3 ms·

> unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant Yes that's the point, Beeper are probably hoping Apple sues them for the reasons you describe. > crimi

> unless we’re talking about Beeper being the defendant Yes that's the point, Beeper are probably hoping Apple sues them for the reasons you describe. > criminal liability by violating the CFAA and committing computer trespass This is pretty tenuous. They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access. > violating the the OS license agreement and ToS [...] (yes that supersedes DMCA exception) Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. > reselling Apple’s IP for $2/mo Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble. And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market. That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had.

mikeryan 3y ago
Your premise seems to be that they want Apple to sue them? That point is moot now.
Frivolous9421 3y ago
>CFAA violation for logging into your own iMessage account and using the service Not fucking likely
nicce 3y ago
> Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. The problem is that everything works through Apples private services, even if there is no DMCA things in the app. On top of that they are making business with that. Quite unfair use. What if I use Amazon’s private APIs for running my cloud. Even share it to others and charge even money from it?
- stuartjohnson12 3y ago
  Seems legitimate to me. There's no reasonable case for trespass under the CCFA as proper credentials are being used and there's no intent to use that access to commit further crime. You can't infringe on intellectual property of a server by making requests to it, that doesn't make sense. Any case there would be access violations under the CCFA which are already covered above. The only real claim would be the intellectual property of the client app in the way that it forms requests and accepts responses which this system is undoubtedly based on the reverse engineering of. The only problem with that argument is that the DMCA includes a specific exemption for interoperability as fair use. Note that simply building a new client app doesn't necessarily constitute fair use, but in this case the client app extends to a platform that is otherwise not supported. Seems a pretty obvious case for interoperability in my eyes. "Fair" or "unfair", what is the crime? Your intuition pump doesn't include enough details to be useful, I don't understand it.
  - nicce 3y ago
    > "Fair" or "unfair", what is the crime? Your intuition pump doesn't include enough details to be useful, I don't understand it. Beeper does not talk only to Apple devices but also to other Beeper clients. There is no authorization by Apple to use their backends, and they are not sharing any revenue from their business, while Apple funds all the million messages. CCFA covers the value gain, should be less than 5000 in one year, what I doubt is happening here. I am not even sure if they are authorized in any point, because they violate ToS. Technically they fake authorization by preventing to be something other than they are, and not authorized by the terms and conditions.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > while Apple funds all the million messages. A text message is, on the high side, 1000 bytes, so a million messages is <1GB. For reference paying $0.09/GB for bandwidth is considered a high price. This is not a number which is literally zero, but it's a number which rounds to zero.
turquoisevar 3y ago
> They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access. Authorization in the legal sense of the CFAA is permission, plain and simple. The ToS and EULA explicitly only allow using the iMessage service on Apple hardware, so any other form without explicit permission by Apple is unauthorized. Spoofing device credentials to fool the server and gain an authentication blob definitely doesn’t fall under authorized access. But even with legitimately attained credentials you can still be in violation. Ex employees of a corporation, finding a device with credentials on it, etc. Whether they commit any further crime or not is irrelevant for criminal liability. > Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. The DMCA exception only applies to interoperability for legally acquired (e.g., licensed) software. But it doesn’t really matter but because ToS and license clauses that explicitly prohibit it overrule it, see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)[0] > Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble. And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market. That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had. This reads like a Gish gallop with a bunch of weak arguments that border fantasy. There is no “Apple in trouble” when it comes to iMessage and there are no signals. I don’t know where you get this from but I suggest seeking better sources on understanding legal standards and ramifications. 0: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d.1317.01-1109.01-1108.html https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d...
- singron 3y ago
  This case is probably relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn In that case, breaking the ToS superceded the fact they were merely accessing public information. The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are. I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference. I would love if Apple individually started suing their own customers though.

mikeryan 3y ago

Your premise seems to be that they want Apple to sue them? That point is moot now.

