8 ms·

The specific reasons for rejection: > The following content was criticized by Apple in its review: > > Hardware attacks: hacking chips on the (ver

by tvon 11y ago

The specific reasons for rejection: > The following content was criticized by Apple in its review: > > Hardware attacks: hacking chips on the (very) cheap (https://media.ccc.de/v/camp2015-6711-hardware_attacks_hacking_chips_on_the_very_cheap) > Bluetooth Hacking – The State of The Art (https://media.ccc.de/v/22C3-536-en-bluetooth_hacking) > Hacking Medical Devices (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD2013_-_5209_-_de_-_gate_104_-_201309081123_-_hacking_medical_devices_-_flo) > Gamehacking & Reverse Engineering (https://media.ccc.de/v/gpn15-6940-gamehacking_reverse_engineering) > Crypto-Hacking Export restrictions (https://media.ccc.de/v/1114) > Jailbreak: eine Einführung (https://media.ccc.de/v/hackover14_-_6494_-_en_-_raum_1_7_-_201410251615_-_jailbreak_eine_einfuhrung_-_erik_e) > Social Engineering und Industriespionage (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD15-7034-social_engineering_und_industriespionage) > $kernel->infect(): Creating a cryptovirus for Symfony2 apps (https://media.ccc.de/v/froscon2014_-_1436_-_en_-_hs6_php_-_201408231115_-_kernel-_infect_creating_a_cryptovirus_for_symfony2_apps_-_raul_fraile)

fweespeech 11y ago
To be fair, CCC does have hacking content so its quite possible an automated filtering process would flag it. That said, its sad how much cenorship we have on the Internet vs. 20 years ago.
- nrb 11y ago
  The thing is, this isn't censorship "on the internet" but on their private, closed platform that people choose to be a part of.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    People are choosing to agree to EULAs that say they have no right to sue for any reason, but agree in advance in the case of disputes that they'll submit to binding arbitration by an arbiter chosen by company, and if the consumer loses that they pay all the costs associated with that arbitration. Just because they chose to be a part of that agreement doesn't mean it's OK or not worth complaining about.
  - DavideNL 11y ago
    Of course i understand Apple should be rewarding hackers who research and report security flaws, and not punish them, but do they really need to support/allow hackers who don't intend to report these security flaws to Apple but instead use them to create jailbreaks? Don't get me wrong I have nothing against jailbreaking, but Apple supporting the jailbreaking community well that sounds a little extreme...
    - themartorana 11y ago
      The problem is the angle here. Apple chooses to be arbiters of content. That shouldn't be their job. If the app used private APIs or misused background processing, it's good for us, the consumer, that Apple makes sure it doesn't get released in that fashion. But I reject that it's good for us, the (adult) consumer that Apple act as parental controls for adults. They're using a position of power to stifle speech. It doesn't matter if it's a First Amendment violation - it's still egregious.
      - meddlepal 11y ago
        It's their platform. Don't use it if you don't like it.
  - felipeerias 11y ago
    Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.
    - jolux 11y ago
      Freedom of speech isn't really the right to say what you want to a large group of people, it's the right to say what you want _period_ regardless of who's listening. It's your job to find an audience.
      - xg15 11y ago
        That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it. Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform" operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.
        bad_user 11y ago
        Freedom of speech in a liberal democracy comes packaged with the right for property. And your freedom of speech does not hold on other people's property. Not trying to defend Apple, but I find it interesting how many people on HN willingly embraced walled gardens. Thankfully the web is still there, still open and great.
        themartorana 11y ago
        And monitored.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        We keep building spaces that we treat as public but aren't. That's a problem even if the individual actions are defensible.
  - rhizome 11y ago
    It might be more clear to observe that many popular Internet things created in the past 20 years have content restrictions. I think it's totally valid to ask why that is and by what mechanism(s) it was caused.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    Yes but how certain are we that it wasn't an automated program that flagged it causing a rejection [possibly by a human who just obeys the flags most of the time]?
  - bcg1 11y ago
    Their "private closed platform" that is based on monopolies and privilege provided from the public coffers - spectrum auctioned off by the FCC, publicly subsidized student debt used to buy iphones and macs, off the rails "intellectual" monopolies through off-the-rails copyrights and patents, and soon to be legal immunity from CISA for sharing info with the government. They clearly like to pretend that they are a "commons" deserving of public support... except when they don't.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    That doesn't make Apple's behavior right, of course.
  - sdoering 11y ago
    There is a nice comparison. We have a newspaper distributor in Germany, having 54% of market share. I one paper would print a story, reporting some shady ongoings inside this distributor, he would be forbidden by regulation not to distribute this paper. So it is his walled garden, but policy has thought about such things happening if one market player becomes strong enough to hamper the "free" flow of information. The content that is shown by the CCC app can also be watched in the YouTube app or in safari. Do these apps have to go?
- sp332 11y ago
  It's not really even censored from Apple devices since you can watch all the same videos through the Apple TV YouTube app.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    I wonder if the same dismissive attitudes would take place if the Youtube app were required to block said content, or were to completely disable/remove youtube from the store because of questionable content on youtube.
    - krapp 11y ago
      Probably not, censoring Youtube like that would be a pretty big deal, and not at all what customers using the app would expect. But... as long as it isn't, that seems to be a pretty decent argument that CCC isn't really being oppressed or silenced or anything quite so ominous.

