or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge rules Apple must face lawsuit over iPhone data collection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge rules Apple must face lawsuit over iPhone data collection

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
A lawsuit accusing Apple of collecting users' data against their will through iPhone applications is moving forward after a California judge's ruling.

San Jose-based U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled this week that the discovery phase of the class-action lawsuit will proceed, according to Bloomberg. The judge wants Apple to begin turning over relevant documents to the plaintiffs' lawyers by May 17.

Apple tried unsuccessfully to dismiss the case outright, arguing that the plaintiffs did not identify a "single, concrete injury inflicted on any one of the plaintiffs." The company declined to comment after Koh's ruling was handed down.

The class-action suit has accused Apple of collecting geographical data from users' iPhones even after they said, through settings in the iOS mobile operating system, that they didn't want such information shared.

Location services on the iPhone gained significant attention last year, when a pair of researchers found that iOS was keeping a database file with personal location data. The company quickly released a software update to address the issue.

However, Apple was still hit with lawsuits over Apple's data collection, as users complained in lawsuits that they felt felt the company was "tracking people wherever they go." The issue stemmed from an error in the iOS software that continued to collect location data, in an attempt to improve location services, even after a user had turned off location services on their iPhone.
post #2 of 32

Oh, is this the location data thing, again?

That's fine. As long as Google, Facebook, et. al. are also brought to trial over this (and their other data thefts). Otherwise it's hypocrisy. 

post #3 of 32

Why doesn't AI just use a couple of article templates, saving a lot of time writing repetitive stories. Have one for "Lawsuit alleges <fill in the blank>" and another for "<Fill> files patent infringement suit for <fill> use of <fill>". Then simply repeat most of the prior writing pertaining to lawsuits. That would cover a good deal of the recent articles wouldn't it?
 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why doesn't AI just use a couple of article templates, saving a lot of time writing repetitive stories. Have one for "Lawsuit alleges <fill in the blank>" and another for "<Fill> files patent infringement suit for <fill> use of <fill>". Then simply repeat most of the prior writing pertaining to lawsuits. That would cover a good deal of the recent articles wouldn't it?
 

Here's some headline/subject matter templates:

 

_________ commits Outrage against Apple!

 

Apple Explains Latest Gaffe Using Specious Explanations.

 

_________ Unfair to Apple!

 

Apple Beats Analyst Expectations!

post #5 of 32

again. cell tower and public wifi hotspots data are being collected. Actual GPS data is not. The end results, the plantiffs get $1 itunes gift cards while their lawyers get $1MM.
 

post #6 of 32
This means nothing. The case could go to trial and Apple could pull out the Eula that everyone agreed to (without reading) that says the collection is approved so long as it is only received by Apple etc. They can't prove Apple allowed anyone else to have the data. And the judge could say Apple did nothing wrong since the only way for another party to see the info is to stel your phone and/or computer. And case over

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #7 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, is this the location data thing, again?

That's fine. As long as Google, Facebook, et. al. are also brought to trial over this (and their other data thefts). Otherwise it's hypocrisy. 

 

That's not what "hypocrisy" means.

post #8 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, is this the location data thing, again?

That's fine. As long as Google, Facebook, et. al. are also brought to trial over this (and their other data thefts). Otherwise it's hypocrisy. 


So true.

I'm amazed how many use an Android device, when it is well known that they are running Google's spyware OS.

post #9 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbarchetta View Post
That's not what "hypocrisy" means.

 

Singling out one company for personal information theft while ignoring it on all others (the ones who make their living off it) isn't hypocrisy?

post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Singling out one company for personal information theft while ignoring it on all others (the ones who make their living off it) isn't hypocrisy?

It depends on who we're talking about? It doesn't make one a hypocrite for not suing Google, if they've never owned an Android phone.

 

Regardless, if I'm not mistaken, this data only ever existed on the user's device and backed up to iTunes on their computer. How can they claim Apple collected this data?

post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
It doesn't make one a hypocrite for not suing Google, if they've never owned an Android phone.

 

How is that a valid……? The organization responsible for protecting us is ignoring their responsibility when it comes to the companies that actually take your data. 

post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbarchetta View Post
That's not what "hypocrisy" means.

 

Singling out one company for personal information theft while ignoring it on all others (the ones who make their living off it) isn't hypocrisy?

 

 

Actually, yes.  It isn't hypocrisy.  

 

I think what you are searching for is "selective enforcement".  A wholly different concept.

 

Hypocrisy would be if, for example, Apple were to accuse Google of data misuse, or vice versa.


Edited by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz - 5/4/12 at 2:05pm
post #13 of 32
Its funny, the previous article "Google violates users privacy", responses "Burn in hell Google"
This article "Apple violates users privacy" responses "its aiight"
How's that for hypocrisy?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Its funny, the previous article "Google violates users privacy", responses "Burn in hell Google"
This article "Apple violates users privacy" responses "its aiight"
How's that for hypocrisy?

