4 ms·

It would be obviously wrong and illegal for a stranger to come into your home, secretly inventory all physical items in your possession, and then impersonate yo

by cs702 14y ago

It would be obviously wrong and illegal for a stranger to come into your home, secretly inventory all physical items in your possession, and then impersonate you on, say, a global TV broadcast in which you're wrongly accused of stealing things. It should also be obviously wrong and illegal for any app secretly to inventory everything in your phone and then impersonate you on a Twitter broadcast in which you're wrongly accused of pirating things. Evidently, the people who made this dictionary app think it's perfectly legal to do that, and must not see anything wrong with it. Our laws, regulations, and societal norms have a long way to go before they catch up with technology.

paulgb 14y ago
> Our laws, regulations, and societal norms have a long way to go before they catch up with technology. I wouldn't say that what this app is doing is within societal norms. Just like laws, societal norms get broken, which is what happened here. The publisher will suffer consequences (both from Apple and potential customers), as they should.
jellicle 14y ago
> Our laws, regulations, and societal norms have a long way to go before they catch up with technology. Oh, that remains to be proven. Impersonating someone else to have them describe themselves as a criminal is pretty clearly legally actionable, both in a civil and criminal sense. There's every likelihood that the laws and regulations will work just fine. And judging by this post, societal norms are also working just fine to disapprove of the behavior. The guy has come up with a new way to violate laws/social norms, to be sure. But that doesn't actually mean they aren't working. They are flexible enough to adapt to most new situations and this is certainly one covered by them.
codyromano 14y ago
Your analogy should be narrowed according to the facts of this case. Assuming that the author's guesses about the app's behavior are correct, this is a case of software checking for one specific tool — a tool that's strongly associated with piracy. A defendant in the physical world wouldn't necessarily have a reasonable expectation of privacy if there were indications that he or she was engaging in unlawful conduct. So it's unfair to say the app's behavior would be obviously illegal or that it's comparable to a secret inventory of all of someone's physical items. That said, I'm not justifying the hijacking of the author's Twitter. That's not an appropriate remedy by any standard.
- thirdtruck 14y ago
  It's one thing to have other people learn that you own a crowbar. It's another thing to have someone else declare, using your name, that you've used that crowbar for breaking into houses.
__david__ 14y ago
Well, to continue the tortured analogy, the stranger was invited into the home, they didn't break in. Then they presented a release form to the homeowner saying they could impersonate him on TV, which the homeowner signed. Only then did they go on TV and "impersonate" him, saying things he didn't expect. I don't think it's so cut-and-dry as you are making it out. It's definitely shady, but I dare say there's nothing illegal here.
- pdonis 14y ago
  I don't see where he gave permission for the app to post Tweets for him. He gave it access to his Twitter account, but that's not the same thing. To continue your analogy, the stranger was invited into his home, gave him a form to sign that said he could inventory the items there, got it signed, and then proceeded to publish the information in a way that wasn't mentioned on the form.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    But isn't it written, when you give access to Twitter account, that it could be used to post things for you?
    - pdonis 14y ago
      I don't know since I don't use the app; from the description given in the blog post it seems highly doubtful that the app specifically told him it was going to post to his Twitter account on his behalf without telling him. Also the app appears to be in violation of the iOS guidelines (see another post upthread), which means that it is not generally understood that apps can post on your behalf without telling you just because you give them access to your Twitter account.
    - Firehed 14y ago
      Not really. The Twitter API allows both read-only and read/write access. iOS, as a system-wide grant, has read/write permissions - but apparently does not allow users to specify per-app permissions to be that granular. Moreover, the app was apparently locking out paid users from any access at all unless permissions were granted, which in itself shouldn't have made it through Apple's vetting process in the first place (exception: twitter clients). The majority of apps will only need access to the "share sheet" for posting to twitter, which AFAIK doesn't require explicit permissions (similar to sending an email; the user must hit send)

by cs702 14y ago

paulgb 14y ago

> Our laws, regulations, and societal norms have a long way to go before they catch up with technology. I wouldn't say that what this app is doing is within societal norms. Just like laws, societal norms get broken, which is what happened here. The publisher will suffer consequences (both from Apple and potential customers), as they should.

jellicle 14y ago

> Our laws, regulations, and societal norms have a long way to go before they catch up with technology. Oh, that remains to be proven. Impersonating someone else to have them describe themselves as a criminal is pretty clearly legally actionable, both in a civil and criminal sense. There's every likelihood that the laws and regulations will work just fine. And judging by this post, societal norms are also working just fine to disapprove of the behavior. The guy has come up with a new way to violate laws/social norms, to be sure. But that doesn't actually mean they aren't working. They are flexible enough to adapt to most new situations and this is certainly one covered by them.

codyromano 14y ago

Your analogy should be narrowed according to the facts of this case. Assuming that the author's guesses about the app's behavior are correct, this is a case of software checking for one specific tool — a tool that's strongly associated with piracy. A defendant in the physical world wouldn't necessarily have a reasonable expectation of privacy if there were indications that he or she was engaging in unlawful conduct. So it's unfair to say the app's behavior would be obviously illegal or that it's comparable to a secret inventory of all of someone's physical items. That said, I'm not justifying the hijacking of the author's Twitter. That's not an appropriate remedy by any standard.

thirdtruck 14y ago
It's one thing to have other people learn that you own a crowbar. It's another thing to have someone else declare, using your name, that you've used that crowbar for breaking into houses.

__david__ 14y ago

Well, to continue the tortured analogy, the stranger was invited into the home, they didn't break in. Then they presented a release form to the homeowner saying they could impersonate him on TV, which the homeowner signed. Only then did they go on TV and "impersonate" him, saying things he didn't expect. I don't think it's so cut-and-dry as you are making it out. It's definitely shady, but I dare say there's nothing illegal here.

pdonis 14y ago
I don't see where he gave permission for the app to post Tweets for him. He gave it access to his Twitter account, but that's not the same thing. To continue your analogy, the stranger was invited into his home, gave him a form to sign that said he could inventory the items there, got it signed, and then proceeded to publish the information in a way that wasn't mentioned on the form.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  But isn't it written, when you give access to Twitter account, that it could be used to post things for you?
  - pdonis 14y ago
    I don't know since I don't use the app; from the description given in the blog post it seems highly doubtful that the app specifically told him it was going to post to his Twitter account on his behalf without telling him. Also the app appears to be in violation of the iOS guidelines (see another post upthread), which means that it is not generally understood that apps can post on your behalf without telling you just because you give them access to your Twitter account.
  - Firehed 14y ago
    Not really. The Twitter API allows both read-only and read/write access. iOS, as a system-wide grant, has read/write permissions - but apparently does not allow users to specify per-app permissions to be that granular. Moreover, the app was apparently locking out paid users from any access at all unless permissions were granted, which in itself shouldn't have made it through Apple's vetting process in the first place (exception: twitter clients). The majority of apps will only need access to the "share sheet" for posting to twitter, which AFAIK doesn't require explicit permissions (similar to sending an email; the user must hit send)