Frivolous9421 3y ago

>CFAA violation for logging into your own iMessage account and using the service Not fucking likely

nicce 3y ago

> Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. The problem is that everything works through Apples private services, even if there is no DMCA things in the app. On top of that they are making business with that. Quite unfair use. What if I use Amazon’s private APIs for running my cloud. Even share it to others and charge even money from it?

stuartjohnson12 3y ago
Seems legitimate to me. There's no reasonable case for trespass under the CCFA as proper credentials are being used and there's no intent to use that access to commit further crime. You can't infringe on intellectual property of a server by making requests to it, that doesn't make sense. Any case there would be access violations under the CCFA which are already covered above. The only real claim would be the intellectual property of the client app in the way that it forms requests and accepts responses which this system is undoubtedly based on the reverse engineering of. The only problem with that argument is that the DMCA includes a specific exemption for interoperability as fair use. Note that simply building a new client app doesn't necessarily constitute fair use, but in this case the client app extends to a platform that is otherwise not supported. Seems a pretty obvious case for interoperability in my eyes. "Fair" or "unfair", what is the crime? Your intuition pump doesn't include enough details to be useful, I don't understand it.
- nicce 3y ago
  > "Fair" or "unfair", what is the crime? Your intuition pump doesn't include enough details to be useful, I don't understand it. Beeper does not talk only to Apple devices but also to other Beeper clients. There is no authorization by Apple to use their backends, and they are not sharing any revenue from their business, while Apple funds all the million messages. CCFA covers the value gain, should be less than 5000 in one year, what I doubt is happening here. I am not even sure if they are authorized in any point, because they violate ToS. Technically they fake authorization by preventing to be something other than they are, and not authorized by the terms and conditions.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > while Apple funds all the million messages. A text message is, on the high side, 1000 bytes, so a million messages is <1GB. For reference paying $0.09/GB for bandwidth is considered a high price. This is not a number which is literally zero, but it's a number which rounds to zero.

turquoisevar 3y ago

> They do have proper authorization because the keys in question are valid iMessage keys and they are being used by the same individuals those iMessage keys are allocated to. They're not trying to commit any further crime post-access. Authorization in the legal sense of the CFAA is permission, plain and simple. The ToS and EULA explicitly only allow using the iMessage service on Apple hardware, so any other form without explicit permission by Apple is unauthorized. Spoofing device credentials to fool the server and gain an authentication blob definitely doesn’t fall under authorized access. But even with legitimately attained credentials you can still be in violation. Ex employees of a corporation, finding a device with credentials on it, etc. Whether they commit any further crime or not is irrelevant for criminal liability. > Does it? This seems like a pretty textbook case of reverse engineering for interoperability. The DMCA exception only applies to interoperability for legally acquired (e.g., licensed) software. But it doesn’t really matter but because ToS and license clauses that explicitly prohibit it overrule it, see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)[0] > Probably the case they're hoping for a lawsuit on - the degree to which Apple has legitimate claim to control use of the iMessage protocol given their market presence. In the process of the lawsuit, if Apple is found to be leveraging this protocol anti-competitively, they're in trouble. And beyond that, Apple is a highly litigious company with great lawyers and extremely deep pockets and large incentives to defend their ownership of the messaging market. That they've been this slow to sue Beeper probably signals enough on its own that there's probably no field day to be had. This reads like a Gish gallop with a bunch of weak arguments that border fantasy. There is no “Apple in trouble” when it comes to iMessage and there are no signals. I don’t know where you get this from but I suggest seeking better sources on understanding legal standards and ramifications. 0: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d.1317.01-1109.01-1108.html https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/320/320.F3d...

singron 3y ago
This case is probably relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn In that case, breaking the ToS superceded the fact they were merely accessing public information. The other question is whether Beeper is violating terms of service or their users are. I'm guessing Beeper is not and they instead need to be implicated for some kind of tortious interference. I would love if Apple individually started suing their own customers though.