Its APPLEINSIDER.  A fan site for Apple

post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Its funny, the previous article "Google violates users privacy", responses "Burn in hell Google"
This article "Apple violates users privacy" responses "its aiight"
How's that for hypocrisy?

 

 

Yes indeed, now THAT is hypocrisy.

 

It would be better if it were also ironic, but unfortunately, it is par for the course.

post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Its APPLEINSIDER.  A fan site for Apple

But we Apple fans should be less two-faced-- we're smarter than the average mo'

post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Its funny, the previous article "Google violates users privacy", responses "Burn in hell Google"
This article "Apple violates users privacy" responses "its aiight"
How's that for hypocrisy?

Well, considering Google's been in and out of the news on a regular basis over the past few years regarding privacy issues and still doesn't seem to give a damn, I'd say that 'burn in hell' was pretty appropriate.
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


Actually, yes.  It isn't hypocrisy.  

I think what you are searching for is "selective enforcement".  A wholly different concept.

Hypocrisy would be if, for example, Apple were to accuse Google of data misuse, or vice versa.

Wrong.

Tallest Skil is correct.

"Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have."

Prosecuting one company while failing to prosecute others guilty of the same thing falls well within this definition.

Dumbasses.

And I love the way you trolls have started bumping each others posts with the big 'thumbs up'.

Truly pathetically funny! (>_<)
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Reply
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, is this the location data thing, again?

That's fine. As long as Google, Facebook, et. al. are also brought to trial over this (and their other data thefts). Otherwise it's hypocrisy. 

 

Judge Koh again?

 

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

 

Yes indeed, now THAT is hypocrisy.

 

It would be better if it were also ironic, but unfortunately, it is par for the course.

How could it be hypocrisy?   Apple was never accused of uploading the data to Apple servers, it was just there on the phone and in an individual users backup file on the users own computer - nowhere else.  Google itself has been accused of actively harvesting data and capturing it back to corporate home base, a very different situation.

 

But hey, we all know that actually acknowledging fact before your posts are beat senseless with it  isn't how you decide to roll.

.
Reply
.
Reply
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Its funny, the previous article "Google violates users privacy", responses "Burn in hell Google"
This article "Apple violates users privacy" responses "its aiight"
How's that for hypocrisy?

If that were the title of the thread, and if it were true. Otherwise, no.
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Its funny, the previous article "Google violates users privacy", responses "Burn in hell Google"
This article "Apple violates users privacy" responses "its aiight"
How's that for hypocrisy?

 

The difference, of course, is that Google really does violate users' privacy. Apple does not - regardless of the false accusations.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

The difference, of course, is that Google really does violate users' privacy. Apple does not - regardless of the false accusations.

Can you show me where. I've been searching about this but all I can find is just speculation for both parties.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Can you show me where. I've been searching about this but all I can find is just speculation for both parties.

 

You obviously haven't looked very hard:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1733123/google-confirms-privacy-violations

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/google-cops-a-plea-with-ftc-on-privacy-violations/1568

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11577588

 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_privacy_violation_buzz_ftc.php

 

There's plenty more - those are just from the first 15 or so Yahoo! hits.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 32

Maybe we could use this approach to stop traffic cameras for being used. 

 

Actually I find some of those arguments somewhat amusing - people claiming that a radar gun used to measure their speed is a violation of their privacy. Guess what - when you are using a public roadway it is not a private matter. 

 

In this case I would think the key would be "collecting" if there is no evidence that any of the personal data ever ended up anywhere that was outside of the users own personal device(s) - then Apple is not in fact "collecting" anything - case closed.

post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

Maybe we could use this approach to stop traffic cameras for being used. 

 

Actually I find some of those arguments somewhat amusing - people claiming that a radar gun used to measure their speed is a violation of their privacy. Guess what - when you are using a public roadway it is not a private matter. 

 

In this case I would think the key would be "collecting" if there is no evidence that any of the personal data ever ended up anywhere that was outside of the users own personal device(s) - then Apple is not in fact "collecting" anything - case closed.


That has already been fought and settled. Similarly, there were lawsuits against Google because when they were driving around doing their street level photos, they caught people doing things that were not particularly pleasant or perhaps embarrassing. Several lawsuits were filed and Google didn't lose any, AFAIK. The basic principle is that when you do something on a public street, you have no expectation of privacy.


The use of your personal computer in your own home is an entirely different matter. You have an expectation of privacy in your own home and Google has clearly violated it a number of times (see the above articles).


