Apple faces preliminary injunction to remove 'Secret' from App Store, users' devices

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    The way I see it, it doesn't matter who does it. It could be Google, it could be Amazon or Apple or whoever.

    It is wrong and i believe that no company should have the power to remove legitimately purchased and downloaded apps from people's devices after the fact.
    exactly.
  • Reply 22 of 51
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    It's really hard to take you seriously when you don't stand behind what you say. Tough talk coming from an invisible avatar! There's NO WAY you would talk to someone like that face-to-face. Why would you think it's okay to do it here? Because you can get away with it? Remind me not to leave my car keys within your reach.

    Your constitution guarantees freedom of expression, it doesn't say anything about spouting off anything you think you can get away with from a position of anonymity, nor does it say that you're entitled to a life free of consequences for your remarks. The government can't prosecute you for your opinion, but a customer can decide not to buy from you, an employer can decide not to hire you, and forum users can mock and/or block you until you man up and grow a pair.

    As they used to say on Usenet, "Plonk!"
    i was all set to disagree with you but your logic is solid. However I think this ruling is wrong. There is no way you can take peoples bought and paid for apps away from them after they've paid for it. Thats stealing...especially if its an american going into brazil. The judge needs to get some better tech advice because while possible they could be inducing Apple to break all kinds of laws elsewhere in the world. Being anonymous on the internet is an assumed risk. Brazil might as well tell everyone in their country they cant use it because of the risk of them being anonymous.
  • Reply 23 of 51

    I have a different view on this.

    Anonymity brings out the worst in people and although I believe in freed of expression, I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.

    If you make a statement be prepared to assume responsibility for that statement.

  • Reply 24 of 51
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    It's consistent with what we taught our kid growing up, which is that "honesty" means not just telling the truth, but standing up for what you believe in.

    People remember what you say, so think about what you want them to remember before you open your trap or write that note.

    Being accountable for what you say will earn you respect. Being controversial or adversarial from a position of anonymity is cowardly and you'll live in fear of slipping up and being found out.

    Being honest about your beliefs will empower others; a faceless statement has no effect because no one takes it seriously.

    Walking the talk is part of the reason I stopped using "User IDs" and created new online accounts using my real name.

    I share the concern over a governing authority trying to control communications channels because it's possible people may someday need them to resist corrupt and oppressive regimes, but I also understand what the Judge in Brazil is trying to accomplish here: shutting down avenues that chickenshit bullies and generally anti-social maladroits use to make life unpleasant for good people. The cause is noble.

    Right because forcing people to adhere to one specific ideal is noble. Further, what happens when the day comes when you need anonomous expression, but have no avenues to conduct it?
  • Reply 25 of 51
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post





    that means apple would have to disable the app everywhere based on every countrys whims and laws. Apple is now required to wipe apps based on what country youre in at any given time....hunh? Ummm how about Apple doesnt have the authority to do that. Thats called being on the internet. Its possible some people might be bullys oh well... PC gone wrong.

    What has PC got to do with anything?

     

    I don't think the order is based on what country the phone is in, it's based on what app store it's connected to.  If it's the Brazil app store, which is subject to Brazilian laws, and where Secret is an app that does not fulfil requirements set out by the Brazilian constitution, then Secret should not be sold and should never have been sold, and any sales are invalid, and any installations of Secret should be removed.  That seems pretty straightforward.

     

    If it is based on what country you're actually in, and the court is asking Apple to set up a big geo-fencing infrastructure that needs to be constantly cross-referenced against app blacklists per country... well that might be unreasonable and I'm not sure how it would work.

     

    But assuming that's not what they're asking, let's hypothesise and replace Secret with heroin.  Apple runs a store in Rio and sells heroin for a time.  Heroin is illegal under Brazilian laws, so Apple gets told to stop selling heroin, and to provide assistance in tracking down people who have bought heroin so that police can follow up.  If Apple don't cooperate then they get punished.  How is this conceptually any different, except that Apple have the ability to use a kill switch to vaporise the sold heroin in one fell swoop?

  • Reply 26 of 51
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,172member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post





    i was all set to disagree with you but your logic is solid. However I think this ruling is wrong. There is no way you can take peoples bought and paid for apps away from them after they've paid for it. Thats stealing...especially if its an american going into brazil.

