2 ms·

This is a huge lawsuit. Apple clearly states in the press and in advertising that the app store is the only way to get apps that are assured to be safe. I can'

This is a huge lawsuit. Apple clearly states in the press and in advertising that the app store is the only way to get apps that are assured to be safe. I can't imagine it'll take long before there are many and massive class action lawsuits over this incident. The legal bill will be massive. I can't wait to see how many precedents get created over the total fallout from this event. Should be interesting.

putlake 8y ago
Such comments are common after every "disaster". When Intel chip vulnerabilities due to aggressive caching were announced, the fixes reduced perf for those chips, and these same types of comments were made. It never happens.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  I can’t see Apple getting seriously nailed, since they probably had no idea this was happening. But beyond shutting the companies responsible for selling these applications down, there should be some criminal liability for the executives. Exfiltrating users’ browser history without reasonable consent is a huge privacy violation. I wonder if it falls under CFAA.
- abakker 8y ago
  “phantom legal risk” = fear of the unknown, or hope that something that seems bad will actually be punished. Of course “seems bad” often turns out to be more complicated.
abalone 8y ago
> Apple clearly states in the press and in advertising that the app store is the only way to get apps that are assured to be safe. Citation or it didn't happen. No way Apple has "assured" anyone that the app stores are 100% malware free at all times. They've said it's the safest thing out there which is a weaker claim (and still true).
- misterhtmlcss 8y ago
  Fair enough. Moving forward with my assertion and based on what others are saying about the Apple testing practices; I'm guessing that this was something that Apple should have caught in their testing, which if true would go towards proving culpability. Negligence would then be the argument I'm guessing and then liability would follow. I understand from many other situations it's arguable about whether the company could have foreseen the issue. Typical breaches like the Dropbox breach which passwords were still hashed and therefore the request to reset the password was proactive. That's an acceptable breach to me and is bound to happen, but negligence such as Apple's or in the case of BA (British Airlines) breaking with known and valid credit card processes should result in conseuqences up to the criminal level depending on the situation. BA link: “So, about that BA hack …” https://medium.com/the-automator/so-about-that-ba-hack-a82e5701f095 https://medium.com/the-automator/so-about-that-ba-hack-a82e5...
  - abalone 8y ago
    There’s just no way failing to catch 100% of malware in the App Store review process constitutes criminal liability. The TOS you agree to explicitly absolve Apple of liability, and it’s an unreasonable expectation as well. It’s the safest system out there.

putlake 8y ago

Such comments are common after every "disaster". When Intel chip vulnerabilities due to aggressive caching were announced, the fixes reduced perf for those chips, and these same types of comments were made. It never happens.

jacobolus 8y ago
I can’t see Apple getting seriously nailed, since they probably had no idea this was happening. But beyond shutting the companies responsible for selling these applications down, there should be some criminal liability for the executives. Exfiltrating users’ browser history without reasonable consent is a huge privacy violation. I wonder if it falls under CFAA.
abakker 8y ago
“phantom legal risk” = fear of the unknown, or hope that something that seems bad will actually be punished. Of course “seems bad” often turns out to be more complicated.

abalone 8y ago

> Apple clearly states in the press and in advertising that the app store is the only way to get apps that are assured to be safe. Citation or it didn't happen. No way Apple has "assured" anyone that the app stores are 100% malware free at all times. They've said it's the safest thing out there which is a weaker claim (and still true).

misterhtmlcss 8y ago
Fair enough. Moving forward with my assertion and based on what others are saying about the Apple testing practices; I'm guessing that this was something that Apple should have caught in their testing, which if true would go towards proving culpability. Negligence would then be the argument I'm guessing and then liability would follow. I understand from many other situations it's arguable about whether the company could have foreseen the issue. Typical breaches like the Dropbox breach which passwords were still hashed and therefore the request to reset the password was proactive. That's an acceptable breach to me and is bound to happen, but negligence such as Apple's or in the case of BA (British Airlines) breaking with known and valid credit card processes should result in conseuqences up to the criminal level depending on the situation. BA link: “So, about that BA hack …” https://medium.com/the-automator/so-about-that-ba-hack-a82e5701f095 https://medium.com/the-automator/so-about-that-ba-hack-a82e5...
- abalone 8y ago
  There’s just no way failing to catch 100% of malware in the App Store review process constitutes criminal liability. The TOS you agree to explicitly absolve Apple of liability, and it’s an unreasonable expectation as well. It’s the safest system out there.