3 ms·
> and if they don't want their service to be accessible to third-party clients, they are more than welcome to just not build such a service That is exactly wha
by Grustaf 3y ago
> and if they don't want their service to be accessible to third-party clients, they are more than welcome to just not build such a service
That is exactly what they did. Or rather didn’t. They haven’t sued beeper, or retaliated in any way. They merely blocked beeper from hacking into their network. It is crazy to think that beeper could sue them for that.
- unstatusthequo 3y agoBeeper can sue. Anyone can sue. But it’s whether the case has merit. Beeper’s would have none. Apple would counter sue, claim CFAA, and probably win without much effort at all. Their network, their rules, period. I am truly baffled how many people on HN think it’s cool for some third party to circumvent protections and use a network they don’t own or control. Remember peaking? Yeah. If this was YOUR network, would you be fine letting some third party, who’s not paying you, to use it as they wish and profit from that use? I really doubt it. If you say sure, that’s totally fine, I will challenge anyone here to prove it. Accordingly, please post your WiFi network credentials and GPS location here. We can use your network just like Beeper used Apple’s. Then sell access to others through our connection.
- SpaghettiCthulu 3y agoComparing a third-party using Apple's iMessage API (not network) without their blessing to someone connecting to your home network, compromising your security, is laughable.