You are correct that if the personal data does not end up anywhere but your own computer that the harm is substantially reduced, but that does not mean that the violator gets off scot-free. There are specific laws that may apply, as well. In the end, when the user selects 'do not store any cookies', their wishes should be respected.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habanero View Post

But we Apple fans should be less two-faced-- we're smarter than the average mo'

Hehe, mo.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #28 of 32

Oh thank you very much, I knew about these I thought there were some seriuos new examples that I missed. Buzz is no more, the creep was fired and charged by police that did that thing with the teen sites and the Canadian thing was a mistake that was rectified quickly. I don't trust any online service that's why I encrypt all data that is uploaded to the cloud plus all personal emails to my familiy and never use social networking sites.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #29 of 32
u
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, is this the location data thing, again?


That's fine. As long as Google, Facebook, et. al. are also brought to trial over this (and their other data thefts). Otherwise it's hypocrisy. 

This is a class action suit brought on by private lawyers not some DOJ investigation. You sound like a kid who got caught doing something and his friends got away with it. But mommy they did it to, no one likes a tattle-tell honey.
Edited by Relic - 5/6/12 at 1:42pm
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
This is a class action suit brought on by private lawyers not some DOJ investigation.

 

Yes. And? You're saying private lawyers couldn't sue Google over their blatantly illegal actions?


 You sound like a kid who got caught doing something and his friends got away with it. But mommy they did it to, no one likes a tattle-tell honey.

 

That the drugs acting up again?


Edited by Tallest Skil - 3/8/13 at 9:37am
post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Oh thank you very much, I knew about these I thought there were some seriuos new examples that I missed. Buzz is no more, the creep was fired and charged by police that did that thing with the teen sites and the Canadian thing was a mistake that was rectified quickly. I don't trust any online service that's why I encrypt all data that is uploaded to the cloud plus all personal emails to my familiy and never use social networking sites.

If you knew about those examples (which were just the tip of the iceberg, btw), why did you say that you have been searching for evidence of Google's privacy violations and couldn't find any?

The fact is that Google's privacy violations are well documented. Their IP violations (like the now-defunct Google Books fiasco) are even better known.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #32 of 32

Judge Grewel, the same judge who recommended sanctions on Samsung for destroying email's in the Apple/Samsung case is now questioning Apple's truthfulness in this location lawsuit over a similar issue of e-mails not being produced as ordered. 

 

 

" Apple must show in detail how it’s complying with court orders to turn over evidence in a privacy lawsuit, a judge ruled, saying he can no longer rely on what the company tells him in the case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal in San Jose,California, issued the order after the plaintiffs’ lawyers claimed Apple withheld documents it had previously been ordered to produce. Apple is accused in the lawsuit of collecting data on the locations of customers through iPhones, even after the device’s geo-location feature was turned off.

Grewal, saying he had already “refereed” the dispute, said it was “unacceptable” that Apple waited more than three months to verify whether it complied with his November order to turn over documents.

“Luckily for the plaintiffs, Apple has provided more than enough evidence itself to suggest to the court that it has not fully complied with the court’s order,” Grewal wrote in the March 6 order. “In light of Apple’s performance in this case, the court cannot rely on its representations that this time it really has or will produce all responsive documents.”

Apple’s resistance in the case is increasingly producing orders from Grewal that are forcing it to reveal inner workings that the company normally goes to great lengths to hide.

‘Wrong Hands’

Apple is also accused in the lawsuit of failing to tell customers that its iOS operating system allowed third parties to collect and monitor personal information from iPhones and iPads without their consent. Apple said in a court filing it has closely guarded some documents in the case because it and millions of its customers might be harmed if the information were “inadvertently released to the public or fell into the wrong hands.”

At a March 5 hearing before Grewal, Ashlie Beringer, a lawyer for Apple, said the company’s failure to produce e-mails from Steve Jobs and other senior executives in violation of Grewal’s November order was a “mistake.”

 

"Beringer said she and her team of lawyers reviewed more than 8,000 e-mails over the previous weekend and determined that they should turn over messages involving Apple’s late co-founder Jobs, Phil Schiller, its marketing chief, and Scott Forstall, the former head of mobile software, among others."

 

 

"In Grewal’s order, plaintiffs lawyers also won the right to see Apple documents concerning its process of reviewing applications for its mobile devices. The company redacted the information in part, it said, because the information is “incredibly sensitive and valuable and is a closely guarded trade secret,” according to a court filing.

 

Phillip Shoemaker, Apple’s Director of App Review, submitted a filing in the case last month explaining how disclosure of the review process would jeopardize Apple and “create real risk” to millions of users of its products, according to the filing."

 

There's apparently a whole lot going on here besides a simple location suit. No doubt AI will post a story up on this at some point.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-08/apple-can-t-duck-giving-documents-in-privacy-lawsuit.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Judge rules Apple must face lawsuit over iPhone data collection