Apple takes steps to block iOS in-app purchase hack

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 44
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,312member
    auxio wrote: »
    But creating something which can be used for theft isn't the same as actually committing the act of theft, now is it?
    Such a statement is splitting hairs. Lawyers like to use such statements to get their criminals clients off in court. It's not unlike avoiding a lie by refusing to tell the whole truth. Such is ethically and morally unsound, even if an unscrupulous lawyer is sometimes effective at using that in a court.

    But a personal admission helps to clarify matters. Jobs himself said "These were illegal, I have to add... But we built the best one in the world!" He admitted that in more than one interview, but you can hear the man yourself half way through the following interview:


    auxio wrote: »
    Now, if Jobs and Woz were caught using their blue boxes (which, I'm sure they did, but I doubt that's provable), then they should have faced the same punishment as anyone else.
    I see your not well read on the two Steve's. They were in fact stopped by the police who examined the merchandise they had in the back of their car. But that was in the early days when even the police didn't know what a blue box was, so the police let them go. But it would have turned out very differently had the police known what they built and were profiting from. It's not unlike a drug dealer who says, "hey, I don't smoke the stuff, nor am I liable for what my customers do with the drugs I sell." (An appropriate analogy in light of the fact Steve was a regular drug user in his early days.)

    But I am glad you ultimately admitted (albeit very reluctantly) that Jobs and Woz should be placed on the same level as this Rissian hacker when it comes to Crime and Punishment.

    I view all this with the eyes of an optimist. Just as there was hope for the two Steve's because they gave up that life of crime (albeit, only because their lives were threatened by a thief at gunpoint), so there is hope for this Russian hacker if he amends his ways (and apparently he has, since he's admitted he doesn't want to go to jail). This frees the rest of us from having to beat up on this hacker so we can instead focus on the app store in general and what Apple can do — not to fight crime, but what Apple can do to make the App store a vastly improved experience over what we have now, for both developers and app buyers alike.
  • Reply 42 of 44
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,707member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JDW View Post





    Such a statement is splitting hairs. Lawyers like to use such statements to get their criminals clients off in court. It's not unlike avoiding a lie by refusing to tell the whole truth. Such is ethically and morally unsound, even if an unscrupulous lawyer is sometimes effective at using that in a court.

    But a personal admission helps to clarify matters. Jobs himself said "These were illegal, I have to add... But we built the best one in the world!" He admitted that in more than one interview, but you can hear the man yourself half way through the following interview:



    I see your not well read on the two Steve's. They were in fact stopped by the police who examined the merchandise they had in the back of their car. But that was in the early days when even the police didn't know what a blue box was, so the police let them go. But it would have turned out very differently had the police known what they built and were profiting from. It's not unlike a drug dealer who says, "hey, I don't smoke the stuff, nor am I liable for what my customers do with the drugs I sell." (An appropriate analogy in light of the fact Steve was a regular drug user in his early days.)

    But I am glad you ultimately admitted (albeit very reluctantly) that Jobs and Woz should be placed on the same level as this Rissian hacker when it comes to Crime and Punishment.

    I view all this with the eyes of an optimist. Just as there was hope for the two Steve's because they gave up that life of crime (albeit, only because their lives were threatened by a thief at gunpoint), so there is hope for this Russian hacker if he amends his ways (and apparently he has, since he's admitted he doesn't want to go to jail). This frees the rest of us from having to beat up on this hacker so we can instead focus on the app store in general and what Apple can do — not to fight crime, but what Apple can do to make the App store a vastly improved experience over what we have now, for both developers and app buyers alike.


     


    It's not splitting hairs: should a screwdriver manufacturer be liable for their product being used to break into cars (and yes, I realize this is an old scenario)?  Or a chemistry supply company be liable for their products being used to create illegal drugs?


     


    We need to see the act of creating a product which could be used for illegal purposes and actually performing illegal acts with those products as two distinct things otherwise it becomes very risky for a manufacturer to produce any product for fear that someone finds a way to use it for illegal purposes.


     


    In this particular case, because the sole purpose of the product is for committing illegal acts, it becomes a question of whether the product itself should be outlawed (in the same fashion as certain drugs and certain weapons are outlawed).  I honestly don't know whether creating and possessing a blue box is illegal or not (but obviously using it is).  So again, I don't know whether the two Steves would have been guilty of an offence simply by having blue boxes in their car.  If so, then I completely agree that they should have faced the same punishment as anyone else would.


     


    But anyways, we're going in circles here.  The outcome for us as legal users and/or developers is that Apple is taking measures to close this loophole (just as the telephone companies did with the blue box loophole) and hopefully considering ways to ensure people aren't as motivated to try and find and use such loopholes.  Though, through my experience, I don't think it's possible to ever eliminate it completely.

  • Reply 43 of 44
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,312member
    You're arguing for the sake of arguing, and here's the proof from your own self-answering argument:
    auxio wrote: »
    It's not splitting hairs: should a screwdriver manufacturer be liable for their product being used to break into cars...?
    ...because the sole purpose of the product is for committing illegal acts, it becomes a question of whether the product itself should be outlawed

    Since the "sole purpose" of a bluebox is not to be a ubiquitous, innocent home-use repair/construction tool like that of a "screw driver," it is therefore silly to compare the two in an analogy.

    The entire point is still being missed here. I am merely saying that we should refrain from being so judgmental on this hacker in light of the two Steve's own past and in light of the fact we are so apt to praise the two Steves rather than condemn them. Remember that a pirate flag once flew at Apple headquarters. This history in no way makes wrong right. It merely should make us more reflective than judgemental. And indeed I think there is much truth to the statement that we ourselves will be judged with the same judgement we administer to others.

    Let Apple patch the holes and it's attack-dog legal team deal with this Russian hacker. There's no need for us to crowd together and chant "crucify him! crucify him!"
  • Reply 44 of 44


    I remember this already being possible with a jailbroken device. Why hasn't Apple patched that problem? Its basically doing the same thing that the Russian made right?

Sign In or Register to comment.