other words: a waste of time."

The guy repeatedly installed a bot net without permission. Pretty obviously a crime and flagrantly executed as well. Seems like a fine use of resources.
posted by Mitheral at 12:53 PM on July 8, 2011


"By the way, I have a new legal rule I propose for American law. It's called the Fairness In Corporate Crime rule, and it states that if a corporation is convicted of breaking a law that an individual would face jail time for, at least one officer of the court needs to spend at least that much time in jail, and if no other candidate is found, the CEO must assume legal responsibility and do the time."

Where do I sign up the senior executives of every major American financial institution.
posted by Vibrissae at 12:54 PM on July 8, 2011


By the way, I have a new legal rule I propose for American law. It's called the Fairness In Corporate Crime rule, and it states that if a corporation is convicted of breaking a law that an individual would face jail time for, at least one officer of the court needs to spend at least that much time in jail, and if no other candidate is found, the CEO must assume legal responsibility and do the time.

I realize that this was just a typographical error, but look at how drastically it undermines the whole intent of your proposal. Many (supposed) examples of corporate, administrative or legislative wickedness are actually the product of similarly unintentional errors.
posted by anigbrowl at 1:36 PM on July 8, 2011


The guy repeatedly installed a bot net without permission. Pretty obviously a crime and flagrantly executed as well. Seems like a fine use of resources.

I'm far from defending his use of the computers, but let's be absolutely clear with terminology. A bot net is an entirely different kind of thing.
posted by odinsdream at 1:37 PM on July 8, 2011


More importantly: It's not particularly compelling as art.
posted by chasing at 1:37 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Many (supposed) examples of corporate, administrative or legislative wickedness are actually the product of similarly unintentional errors.

The law already has mechanisms to avoid criminal penalties for unintentional errors. Those mechanisms generally apply equally to natural person and corporate defendants, so I don't think it does anything to counter Vibrissae's point. Personally, I think the corporate death penalty should be considered more seriously.
posted by grouse at 1:42 PM on July 8, 2011


Damn. Isn't anyone happy in New York?
posted by Thorzdad at 1:56 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


The law already has mechanisms to avoid criminal penalties for unintentional errors.

True, but everyone likes to complain when they are actually used to avoid liability or just pay a fine instead of going to jail. Even I do so sometimes. One minute people say they hate cops, courts, perp walks, and the whole authoritarian state, next minute they're talking about polishing guillotines or locking people up to rot. When the system doesn't work everyone hates it, when it does work they complain that there isn't enough of it.

I don't think this guy will or should go to jail, nor do I think he should have to pay out more than token damages for his distinctly mediocre art project. I'd just like to ensure that he doesn't parlay the whole thing into free publicity to establish himself as 'the notorious artist xxxx'. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if he arranged the tipoff himself, sad to say.
posted by anigbrowl at 2:09 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Just thinking of a two similar scenarios such as 1) hacking the rear view cameras of new cars in a showroom and harvesting the images of shoppers for a blog or 2)harvesting the video from consumer/prosumer video cameras on display at a Best Buy for a blog.

Would it be okay then?
posted by Horselover Phattie at 2:20 PM on July 8, 2011


True, but everyone likes to complain when they are actually used to avoid liability or just pay a fine instead of going to jail.

Not everyone. People with any experience with the legal system can recognize the importance of proportional punishment.

I don't know what's going to happen to this guy. All I know is that he was arrested and that's more than what happened to anyone involved in authorizing or creating the Sony rootkit.
posted by grouse at 2:21 PM on July 8, 2011


BFD
posted by telstar at 2:38 PM on July 8, 2011


From his explanatory video:

"maybe if we could see what our computer sees we would stare differently... so I arranged a public exhibition..."

This is an appallingly disingenuous statement regarding a project that is quite obviously more about getting into trouble and profiting off the attention.

If his "art" were a even a fraction less banal, I might be able to gin up some sympathy for him...

QFT. There is zero chance an artist in 2011 doesn't know exactly what is going to happen if he installs surveillant software on computers in a corporate chain store. The immediate byproduct (the tumblr) is banal to the point of idiocy except as the jumping off point for a larger "intervention" into "getting in trouble with the authorities and milking the attention for a while."* To his (meager) credit, though, we are now having an interesting conversation about layers of privacy, DRM and surveillance in public spaces, so...

*Seriously, I refuse to even consider the notion that he actually thinks images of people staring into computers is remotely interesting or worthwhile outside the provocative notion of infiltrating an Apple Store computer.
posted by EL-O-ESS at 3:57 PM on July 8, 2011 [1 favorite]


Seems very unchill to take people's photographs without their knowledge and then post them on the Internet, but beyond that, I'm mostly opposed to this because it's just an incredibly boring art project.
posted by dhammond at 4:07 PM on July 8, 2011


People install software on floor/demo machines everyday; if that was his crime, are they all guilty too? People also take photos of strangers and post them online everyday.

To everyone here who thinks this was criminal: what crime do you expect him to be charged with, exactly?
posted by finite at 4:13 PM on July 8, 2011


He should have a model release for this kind of commercial art photography.

What makes this commercial? He doesn't seem to be selling or advertising anything.
posted by finite at 4:16 PM on July 8, 2011


To everyone here who thinks this was criminal: what crime do you expect him to be charged with, exactly?

Hm. That's a really good question and my answer is "I don't know what crime he committed, if any." I guess I'd like to retract my second comment upthread.

Unless the SS's computer forensics turn up something juicier, I suspect he will be charged with something and those charges will later be dropped. However, I do think the SS and the US gov is very interested in discouraging copy cats.
posted by mistersquid at 4:46 PM on July 8, 2011


Kyle is a very smart guy, and I respect him, but it's not easy to see a strong "point" in this particular work like it is in some of his other stuff. Feels miscalculated.
posted by fake at 5:35 PM on July 8, 2011


A smart person does not have the Secret Service arresting them, it's in the handbook.
This person may have intelligence but he is not smart. Also, as an "artist", he violates alot of ethics and sucks to boot.
posted by clavdivs at 7:20 PM on July 8, 2011


However, I do think the SS and the US gov is very interested in discouraging copy cats.

This, basically. I doubt the SS give much of a crap about the privacy of the people who had their photo taken - nor even, possibly, the specific fact that he installed unauthorised software on a bunch of computers. But as lupus_yonderboy notes, we only have his word for it that it wasn't a keylogger something more nefarious, and the basic blueprint of the idea practically invites criminal applications.

That said, I can't imagine that the photo thing in and of itself isn't illegal in some way. IANAL (and IANA*), but aren't stores required to at least have a sign up somewhere indicating that the premises are under surveillance? And I'm assuming that at least some of the portraits he harvested were of legal minors; does that not come with a whole bonus gift pack of child protection issues?

*I Am Not American
posted by sophistrie at 8:39 PM on July 8, 2011


« Older Maggie McNeil is a semi-retired "honest courtesan"...  |  Comedian Louis CK on the Opie ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments