9 ms·

You think Apple employees have lost sleep over this? I seriously doubt it…

by zwily 3y ago

Nextgrid 3y ago
Employees, no. Executives, absolutely. Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place, where any action other than accepting Beeper would solicit regulatory action. This in fact ended up happening. Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple, which would put up a well-publicized fight over adversarial interoperability that could yield to a disastrous legal precedent not just for Apple but other companies. Apple knows this and that's why they haven't sued them (or DMCA'd any repos).
- nwiswell 3y ago
  > Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if they really expect that outcome (and more importantly, if they have the financial resources to litigate)
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit. However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions. If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit. However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom. If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        Fair enough. I'm obviously just speculating here and my knowledge of the US legal system is hearsay. However, it seems that Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple, and lots of media coverage over the issue) without any lawyers being involved.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple Media attention, yes. Policy support, no.
- amazingman 3y ago
  >Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place "Should we allow a third party we have no control over to man-in-the-middle our end-to-end encrypted messaging service or not? This is a tough one!"
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Nobody is MiTM'ing anything. Individuals willingly provide their credentials and only get access to their own messages - the same messages they can voluntarily take screenshots of & publish by logging into a real Apple device. Furthermore, Beeper's app runs entirely on-device with an optional cloud-hosted bridge that may not even have access to the plaintext.
    - amazingman 3y ago
      Beeper's app is the MiTM. I already have to trust Apple not to abuse their privileged position re: e2e iMessage. Now I have to trust Beeper, Apple, and Apple has to continuously trust/verify Beeper. Privacy and interop are fundamentally in opposition here, and I find Beeper's PR approach regarding this to be misleading at best.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        Beeper is as much of an MITM as your e-mail client is one, or your FTP client, or your SSH client, or your browser. Should those also be frowned upon? After all, they both implement a cryptographic protocol and have access to the plaintext. You also don't have to trust Beeper because you are not obliged to use it. You are welcome to not use it (and buy an Apple device) or even fall back to SMS. The recipient can themselves decide what level of security they want and whether they trust Beeper (but they don't need Beeper to compromise their security - they can just as well post screenshots of your E2E-encrypted messages with them, make a backup on a compromised computer or leak their Apple/iCloud credentials).
        amazingman 3y ago
        Email isn't end to end encrypted. FTP and SSH are client-server protocols whereas iMessage is client-server(s)-client. Do you actually believe these things you're claiming, or are you arguing for the sake of contrarianism?
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  I hate to be the one to bursts bubbles, but there’s no cause of action here under the current legislation. None. That is unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant. They have incurred criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass and civil liability by violating the the OS license agreement and ToS that both prohibit reverse engineering (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) not to mention the general copyright violations of reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo (pypush isn’t without proprietary Apple code). CCIPS would have a field day with this and if by some weird “blow up in your face fashion” they get their hands on the referral after the antitrust division of the DOJ is done shrugging at it, Beeper might get more than they bargained for. The only thing that could actually affect Apple in this, is if legislators pass new bills. The problem however is that this would have cascading effects across the industry, if not the economy as a whole, because there’s no way to legislate this in such a way that it would only affect Apple and Apple alone. Anything short of that makes for a fun fantasy that I’m sure some people will get off on, but a fantasy nonetheless.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Keep in mind that Beeper is a company (backed by some people wealthy enough to open themselves up to litigation against Apple) and most/all of the CFAA horror stories have been against defenseless individuals, so it might play out very differently as corporations are given much more leniency. Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      Apple would have little to do with it as CFAA violations are a criminal matter. And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
      - 3y ago
- sgustard 3y ago
  Apple is a massive company that swats away pesky threats all the time. It's like Exxon executives losing sleep over a guy with a hose siphoning gas from the corner station. From a PR standpoint they won't dignify it with a response of any kind, other than to quietly crush it to dust.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Executives, absolutely not. Apple is so opinionated and principled. Have you seen the emails that came out during recent trials where they state so clearly how much they deserve 30% of all commerce on their devices? They would have firmly believed that iMessage is their service that no one else has an entitlement to. If they had any involvement, it would be just one email to say to shut it down, and then never thought of it again.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    It's not about what they believe, whether legitimately or not. It's about how the regulatory environment will react to their actions and statements. The outcome of this Beeper saga is a bipartisan call for an antitrust investigation, suggesting even politicians are starting to doubt Apple's narrative and intentions. This is dangerous ground as it could force them to do things they don't want to regardless of how rightful they believe themselves to be.

You think Apple employees have lost sleep over this? I seriously doubt it…

by zwily 3y ago

You think Apple employees have lost sleep over this? I seriously doubt it…

Employees, no. Executives, absolutely. Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place, where any action other than accepting Beeper would solicit regulatory action. This in fact ended up happening. Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple, which would put up a well-publicized fight over adversarial interoperability that could yield to a disastrous legal precedent not just for Apple but other companies. Apple knows this and that's why they haven't sued them (or DMCA'd any repos).