by tvon 11y ago

fweespeech 11y ago

To be fair, CCC does have hacking content so its quite possible an automated filtering process would flag it. That said, its sad how much cenorship we have on the Internet vs. 20 years ago.

nrb 11y ago
The thing is, this isn't censorship "on the internet" but on their private, closed platform that people choose to be a part of.
- cmurf 11y ago
  People are choosing to agree to EULAs that say they have no right to sue for any reason, but agree in advance in the case of disputes that they'll submit to binding arbitration by an arbiter chosen by company, and if the consumer loses that they pay all the costs associated with that arbitration. Just because they chose to be a part of that agreement doesn't mean it's OK or not worth complaining about.
- DavideNL 11y ago
  Of course i understand Apple should be rewarding hackers who research and report security flaws, and not punish them, but do they really need to support/allow hackers who don't intend to report these security flaws to Apple but instead use them to create jailbreaks? Don't get me wrong I have nothing against jailbreaking, but Apple supporting the jailbreaking community well that sounds a little extreme...
  - themartorana 11y ago
    The problem is the angle here. Apple chooses to be arbiters of content. That shouldn't be their job. If the app used private APIs or misused background processing, it's good for us, the consumer, that Apple makes sure it doesn't get released in that fashion. But I reject that it's good for us, the (adult) consumer that Apple act as parental controls for adults. They're using a position of power to stifle speech. It doesn't matter if it's a First Amendment violation - it's still egregious.
    - meddlepal 11y ago
      It's their platform. Don't use it if you don't like it.
- felipeerias 11y ago
  Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.
  - jolux 11y ago
    Freedom of speech isn't really the right to say what you want to a large group of people, it's the right to say what you want _period_ regardless of who's listening. It's your job to find an audience.
    - xg15 11y ago
      That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it. Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform" operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.
      - bad_user 11y ago
        Freedom of speech in a liberal democracy comes packaged with the right for property. And your freedom of speech does not hold on other people's property. Not trying to defend Apple, but I find it interesting how many people on HN willingly embraced walled gardens. Thankfully the web is still there, still open and great.
        themartorana 11y ago
        And monitored.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        We keep building spaces that we treat as public but aren't. That's a problem even if the individual actions are defensible.
- rhizome 11y ago
  It might be more clear to observe that many popular Internet things created in the past 20 years have content restrictions. I think it's totally valid to ask why that is and by what mechanism(s) it was caused.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  Yes but how certain are we that it wasn't an automated program that flagged it causing a rejection [possibly by a human who just obeys the flags most of the time]?
- bcg1 11y ago
  Their "private closed platform" that is based on monopolies and privilege provided from the public coffers - spectrum auctioned off by the FCC, publicly subsidized student debt used to buy iphones and macs, off the rails "intellectual" monopolies through off-the-rails copyrights and patents, and soon to be legal immunity from CISA for sharing info with the government. They clearly like to pretend that they are a "commons" deserving of public support... except when they don't.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  That doesn't make Apple's behavior right, of course.
- sdoering 11y ago
  There is a nice comparison. We have a newspaper distributor in Germany, having 54% of market share. I one paper would print a story, reporting some shady ongoings inside this distributor, he would be forbidden by regulation not to distribute this paper. So it is his walled garden, but policy has thought about such things happening if one market player becomes strong enough to hamper the "free" flow of information. The content that is shown by the CCC app can also be watched in the YouTube app or in safari. Do these apps have to go?
sp332 11y ago
It's not really even censored from Apple devices since you can watch all the same videos through the Apple TV YouTube app.
- tracker1 11y ago
  I wonder if the same dismissive attitudes would take place if the Youtube app were required to block said content, or were to completely disable/remove youtube from the store because of questionable content on youtube.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Probably not, censoring Youtube like that would be a pretty big deal, and not at all what customers using the app would expect. But... as long as it isn't, that seems to be a pretty decent argument that CCC isn't really being oppressed or silenced or anything quite so ominous.