> I think what's not congruent with social norms is that people still assume that cameras are turned off and aren't recording them & being saved somewhere.
No, people assume that security cameras will be used for their intended purpose. Our expectations are guided by context. The camera is the tip of the iceberg. Behind it is a whole set of intentions. What it will record, who will view it, and what will be done with that recording. The fact that it's a security camera provides implied answers to all of the "what, who, why" questions.
The rules of these contexts aren't written down in any rule book, because if we did that, we'd spend our whole lives writing out rule books rather than living.
I'm not suggesting that what Kyle did should be illegal. No one was harmed. Some people might have felt uncomfortable, but no one was harmed.
I am saying that we should be free to dislike him for it. He won't be harmed, but it might make him feel a little uncomfortable. Then again, maybe it won't.
I understand. I guess I feel that I can't tell which cameras are security cameras anymore. Do they have to be mounted on a ceiling in a corner with a tinted dome? EDIT: If I install Prey on my PC, does my PC camera then qualify as a security camera?
Some people might have felt uncomfortable
Art is supposed to provoke an emotional response, be it positive or negative. I love it when people walk up to a painting a say something like "This painting looks very angry. I don't like it at all." That's exactly what art is about and only people who are comfortable with being uncomfortable will fully appreciate it.
> I guess I feel that I can't tell which cameras are security cameras anymore.
Do you really expect that any camera put up in public is taking your picture to be posted on a website somewhere as part of an exhibit?
As hackers and engineers, we live in a world of specifications, rules, and absolutes. Most people aren't like us. You can't nail down the exact line between "right and wrong", because there is no exact line. It's a moving target, but asking whether something is right or wrong is asking the wrong question. Instead, ask yourself how your actions will make the other person feel. If you suspect it will make them uncomfortable, then ask yourself if it's worth it.
Be honest with yourself about it. Kyle knew something was up, because he felt the need to conceal his actions. Maybe he still would have gone ahead with the project, but he seems unwilling to admit that what he was doing was in any kind of gray area.
> Art is supposed to provoke an emotional response, be it positive or negative. I love it when people walk up to a painting a say something like "This painting looks very angry. I don't like it at all." That's exactly what art is about and only people who are comfortable with being uncomfortable will fully appreciate it.
Sure. Personally, I found Kyle's project deeply interesting. I was drawn to the idea like the scent of BBQ on the grill (mmmm, BBQ), because I love to "feel". I don't mean to judge him or his project. I don't even mean to say that I think he shouldn't have done it. I just think that we should be aware of the difference between a painting that is offensive to those who choose to see it and commandeering someone's privacy in the name of art.
There's a vitally important distinction here though. If I walk up to a painting and say I don't like it, I've voluntarily subjected myself to that uncomfortable experience. Heck, I've probably deliberately walked into a venue whose express purpose is for showcasing the art (e.g. a gallery, or an art museum).
But in this case people are being made uncomfortable against their will. And that's not ok.
No, people assume that security cameras will be used for their intended purpose. Our expectations are guided by context. The camera is the tip of the iceberg. Behind it is a whole set of intentions. What it will record, who will view it, and what will be done with that recording. The fact that it's a security camera provides implied answers to all of the "what, who, why" questions.
The rules of these contexts aren't written down in any rule book, because if we did that, we'd spend our whole lives writing out rule books rather than living.
I'm not suggesting that what Kyle did should be illegal. No one was harmed. Some people might have felt uncomfortable, but no one was harmed.
I am saying that we should be free to dislike him for it. He won't be harmed, but it might make him feel a little uncomfortable. Then again, maybe it won't.