17 ms·
Let’s say you’re using a Google API like Maps, and you violate terms by snapshotting sections of their maps and storing them on your severs so you can serve sta
by askafriend 8y ago
Let’s say you’re using a Google API like Maps, and you violate terms by snapshotting sections of their maps and storing them on your severs so you can serve static maps without making API calls. They’d shut down your API access immediately
Google and Facebook both knew the terms. They both knew that the Enterprise Distribution Program was for internal use only. They still put ads out in the wild to recruit regular consumers to use internal apps which is beyond the scope of the program. Why would the certificates not be revoked?
I don’t understand people who are acting offended that Apple is enforcing the clear terms of service it laid out.
- jechamt 8y agoThis is the key sentiment I feel is missing from much of the discussions (and in some cases, reporting) taking place surrounding these events this week. Thank you for posting it. It's useful to discuss the philosophical implications of any tech company having too much power. To add the most to that discussion, it's helpful to understand that these actions are not directly affecting customers (aside from those who were using these enterprise apps outside their intended scope).
- mjw1007 8y agoRandom iPhone-using Google employees who use Google's internal cafe app are Apple customers, and they're directly affected. Clearly that's not a terribly big deal, and you'd imagine that Google has a lower proportion of iPhone users than many companies, but it's not nothing.
- criley2 8y agoThey're professionally affected (they can't run internal apps as part of their job) as is good and appropriate (their company violated the rules and got cut). They are not personally affected as they still have access to public versions of the apps like every other person in America.
- gwbas1c 8y agoIs it really clear? Are the people they were paying technically Google and Facebook employees / contractors?
- zepto 8y agoChild labor?
- ohnope 8y agoNo, they were random consumers. That's the whole point of market research. When you are paid to take a survey, do you magically become an employee of the company conducting the survey?
- ceejayoz 8y agoFacebook was paying 13 year olds to use the app, so that argument isn't really available to them unless they want some pretty significant civil penalties straight from the US Government. (I strongly doubt it'd fly either way, but "we hired underage contractors" really won't.)
- wlesieutre 8y agoCan you pay 13 year olds in $20 gift cards and call them a contractor?
- olliej 8y agoDid they get w2s and 1099s? Did FB did employment authorization verification? Did fb verify that the contracts were in fact signed by authorized guardians? A minor signing a contract has no meaning - so no “employment” contract would be valid.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> A minor signing a contract has no meaning - so no “employment” contract would be valid This is generally false. Minors generally can make valid contracts, though such contracts are usually voidable by the minor prior to execution. [0] [0] without otherwise endorsing the site as an authority, the discussion here provides a good general coverage of the issue: https://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/ https://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 8y agoWell put. It is an interesting salvo in what I've started thinking of as the "data war." All three companies have a huge asset in data collection capability, and preventing the others from exploiting it is only the first skirmish among them. It will be interesting to see if Google offers to pay additional monies to Apple in order to "restore" this pipeline, and whether or not Apple will agree. In one sense, Apple already gives up a data feed by sending search queries to Google.
- olliej 8y agoApple actively avoids no anything - the primary difficulty in collecting nothing, and having no access to it, is users expect not to lose data. Even in that case where they’ve lost all of their devices (which could obviously be just a single one). Making that possible was the topic of Ivan Krstic’s talk at black hat a few years ago.
- eanzenberg 8y ago>> In one sense, Apple already gives up a data feed by sending search queries to Google. Apple does this under protest. Their top search queries are served through siri lately, and the hope is siri will replace all search so they won't need to utilize google anymore.
- manigandham 8y agoSo they’re going to build their own search engine? Siri doesn’t do anything outside of your own data.
- eanzenberg 8y agoIt's called "siri suggested website" or "siri knowledge" when I search in Safari.
- perfect_wave 8y agoWhat if Apple bought Duckduckgo?
- nahzgah 8y ago>I don’t understand people who are acting offended that Apple is enforcing the clear terms of service it laid out. I don't understand why they were so happy when this happened to Facebook but now they are offended because it happened to Google. Oh wait, yes I do understand why. o:-)
- jwildeboer 8y agoI for one welcome the consistency that Apple shows. And I hope that people recognise how these walled gardens have their own laws, judges and prisons.
- ancorevard 8y agoAnd this is one of the reasons why I pay a “premium” for my phone, I expect Apple to work harder for me to protect me from actors like these.
