3 ms·

I'm not sure any particular law like that applies to Apple, but I would actually be somewhat surprised if they didn't. You bought an Apple device, used it to ac

by gpm 6y ago

I'm not sure any particular law like that applies to Apple, but I would actually be somewhat surprised if they didn't. You bought an Apple device, used it to access Apple's servers, which pointed you at software hosted on Apple's servers, which you proceeded to download from Apple's servers, if it was non-free software you paid Apple for it, and Apple has final approval over any software that is actually distributed to consumers. Edit: And if you were infected via way of an update, the update mechanism is Apple's software asked Apple's servers if there was any updates, and when Apple's servers said yes they downloaded software from Apple's servers and deployed it on your phone. To argue by analogy, Amazon is responsible for goods they sell on there store that they don't even distribute themselves... https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/1/22414185/california-appeals-court-amazon-marketplace-responsible-third-party-hoverboard https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/1/22414185/california-appeal...

simondotau 6y ago
So if a criminal sneaks into a Campbells soup factory and poisons a batch of tomato soup, the proper response should be to blame Walmart for selling it. Impeccable logic.
- gpm 6y ago
  "Blame", no. Require that Walmart issues a recall, alerts the purchasers of the defective soup, and issues refunds, yes, that is how the law works. Walmart in turn can go after Campbell for the cost of the refunds, but the end purchasers aren't a party to that suit. Campbell (and maybe Walmart directly) can also go after the criminal for damages, again not the consumers problem.
  - simondotau 6y ago
    Apple did all the things you described in the first paragraph.
    - gpm 6y ago
      On the contrary, the complaint is that they did not. They specifically chose not to alert those affected. But also... you do understand that we're talking about analogous but not identical laws here right? The context of this entire thread is laws that specifically require notifying people of data breaches, and not laws that require recalling bad food.
    - simion314 6y ago
      >Apple did all the things you described in the first paragraph. Wow, you are arguing here without even reading the article or understanding the reality! Short resume for the lazy : Apple guys were working on creating the emails to inform the victims (stuff like send the emails in the correct language) but in the end they never sent the emails. So from your example, some guys knew they sold some food that had poison in it(somehow the bad guys were clever to sneak pass their guards and put poison in the cans), the guys were concerned and were ready to go and announce the victims that they might need to do some health checks. But then Timmy said "the poison is not that strong, let's wait and see , if nobody notices we do nothing , we don't want the people to know that our walls and guards are not as great as our PR and fanboys claim to be. That would mean that out best PR line `think about grandma` was a lye all along"

by gpm 6y ago

simondotau 6y ago

So if a criminal sneaks into a Campbells soup factory and poisons a batch of tomato soup, the proper response should be to blame Walmart for selling it. Impeccable logic.

gpm 6y ago
"Blame", no. Require that Walmart issues a recall, alerts the purchasers of the defective soup, and issues refunds, yes, that is how the law works. Walmart in turn can go after Campbell for the cost of the refunds, but the end purchasers aren't a party to that suit. Campbell (and maybe Walmart directly) can also go after the criminal for damages, again not the consumers problem.
- simondotau 6y ago
  Apple did all the things you described in the first paragraph.
  - gpm 6y ago
    On the contrary, the complaint is that they did not. They specifically chose not to alert those affected. But also... you do understand that we're talking about analogous but not identical laws here right? The context of this entire thread is laws that specifically require notifying people of data breaches, and not laws that require recalling bad food.
  - simion314 6y ago
    >Apple did all the things you described in the first paragraph. Wow, you are arguing here without even reading the article or understanding the reality! Short resume for the lazy : Apple guys were working on creating the emails to inform the victims (stuff like send the emails in the correct language) but in the end they never sent the emails. So from your example, some guys knew they sold some food that had poison in it(somehow the bad guys were clever to sneak pass their guards and put poison in the cans), the guys were concerned and were ready to go and announce the victims that they might need to do some health checks. But then Timmy said "the poison is not that strong, let's wait and see , if nobody notices we do nothing , we don't want the people to know that our walls and guards are not as great as our PR and fanboys claim to be. That would mean that out best PR line `think about grandma` was a lye all along"