this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
236 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

59087 readers
3313 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

US senators have urged the DOJ to probe Apple's alleged anti-competitive conduct against Beeper.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jon@lemmy.tf 22 points 10 months ago (2 children)

That counts as unauthorized access in the eyes of the law. It's a private system and they did not have any agreements permitting them to use it as they wanted.

[–] mark3748@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Quite literally the text of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act. Unauthorized access of computer systems can get you 20-years at club fed. Seems like some of these people need a history lesson.

[–] loki@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Apple reverse-engineered Office to release iWork. So Apple isn't new to reverse-engineering others proprietary shit when it benefits them. something, something, history lesson, hmm…

I don't know laws in the US but my limited understanding in the case of Beeper is that its users are the ones that grant themselves unauthorized access to the Apple servers. Beeper is a tool that packages pypush to accomplish it. So Apple should sue all the Beeper users?

As an example, there are tons of tools to exploit vulnerable systems in Linux. Metasploit is a penetration testing software and can execute exploits on old unpatched systems. I don't think anyone is suing Metasploit developers for Computer Fraud and Abuse aCt. The users who use it are responsible for the access of unauthorized services and broken ToS.

If Apple thinks Beeper users are exploiting its servers, they should patch them (which they did).

Beeper did try to monetize it, so i'm not sure how it fairs but Beeper is not forcing anyone to gain unauthorized access. Beeper even welcomed Apple to audit Beeper mini code.

And I'm sure Beeper has a legal team that analyzed these scenarios better than anyone of us. And Apple has sued companies for less. They'd have done it the moment the app landed on appstore. They could have crushed it before gaining any attention.

Again, I have no idea how legal it is. I have both Apple and android devices and never use iMessage. But you gotta hand it to Beeper devs. That's some old school hacker shit and I'm here for it.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[–] mark3748@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

These are separate issues and it’s a very complex set of issues. Reverse engineering is generally “okay” as long as you aren’t directly copying code, because you’ll run afoul of copyright laws. That doesn’t grant them the rights to access anyone else’s computer systems without authorization.

Tools that can be used maliciously are generally allowed because they have legitimate uses, using them to gain access or otherwise harm a computer system or network without authorization is criminal. You keep mentioning “suing” but this is not a civil issue, violating the CFAA is a crime.

Aaron Swartz got supremely fucked for writing a script that downloaded files he legally could access but technically was unauthorized because he accessed them in a way the corporation didn’t like.

[–] loki@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think you see the difference, Aaron was downloading the data off of MIT servers himself, he was not facing charges for writing the scripts.

From your link:

The Justice Department's press release announcing Aaron's indictment suggests the true motivation for pursuing the case was that Aaron downloaded academic literature from JSTOR and planned to make it available to the public for free as a political statement about access to knowledge.

.

Tools that can be used maliciously are generally allowed because they have legitimate uses, using them to gain access or otherwise harm a computer system or network without authorization is criminal.

As I said before, Beeper users are gaining unauthorized access, not Beeper. It is E2EE, they're not the middleman.