nwiswell 3y ago
> Furthermore, I bet Beeper was outright hoping for a lawsuit from Apple Doubtful. Beeper has several legitimate causes of action to bring their own suit, if they really expect that outcome (and more importantly, if they have the financial resources to litigate)
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Beeper wouldn't have any arguments to stand on had they initiated the lawsuit - after all, Apple is allowed to make changes to their protocol as they see fit. However, the regular pattern we've seen is that companies use copyright and/or ToS as basis for C&D'ing (with threat of litigation) developers that produce adversarily-interoperable solutions. If Apple did so (and Apple would've absolutely done it if Beeper wasn't a reasonably well-funded adversary), Beeper would suddenly have an argument, as well as the support of the media ("Apple sues small company for opening up iMessage to Android") and the potential to establish a legal precedent that would threaten not just Apple but the tech industry at large.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    This isn’t how the law works. If it’s a valid defence, it’s a valid injunction.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      I don't think neither Beeper nor Apple is doing anything illegal here. Neither has any legs to stand on for a lawsuit. However, it's a common pattern that large companies can shut down adversarially-interoperable projects by threatening litigation against the developers. The lawsuit might be baseless but would still require upfront resources to defend; this is what these companies rely on, so they get their way without the argument ever getting into a courtroom. If Apple brought forward such a lawsuit and Beeper actually litigated it to the end (and actually got it into a courtroom), it would risk creating a legal precedent that would enshrine adversarial interoperability as legal and make such future bullshit legal threats ineffective. That is a major risk not just for Apple but the tech industry at large.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        Sure. But if that were Beeper’s goal, they’d file for an injunction. Waiting for someone to sue you to set precedent isn’t a thing in civil law.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        Fair enough. I'm obviously just speculating here and my knowledge of the US legal system is hearsay. However, it seems that Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple, and lots of media coverage over the issue) without any lawyers being involved.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Beeper effectively got what they wanted (bipartisan calls for regulatory action against Apple Media attention, yes. Policy support, no.
amazingman 3y ago
>Beeper put them between a rock and a hard place "Should we allow a third party we have no control over to man-in-the-middle our end-to-end encrypted messaging service or not? This is a tough one!"
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Nobody is MiTM'ing anything. Individuals willingly provide their credentials and only get access to their own messages - the same messages they can voluntarily take screenshots of & publish by logging into a real Apple device. Furthermore, Beeper's app runs entirely on-device with an optional cloud-hosted bridge that may not even have access to the plaintext.
  - amazingman 3y ago
    Beeper's app is the MiTM. I already have to trust Apple not to abuse their privileged position re: e2e iMessage. Now I have to trust Beeper, Apple, and Apple has to continuously trust/verify Beeper. Privacy and interop are fundamentally in opposition here, and I find Beeper's PR approach regarding this to be misleading at best.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Beeper is as much of an MITM as your e-mail client is one, or your FTP client, or your SSH client, or your browser. Should those also be frowned upon? After all, they both implement a cryptographic protocol and have access to the plaintext. You also don't have to trust Beeper because you are not obliged to use it. You are welcome to not use it (and buy an Apple device) or even fall back to SMS. The recipient can themselves decide what level of security they want and whether they trust Beeper (but they don't need Beeper to compromise their security - they can just as well post screenshots of your E2E-encrypted messages with them, make a backup on a compromised computer or leak their Apple/iCloud credentials).
      - amazingman 3y ago
        Email isn't end to end encrypted. FTP and SSH are client-server protocols whereas iMessage is client-server(s)-client. Do you actually believe these things you're claiming, or are you arguing for the sake of contrarianism?
turquoisevar 3y ago
I hate to be the one to bursts bubbles, but there’s no cause of action here under the current legislation. None. That is unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant. They have incurred criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass and civil liability by violating the the OS license agreement and ToS that both prohibit reverse engineering (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) not to mention the general copyright violations of reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo (pypush isn’t without proprietary Apple code). CCIPS would have a field day with this and if by some weird “blow up in your face fashion” they get their hands on the referral after the antitrust division of the DOJ is done shrugging at it, Beeper might get more than they bargained for. The only thing that could actually affect Apple in this, is if legislators pass new bills. The problem however is that this would have cascading effects across the industry, if not the economy as a whole, because there’s no way to legislate this in such a way that it would only affect Apple and Apple alone. Anything short of that makes for a fun fantasy that I’m sure some people will get off on, but a fantasy nonetheless.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  Keep in mind that Beeper is a company (backed by some people wealthy enough to open themselves up to litigation against Apple) and most/all of the CFAA horror stories have been against defenseless individuals, so it might play out very differently as corporations are given much more leniency. Beeper has managed to get enough media coverage on this issue that any litigants will need to consider before bringing any suits, including attention from legislators themselves who are calling for antitrust investigation. That's no small feat and suggests Apple may not be on as solid footing as you think.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Apple would have little to do with it as CFAA violations are a criminal matter. And I’m not very impressed by US legislators in any context, they’re politicians first and foremost, ones that are always 2-4 years away from elections.
    - 3y ago
sgustard 3y ago
Apple is a massive company that swats away pesky threats all the time. It's like Exxon executives losing sleep over a guy with a hose siphoning gas from the corner station. From a PR standpoint they won't dignify it with a response of any kind, other than to quietly crush it to dust.
madeofpalk 3y ago
Executives, absolutely not. Apple is so opinionated and principled. Have you seen the emails that came out during recent trials where they state so clearly how much they deserve 30% of all commerce on their devices? They would have firmly believed that iMessage is their service that no one else has an entitlement to. If they had any involvement, it would be just one email to say to shut it down, and then never thought of it again.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  It's not about what they believe, whether legitimately or not. It's about how the regulatory environment will react to their actions and statements. The outcome of this Beeper saga is a bipartisan call for an antitrust investigation, suggesting even politicians are starting to doubt Apple's narrative and intentions. This is dangerous ground as it could force them to do things they don't want to regardless of how rightful they believe themselves to be.