- stayman 8y agoI do remember apple giving uber a second chance though on user privacy [1]. Maybe they've learned maybe they're trying harder, maybe they just see the goodwill benefit from being seen as the good on privacy company. I'm not sure [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4438800/Uber-s-CEO-surrendered-showdown-Apple-s-Tim-Cook.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4438800/Uber-s-CEO-...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- seanalltogether 8y agoWould you be ok if Google blacklisted your domain in the Chrome browser for violating those mapping API terms?
- rdiddly 8y agoTo add to your point, even if there were no such "term" governing that particular use of the "service," if I'm the owner of the API and I find out those API keys are being used to spy on my users, don't I treat this as the security breach that it is, and revoke those keys on that basis?
- BinaryIdiot 8y agoIn general I agree with your point but I think these terms help Apple's case because it's easier to argue against definitions of spying, harder against terms of service. Especially when Google so strictly enforces all of their terms. I mean, good luck getting reinstated on just about any of Google's APIs.
- pier25 8y agoI've worked on enterprise iOS apps that were also shared to some of our customers. I've always felt super paranoid about it and thought Apple would shut us down... Seeing what's going on with Facebook and Google I guess Apple didn't pay much attention to this.
- simonh 8y agoI think it’s just a case that they didn’t know. Unless they get complaints or reports, it’s not necessarily going to be obvious to them.
- threeseed 8y agoApple can't pay attention to it though. The whole point of enterprise certificates was to allow creation of internal apps that even Apple shouldn't know about.
- kngspook 8y ago> The whole point of enterprise certificates was to allow creation of internal apps that even Apple shouldn't know about. I think most/all of the companies in the program would say it's about controlling the distribution of their apps, since putting them on the App Store would expose them to the public, and less about hiding from Apple...
- skywhopper 8y agoIf anything I think the fact that this has gone under the radar for so long is a pretty good indication that Apple has no data about what apps are being run via this program. Although abuse like this will probably flare up some arguments internally over whether they should more aggressively track activity in iOS.
- Klonoar 8y agoMmmm, from everyone I've spoken to there, it's not something they don't pay attention to, there just hasn't been extreme violators like what Google and FB have done lately. I mean, the program exists for a reason.
- blhack 8y agoBecause lots of people still think that if you own a piece of hardware, you should be able to run whatever code you want on it.
- seba_dos1 8y agoThat's right. That's why you shouldn't buy iOS devices. If you do, you agree to Apple's terms. (also, what Apple allows you to run on your own device is actually a different story, not related to this news)
- mjw1007 8y agoAccording to the story, Apple have stopped Google employees running Google's "Gbus app for transportation". So yes, it's about what Apple allows people to run on their own devices.
- curt15 8y agoSince Gbus is presumably developed internally, what prevents the employees from installing the program via Xcode?
- q3k 8y agoNot everyone at Google has a Mac? Nobody wants to reinstall GBus every 3 days?
- briandear 8y agoWhy would you have to reinstall it every 3 days?
- spurcell93 8y agoIIRC dev certs expire quickly, by design
- mcmoose75 8y agoI agree that Google & FB violated the terms of the agreement they had with Apple. I think an interesting question is: What is Apple's best move from here? I would suggest that Apple should leave Google/ FB blocked for ~1-2 weeks, to remind them who's boss on the iOS platform. However, I would argue it'd be smart for them to switch them back on after that- there's a chance that this looks anticompetitive to regulators at some point, which isn't something Apple wants to mess around with.
- hk__2 8y agoWhy would Apple enforce its rules for only 1-2 weeks? The rules are the rules; they aren’t doing anything bad here.
- mcmoose75 8y agoAnything that smells anticompetitive is kind of a dangerous dance- by preventing two of their largest competitors from developing on their platform I think they'd be inviting some regulatory scrutiny (even though FB/ Goog DID violate the agreement).
- alexanderdmitri 8y agoIsn't it anti-competetive in general then that big players get more protection from consequences via this logic?
- mcmoose75 8y agoIt's not anti-competitive, but it is unfair. The reality, though, is that this sort of behavior in VERY large, VERY influential companies is going to draw way more scrutiny than a small company getting crushed by one of the big guys.
- atomical 8y agoDo the internal apps at Facebook compete with the internal apps at Apple?
- nraynaud 8y agoI am a bit offended that google has a phone number and means of communications to resolve the issue with a real human at Apple. Nobody has that at google.
