5 ms·

> "In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account." That's what Kapeli claims. How exactly

> "In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account." That's what Kapeli claims. How exactly do you know that the above is true? As opposed to, you know, himself creating two accounts.

abalone 10y ago
Logic. Apple called him and conceded that the reason they thought they were the same "entity" is simply because both used the same credit card number. If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc.
- dpark 10y ago
  Of course, because no one committing fraud ever makes mistakes. I have no idea if Popescu was really involved in the fraudulent activity or not. But dismissing it as too dumb to be possible is no better than dismissing the possibility of Apple making a detection mistake as too dumb to be possible.
  - abalone 10y ago
    I didn't say it was dumb to think it "possible" for him to be the culprit. I said it was dumb to shut down a top developer account without warning.
    - dpark 10y ago
      I'm referring to your claim that he would have used a different credit card and ID as if this is obviously true. It's neither true nor obvious since he didn't realize by his own admission that the accounts were linked.
      - abalone 10y ago
        Even that doesn't make much sense. It is obvious that Apple would know that the accounts are linked.
        dpark 10y ago
        You're misunderstanding the entire point of my comment. I was specifically addressing the assertion that Popescu would have used a different card for the other account if he were trying to commit fraud: "If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc." This claim is untrue. Per Popescu's blog, he didn't know using the same bank/CC info would link the accounts. So no, he likely wouldn't have used a different card. So the implication that because he didn't use a different card, he therefore wasn't trying to commit fraud is invalid. The reference to Apple being dumb was merely for comparison.
        abalone 10y ago
        I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense. It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious. Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person, even though they have a different name etc., not that Apple would be unable to see the common bank info.
        dpark 10y ago
        > It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious. It's clearly not obvious to Popescu per his own statement on the matter. Asserting repeatedly that it's obvious doesn't make it so. > Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person This is a distinction without a difference. "Linking" the accounts is pointless unless it creates a meaningful relationship between them. The only reason to link accounts is to establish that they be somehow treated as a unit.

abalone 10y ago

Logic. Apple called him and conceded that the reason they thought they were the same "entity" is simply because both used the same credit card number. If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc.

dpark 10y ago
Of course, because no one committing fraud ever makes mistakes. I have no idea if Popescu was really involved in the fraudulent activity or not. But dismissing it as too dumb to be possible is no better than dismissing the possibility of Apple making a detection mistake as too dumb to be possible.
- abalone 10y ago
  I didn't say it was dumb to think it "possible" for him to be the culprit. I said it was dumb to shut down a top developer account without warning.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I'm referring to your claim that he would have used a different credit card and ID as if this is obviously true. It's neither true nor obvious since he didn't realize by his own admission that the accounts were linked.
    - abalone 10y ago
      Even that doesn't make much sense. It is obvious that Apple would know that the accounts are linked.
      - dpark 10y ago
        You're misunderstanding the entire point of my comment. I was specifically addressing the assertion that Popescu would have used a different card for the other account if he were trying to commit fraud: "If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc." This claim is untrue. Per Popescu's blog, he didn't know using the same bank/CC info would link the accounts. So no, he likely wouldn't have used a different card. So the implication that because he didn't use a different card, he therefore wasn't trying to commit fraud is invalid. The reference to Apple being dumb was merely for comparison.
        abalone 10y ago
        I get what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense. It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious. Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person, even though they have a different name etc., not that Apple would be unable to see the common bank info.
        dpark 10y ago
        > It is obvious that providing bank information will tie your identity to both accounts. That is utterly obvious. It's clearly not obvious to Popescu per his own statement on the matter. Asserting repeatedly that it's obvious doesn't make it so. > Ergo, by "linking" what he is referring to is being personally responsible for the behavior of the other person This is a distinction without a difference. "Linking" the accounts is pointless unless it creates a meaningful relationship between them. The only reason to link accounts is to establish that they be somehow treated as a unit.