4 ms·

Either they're authorized to use the service and (almost certainly) signed a TOS, or they're not, in which case they're using the service unauthorized. Not a l

Either they're authorized to use the service and (almost certainly) signed a TOS, or they're not, in which case they're using the service unauthorized. Not a lawyer but I don't see what else could be true here. I suppose you could say the end users are the ones violating the TOS? I don't think it'll land with any judge, "your honor we just did the reverse engineering (without signing a TOS) and sold it to our users (who did sign a TOS, but didn't reverse engineer), so we're all clean."

randyrand 3y ago
Authorization is the first step of setting up Beeper Mini. During setup, Apple's servers return authorization keys for your device to use. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Under this logic, no hacking would ever be illegal. After all, there's obviously no way any attacker ever did anything the code actually made impossible. Fortunately, courts aren't computers, judges aren't compilers, and legal code isn't a programming language.
  - randyrand 3y ago
    Beeper Mini uses the official channels to get authorization. It's not a "hack".
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Every attack ever uses something that can be described as "official channels." It's all in the code, after all. As Apple's response makes clear, this is indeed not via the official channels. "Authorization" in the legal sense != authorization in the cryptographic sense. You can get a token and still be not legally authorized to access a system.
      - randyrand 3y ago
        It's not illegal to scrape a website, even if the owners don't want it to be scraped. Accessing a public server using the public protocol it advertises is generally allowed.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer either but I don't see what's wrong with that argument. The tool that Beeper built isn't infringing any laws, reverse engineering in this context is perfectly legal. They're not responsible for their users' use of the tools they build and their consequent violation of the TOS.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  That's not generally true in practice. Especially when it is marketed to end users as a TOS-violating product and doubly so when it was originally a commercialized product.
  - pr0zac 3y ago
    TOSes are not legally binding so who cares?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      What is up with this meme around here? Of course terms of service are legally binding. They're a contract. It is possible to put unenforceable terms in a TOS, but it's simply untrue that "TOSes are not legally binding." What do you think is the distinction between a legally binding contract and a TOS?
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    You say that, but what is Apple going to sue Beeper for? Tortious interference? That seems a stretch. In a similar vein: has any maker of web scraping tools been sued by a website? I couldn't find anything.

randyrand 3y ago

Authorization is the first step of setting up Beeper Mini. During setup, Apple's servers return authorization keys for your device to use. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ethanbond 3y ago
Under this logic, no hacking would ever be illegal. After all, there's obviously no way any attacker ever did anything the code actually made impossible. Fortunately, courts aren't computers, judges aren't compilers, and legal code isn't a programming language.
- randyrand 3y ago
  Beeper Mini uses the official channels to get authorization. It's not a "hack".
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Every attack ever uses something that can be described as "official channels." It's all in the code, after all. As Apple's response makes clear, this is indeed not via the official channels. "Authorization" in the legal sense != authorization in the cryptographic sense. You can get a token and still be not legally authorized to access a system.
    - randyrand 3y ago
      It's not illegal to scrape a website, even if the owners don't want it to be scraped. Accessing a public server using the public protocol it advertises is generally allowed.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

I'm not a lawyer either but I don't see what's wrong with that argument. The tool that Beeper built isn't infringing any laws, reverse engineering in this context is perfectly legal. They're not responsible for their users' use of the tools they build and their consequent violation of the TOS.

ethanbond 3y ago
That's not generally true in practice. Especially when it is marketed to end users as a TOS-violating product and doubly so when it was originally a commercialized product.
- pr0zac 3y ago
  TOSes are not legally binding so who cares?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    What is up with this meme around here? Of course terms of service are legally binding. They're a contract. It is possible to put unenforceable terms in a TOS, but it's simply untrue that "TOSes are not legally binding." What do you think is the distinction between a legally binding contract and a TOS?
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  You say that, but what is Apple going to sue Beeper for? Tortious interference? That seems a stretch. In a similar vein: has any maker of web scraping tools been sued by a website? I couldn't find anything.