After he took the photos he wanted, he remotely uploaded them to every computer and forced them to be shown on-screen while people were browsing around the demo.
Freaky stuff. How is installing RATs on other peoples’ computers even remotely ethical?
The whole point of the unethical horrible stuff was to get people to think about what they were doing, think about what was happening with tech and surveillance, think at all.
An artist got their home raided, Cambridge Analytica - which was manipulation on an industrial scale - barely got a slapped wrist. Ad tech uses mass surveillance to build personal profiles and hardly anyone notices - because the surveillance and behaviour mod happen under the surface.
Who is more unethical? Which response was proportionate?
Please tell me your post is satire.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/23/judge-grants-se...
I'm not saying Cambridge Analytica was sufficiently prosecuted, but using the home raid of the author as a comparison screams satire.
What was the justification for the raid?
Perhaps you need to revise your understanding of Fourth Amendment protection from fishing expeditions before dismissing a home raid which found no grounds for prosecution as "satire."
They had a warrant to seize assets used for developing the spyware installed on Apple's property. If the feds don't have jurisdiction to investigate potential infringement of other' rights, what do they do about peeping toms? How do they know the extent of this spyware they've deployed?
To even get that warrant, they need a decent argument in front of a judge. None of this is infringing on any rights
> home raid which found no grounds for prosecution
They knocked, presented the warrant, and the agents were cordial and honest. The purpose of these sorts of warrants are for investigative purposes, which is in the warrant. You don't need to promise a prosecution to serve one
He made it super-small (and it's not in the FOIA doc, that I could find) but, here's the warrant he was served by the agents at the door: https://kylemcdonald.net/psac/large/warrant.png
They gave him all the reasons they were there, they let him know what would expand the scope of the warrant (drugs or weapons) and discussed, in-detail, what they were there for
I'm a big proponent for sanctity of the home.
So, this made me think ; where does the current home end, and the current office?
If the future, we may see more and more home raids, where an employer's malfeasance results in employee "workspaces" being raided for info.
All computers taken, mobile phones, various office artifacts, with homes involved due to work-from-home.
I suspect this may have already happened many times over the years, with CEOs, employees of small startups working from home.
Has this battle already been lost? Not sure for Canada and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but what of the US?
Does work from home, mean raids are easily justified?