    Presumably, if the American goes back to the USA they'd be able to redownload Secret.

     

    This is akin to the border guard seizing your contraband that isn't allowed in the destination country.  You normally don't get that back either, but with Secret, as soon as you get out of Brazil, you could redownload.

  • Reply 27 of 51
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    crowley wrote: »
    Presumably, if the American goes back to the USA they'd be able to redownload Secret.

    This is akin to the border guard seizing your contraband that isn't allowed in the destination country.  You normally don't get that back either, but with Secret, as soon as you get out of Brazil, you could redownload.

    Right but thats altering someones personal device. That presents all kinds of legal challenges from another countries perspective. If Brazil doesnt want to participate in the internet, thats fine but that doesnt mean others shouldnt be allowed to. Again too much big government. Im a big government liberal but this imo is court overreach...

    They could make apple or msft wipe everyones computer of information they dont want people to have...like all that American IP Brazil steals. Could you imagine... There needs to be a constitutional amendment here in the US preventing such actions in the US.
  • Reply 28 of 51
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

     a faceless statement has no effect because no one takes it seriously.


     

    But they do. Not everyone, but certainly not "no one".  Lots of trouble here as pertains to online consumer reviews. And even here on AI, where users gain reputation through the system established by the site.  A troll's first post isn't granted much credibility, but TallestSkil's posts, though anonymous, are vastly more impactful. (Yes, it's not a word, but you know what I mean.)

  • Reply 29 of 51
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post





    If Brazil doesnt want to participate in the internet, thats fine but that doesnt mean others shouldnt be allowed to.

     

    What does that mean?  If Brazil makes a law then it applies to everyone in Brazil.  It doesn't affect anyone outside of Brazil.  If you don't want to abide by that law then don't enter Brazil.  Who are the "others" you are referring to?

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post



    They could make apple or msft wipe everyones computer of information they dont want people to have...like all that American IP Brazil steals. Could you imagine... There needs to be a constitutional amendment here in the US preventing such actions in the US.

     

    Preventing what actions?  Genuinely not following you here.  US constitutional amendments don't apply to people in Brazil.

  • Reply 30 of 51
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,991member
    adonissmu wrote: »
    i was all set to disagree with you but your logic is solid. However I think this ruling is wrong. There is no way you can take peoples bought and paid for apps away from them after they've paid for it. Thats stealing...especially if its an american going into brazil. The judge needs to get some better tech advice because while possible they could be inducing Apple to break all kinds of laws elsewhere in the world. Being anonymous on the internet is an assumed risk. Brazil might as well tell everyone in their country they cant use it because of the risk of them being anonymous.

    In effect removing Secret from user devices would be no different than Apple actively blocking access in China to the FreeWeibo app. Chinese users downloaded it and now their use of it has been taken away. The app itself was not deleted from the users phone (AFAIK) but it's completely useless with Apple specifically blocking that app from working while the user is in China. It has the exact same effect as removing the app itself from the iDevice doesn't it?

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/secret-speak-freely/id775307543?mt=8
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/freeweibo/id708973575?mt=8
  • Reply 31 of 51
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    In effect removing Secret from user devices would be no different than Apple actively blocking access in China to the FreeWeibo app. Chinese users downloaded it and now their use of it has been taken away. The app itself was not deleted from the users phone (AFAIK) but it's completely useless with Apple specifically blocking that app from working while the user is in China. It has the exact same effect as removing the app itself from the iDevice doesn't it?

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/secret-speak-freely/id775307543?mt=8
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/freeweibo/id708973575?mt=8
    that is acceptable to me.
  • Reply 32 of 51
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    What about Google? Do they have a remote delete ability?




    Yes and they have already used it.

     

    When European customers enabled voice directions in Google Maps before Google released it.


    But Maps is an app that uses Google services. I have no experience with Android, however I asked because I thought that it was possible to side load apps from other sources that Google did not control.

  • Reply 33 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    In effect removing Secret from user devices would be no different than Apple actively blocking access in China to the FreeWeibo app. Chinese users downloaded it and now their use of it has been taken away. The app itself was not deleted from the users phone (AFAIK) but it's completely useless with Apple specifically blocking that app from working while the user is in China. It has the exact same effect as removing the app itself from the iDevice doesn't it?