- samat 8y agoThat's clearly not true. You'd have a phone number if you are a customer. Even with Gmail — GSuite offers decent phone support. The fact that you cant reach a human if you are a "user" tells a lot about values at Google.
- spacehunt 8y agoPlay Store publishers don't have a phone number to call.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoGood for the goose, good for the gander. AND, there's a huge difference from banning a small time developer that might tripped the wire accidentally, and banning Google and FB, full of lawyers. Frankly, FB and GOOG cannot do well at all in the privacy-caring ecosystem that Apple claims to want to build. Buh Buh Bye...
- 3xblah 8y agoLet's say you're using a Google API like Maps, and you snapshot sections of their maps and store them on your computer so you can access them anytime without making API calls. This would sure save a lot of unnecessary network usage and bandwidth charges, not to mention it would be useful when you do not have network connectivity. What is the reason if any why users should be prohibited from doing this?
- SteveNuts 8y agoBecause they don't own the pictures, plain and simple.
- 3xblah 8y agoI don't follow your reasoning. The question is why every time the user wants to look at a map she needs to let Google know, using computer network access for which the user must pay. Paper maps or maps stored on physical media do not have this requirement. The map company may "own the map" but the purchaser can look at the map anytime she wants, without any ongoing expense to keep the map company abreast of her travel plans. I do not not use an "account" or "log in" to view free maps, so I just take screenshots as a quick workaround.
- Spivak 8y agoUsers wouldn't be prohibited from doing this for much the same reason people aren't prohibited from making personal copies of pages from books they own. If you take a picture of Google Maps and then host it on your website without approval/paying Google and get caught you'll be hearing from their copyright lawyer.
- 3xblah 8y agoIf the website can be accessed by others. I could take a picture of a map and share it on my LAN via httpd so all my computers can access it. I am the only user on the LAN. It is not the "website" aspect that would implicate copyright, it is the redistribution, e.g., via a website on the public internet. My original question is being misunderstood. It is not about copyright or what rights Google has in maps. It is a question about why Google attempts to force users to contact them every time the user looks at a map.
- manigandham 8y agoIt’s more about a single massive company having such in-depth control over billions of personal mobile devices. That’s a worrisome situation.
- askafriend 8y agoThere are 2 massive companies, not a single one and Google has far more marketshare globally with Android. Details matter. Don’t leave them out.
- Vendan 8y agoGoogle blocking this kind of thing in android would be quite hard to near impossible...
- emiliosic 8y agoOn Android, one can sideload an app. Amazon has it's own app store. Chinese Android phones have their own. Android was initially designed with this kind of openness. In fact, Google didn't have an app store initially. Now, there are pros and cons to these approach. FB could be side loading Android apps all day long, doing who knows what, and there is not much Google can do about it. Now, if they were a bit smarter, they could've used a shell company's throwaway certificates. I cannot fathom why they would do something this shady using their own corporate certificates.
- flukus 8y agoYes it is, but if you're worried about that then this is a valuable lesson on why you should steer clear of apple products. Google knew this was the case and took the risk anyway, so they only have themselves to blame. It's not just apple either. Using facebook, gmail, anything in the cloud and/or anything hosted, basically anything not under your control exposes you to the same risk. Most people don't care until it becomes a problem for them and by then it's too late.
- manigandham 8y ago
- sonnyblarney 8y ago"I don’t understand people who are acting offended that Apple is enforcing the clear terms of service it laid out." Because there should be no 'terms' as to what software you can install on your devices. BMW can make 'terms' so that if you mess with your audio system, it's not under warranty, but otherwise it's your car. Also - 'the terms' are never very clear, and they can change on a dime. Apple feeling some competitive heat? 'Just change the terms'! Consider the collusion opportunities: You want to use an Android - you have to give everything to Google. Don't like the terms? Apple colludes and does the same! All of this is starting to get very close to anti-competitive kind of stuff, both between the big powers - and among consumers.
- lwhi 8y agoAll is fair in love and war? Things are obviously getting a bit ridiculous. Part of me thinks that something awful is going to have to happen before society stops these companies from pursuing everything they feel they need to. Hopefully it won't be too late when that realisation becomes crystal clear to the majority.