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/secret-speak-freely/id775307543?mt=8
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/freeweibo/id708973575?mt=8

    While I believe that they can remove the app I think blocking access whilst in country (Brazil in this case) might be the best solution, but one can bypass that if they're on a VPN.
  • Reply 34 of 51
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,353moderator
    gatorguy wrote: »
    In effect removing Secret from user devices would be no different than Apple actively blocking access in China to the FreeWeibo app. Chinese users downloaded it and now their use of it has been taken away. The app itself was not deleted from the users phone (AFAIK) but it's completely useless with Apple specifically blocking that app from working while the user is in China. It has the exact same effect as removing the app itself from the iDevice doesn't it?

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/secret-speak-freely/id775307543?mt=8
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/freeweibo/id708973575?mt=8

    Agreed. And to those who suggest a provider of software doesn't have a right to alter that software after the fact, you need to go back and reread your software license agreement. You don't own the software, you own a license to use it. This is true for iOS and Apple has the right to modify iOS or its behavior, including determining which apps it launches and allows to be installed on an iOS managed device. So Apple does have the right to delete Secret if it feels there is cause to do so.
  • Reply 35 of 51
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,556member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

     

    It's consistent with what we taught our kid growing up, which is that "honesty" means not just telling the truth, but standing up for what you believe in.

     

    People remember what you say, so think about what you want them to remember before you open your trap or write that note.

     

    Being accountable for what you say will earn you respect. Being controversial or adversarial from a position of anonymity is cowardly and you'll live in fear of slipping up and being found out.

     

    Being honest about your beliefs will empower others; a faceless statement has no effect because no one takes it seriously.

     

    Walking the talk is part of the reason I stopped using "User IDs" and created new online accounts using my real name.

     

    I share the concern over a governing authority trying to control communications channels because it's possible people may someday need them to resist corrupt and oppressive regimes, but I also understand what the Judge in Brazil is trying to accomplish here: shutting down avenues that chickenshit bullies and generally anti-social maladroits use to make life unpleasant for good people. The cause is noble.


    I commend you for standing behind your beliefs but this world is full of rumors and "facts" from anonymous sources. Even our judges have declared that freedom of speech protects the identity of people not willing to give out the names of these people. Of course, this is abused every day by analysts and others trying to manipulate stocks but nobody is willing to go after them. As for bullying, I totally agree something needs to be done but you have to weigh the effect a law has on its unintended use against its intended use before forcing it on everyone (in Brazil). The right to submit something anonymously is for protection of the submitter against retribution not necessarily from the receiver but about someone else who can have a tremendous amount of power. As for Brazil, I find it interesting they even have this law since there's so much lawlessness in that country (hosted a Brazilian exchange student so we have first hand knowledge of this).

  • Reply 36 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post



    Good luck Brazil.



    Instead, Apple will probably contact the developer and have them comply with the laws of Brazil, giving them an option to due something like "Because you're in Brazil, enter your personal information here, your posts will not be secret". Either that or have the app disable access if you're detected to be located in Brazil.



    Or better yet, a big old "Are you Brazilian?" question in the introduction. Either way.

     

    this.  Going for the big hammer first without even considering other options seems lazy.  And it could backfire.  It seems like it would be better to work with the developer who created the software to address the issue, rather than going straight to Apple who merely operates the store.

  • Reply 37 of 51
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    Brazil's law sounds a tad wack, but it is the law. And Apple must comply if the courts grant the order. The app will come off the store. And unless Apple can prove there is absolutely no way to remote delete or disable the app that will happen also.

    As for the app, frankly if it is being used for bullying then in deserves to be nixed in all countries. Or at the least the app should be required to have a way to track those doing posts even if it's not public. So those who bully etc can be shut down.
  • Reply 38 of 51
    Hey Apple ][ - tell us how you really feel :-)
  • Reply 39 of 51
    Is Brazil also confiscating writing implements?
  • Reply 40 of 51
    Originally Posted by tagyro View Post

    ...although I believe in freed of expression, I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.

     

    Completely psychotic. You do not believe in freedom of expression.

Sign In or Register to comment.