- brokenmachine 8y agoThis is what I think as well. Every day we hear about these companies doing scummy stuff to get more and more user data. I am hoping for a massive leak/scandal/Snowden moment when they finally cross the line and something happens that the lobotomized masses actually care about and cannot ignore. Hopefully we end up with some sane legislation about how much mass surveillance of citizens by private companies is ok.
- Someone 8y agoI don’t object to them doing it, but I do object to the fact that they have the ability to do it. IMO, it is very, very wrong that Apple is judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Also, in today’s world, this potentially could be disastrous, not only for the company affected, but also for the world at large, for example if Google depends on internal apps for informing employees about emergencies such as “hacking like activity on our servers or even “data center on fire”.
- mikewhy 8y ago> if Google depends on internal apps If Google depends on internal apps then they shouldn't have violated the terms of internal apps.
- kngspook 8y agoGoogle (or any company) wouldn't have a single point of failure for alerts like that. :P Those alerts would hit email, phone, etc. all at the same time.
- harryh 8y agoThey’d shut down your API access immediately This is not true for major consumers of the API. They will call you and work it out. I know this from personal experience.
- harryh 8y agoI don’t understand people who are acting offended that Apple is enforcing the clear terms of service it laid out. Because of two related points: 1) The apps in question would not be allowed into the app store by Apple in the first place. 2) People believe that Apple abuses its dictatorial power over the app store and that it should be a more open platform.
- cco 8y agoWho is acting offended? The article didn't mention anybody balking, where have you seen this?
- ei8htyfi5e 8y agoI scraped google API exactly like this in grad school, but sometimes when you're building, you take a calculated risk to build something better. For my thesis, I was trying to load two Street View photos side by side in a browser to compare people's perceptions side-by-side. Google maps at the time required you to load a javascript viewer for each image you requested. Think Hot-or-Not for cities. The experience needed to instantly load a new image after the user voted because I knew they were only going to be on the site for maybe 30 seconds before they got bored and went back to reddit. I needed to collect as many votes as possible within that time period. So I knowingly broke Google's ToS and prefetched the images on my server so I could provide the user experience I wanted. "I'm a small operation. Surely they won't know." I wrote a server side screen scraper to load the Street View images and exposed the scraped images with an API. Now my site was faaaast. I could load Street View images instantly and in the end got over a million data points doing this. But then one day soon after it stopped working. Then I got a cease and desist email from someone at google legal. They didn't respond to any requests for turning it back on or even to discuss. Radio silence. That was terrifying. Since this was my thesis, I needed help getting my keys turned back on. Google in the end was very accommodating, but only after I used my nuclear option: asking lab director Joi Ito to bug Megan Smith while she was still at Google to help. I was connected to some engineer and told them what I was doing and why. They said stop. But then a week or so later, they sent me a beta invite to their new Street View images api, where you can feed in a lat, lng, header to a query string and they'll just serve the image now. Pretty cool. Offending site for the interested: http://pulse.media.mit.edu/ http://pulse.media.mit.edu/
- kbenson 8y ago> "I'm a small operation. Surely they won't know." I wrote a server side screen scraper to load the Street View images and exposed the scraped images with an API. I find the trick, when you're worried about this, is to use the regular API normally, but save the data that comes in from the normal usage of the API. i.e. Use the Google maps viewer and after the image is loaded, grab it however you have to, and post it to another API you've created that allows you to save the image. You're scraping their site, but you're not doing it in an automated way, and it should be undetectable. After a while, you've got a good library of images from normal use. So you code up a switch that you can toggle that changes it from loading from the Google maps viewer to using your API to get images. If you want to grow your image library, randomly assign some percentage of people to using the Google viewer (and save them they download), and the rest to your library of images you've accumulated. Or use a cookie or JS localStorage variable to track whether they are a returning person, and the first time always give them the quick library version, and if they return give them the Google maps viewer version (or just switch the percentages from 90/10 to 10/90, etc). If they're willing to give you the data free within their ToS, there's very little technologically they can do to stop you from easily (or moderately easily, in the harder cases) storing the data. Worst case for someone looking to save it would be if they generate an image for the content and just serve the image, and that's not that hard to work around either, if the data is structured.
- austincheney 8y ago> I don’t understand people who are acting offended Once the reasoning boils down to offense I know I am dealing with either intentional hostility or stupidity. Regardless of which of those is the problem I stop wasting energy thinking about it. For people confused or further offended by this sentiment I suggest reading Principles by Ray Dalio.