5 ms·

I didn't see this news in HN, but in Brazil a judge forbidded the app stores to let brazilian users download Secret anymore. The app is being extensively used

by soneca 12y ago

I didn't see this news in HN, but in Brazil a judge forbidded the app stores to let brazilian users download Secret anymore. The app is being extensively used to bully people - non-authorized pics of naked people, messages with ofenses and etc. It was covered all over mainstream media and there is a consensus that it was a right decision (in this kind of press I mean). Edit: here a TechCrunch about it: http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/20/brazil-court-issues-injunction-against-secret-and-calls-for-app-to-be-remotely-wiped/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/20/brazil-court-issues-injunct... It was submitted to HN but got no comments or upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8202444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8202444

higherpurpose 12y ago
The bigger story there is not that Brazil banned Secret, but that Google, Apple and Microsoft, all have the power to delete those apps from your device. That Orwellian power is the truly terrifying story there. And yes, personally, I've been aware for a while that they can do that, but I bet the vast majority of people don't know that. When will these companies learn that "if you build it (the infrastructure for censorship/surveillance), they (the governments) will come"? It's inevitable, and they should know better by now.
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  That Orwellian power is the truly terrifying story there. Only if you somehow consider the app store and mobile infrastructure a public good, which is most certainly is not. There are open source/decentralized options that you are free to use.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Google doesn't have to literally be the government to wield power that only a government (or not even a government) should have.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      At the same time, you don't generally get a choice about what laws are in effect in the land you live in, but you do get to choose whether to buy Google or Apple products and partake of their app stores, or whether to go F/OSS and keep your freedom.
  - tedks 12y ago
    I consider my phone to be my property. Typically, other people or corporations can't make changes to my property without my permission. I guess by "mobile infrastructure" you can extend that to "every phone," in which case why not remotely remove programs from PCs as well? Why not just say outright that the coalition of your local government plus Apple/Microsoft own your computer, rather than you? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and advocating free software, or openly advocating for autocratic computer systems management. (This is of course what RMS has been saying for literally decades, but for the people on HN who disagree with RMS, ... told you so.)
    - blazingfrog2 12y ago
      > other people or corporations can't make changes to my property without my permission. IANAL but it seems you have given permission: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its principals reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any App and Book Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the App and Book Services at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for making these changes. http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms...
      - judk 12y ago
        Tolerating is not the same as agreeing. There is no meaningful alternative to allowing app deletion.
        arjie 12y ago
        If this is really a problem for you, here's a solution: 1. Get a Nexus phone. 2. Flash to a custom ROM. 3. Don't flash Google Apps. 4. Sideload APKs or use an alternative store. 5. Enjoy. The reason you can't have everything is that the app devs and most people prefer the store situation. If this is a particular problem for you, there will be sacrifices.
      - Chronic29 12y ago
        This. If you don't want to give permissions to the apps on the app store. Feel free to use something else.
- smackfu 12y ago
  >Google, Apple and Microsoft, all have the power to delete those apps from your device Where does the article say that?
- walterbell 12y ago
  The Onion on The Power of Selling Out, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o
- imgabe 12y ago
  Does this apply to only apps downloaded from their respective app stores or can they do it with apps you download and install independently too?
- nols 12y ago
  It never says they can, it just says they have to. Completely separate meaning, in fact it calls it a "tall order" which means at the very least that's it's pretty difficult if not impossible.
  - bentcorner 12y ago
    Even if it's technically impossible now doesn't mean that it won't be technically impossible in the future. It's plausible that future iterations of smart phones will make progress on this "feature", should it become a more stringent requirement for shipping in Brazil.
- nfoz 12y ago
  The infrastructure for censorship/surveillance is the infrastructure that gives you ad revenue. This train can't be stopped.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dmdeller 12y ago
  > Google, Apple and Microsoft, all have the power to delete those apps from your device. This is been public knowledge for as long as the App Store has existed: http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/11/30-million-in-app-store-sales-in-one-month/ http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/11/30-million-in-app-store-... Jailbreakers found it almost immediately: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=549203 http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=549203
msantos 12y ago
Based on this (far from scientific) test, Secret's moderation is appalling http://fortune.com/2014/08/07/we-tested-secrets-anti-bullying-system-and-it-failed/ http://fortune.com/2014/08/07/we-tested-secrets-anti-bullyin...
k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "The app is being extensively used to bully people" Sounds like ask.fm all over again. Afaik there were news stories about people getting bullied actually killing themselves on that site so I have no problem with apps being removed if they fail to moderate this stuff correctly.
personlurking 12y ago
Interesting about why it was banned…the Brazilian constitution says "the expression of thought is free, and anonymity is forbidden;" (in other words, you can say what you want as long as it's accompanied by your name). There is also a Tumblr called "Os Melhores Secrets" (The Best Secrets) which publishes secrets (no NSFW pics on the blog). If anyone speaks Portuguese, you can get an idea of what kinds of things are being passed around, though certainly there are worse secrets (w/ pics) on the app's network.
- diminoten 12y ago
  The Brazilian government is still, to me, a very reactionary one, especially when it comes to technology. It reminds me of the US government, but without the slowdown that causes most terrible/great ideas from making it through the legislative process.
madaxe_again 12y ago
I have quite a few friends using this, and am befuddled as to why people are willing to trust their deepest, darkest, to god-knows-who.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  I'm not sure the predominant use case is people posting their own secrets, so much as people posting gossip or secrets about others. I don't use Secret all that often, but I have a lot of friends who do. Most of them run in tech circles in SF. Most of their use of Secret seems to be "Heard X is happening," or "Heard Y is leaving Z," or "Heard A is working on B." This stuff isn't entrustment; it's the opposite. It's a willingness to divulge. I find the gossipy aspect of Secret entertaining, occasionally useful, and maybe 25-50% reliable. It serves its purpose. I don't post anything to Secret, though, and I would certainly never post any of my own secrets. I share the concerns over cyberbullying, libel, and other potentially dangerous issues with any service of this nature. I don't think banning a class of apps altogether is the right solution. More likely, it's a flagging system, combined with a very active moderation policy on Secret's part. There will come a time -- maybe it's triggered by government regulation or banning in some regions; maybe it's triggered by lawsuits in others -- when Secret decides it needs to get serious about moderation. IANAL. But I can't imagine that, in a hypothetical libel suit, Secret can mount a strong defense right now.
  - lobotryas 12y ago
    Why would Secret have liability in such a suit? If someone starts a blogger account and uses it to accuses someone of being a (for example) a neo-Nazi, then would the accused sue Google for libel?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      It's tricky, but it would probably come down to a determination of whether Secret is a "publisher" or a "distributor" of its content. Case law is generally on Secret's side, in as much as online message boards and hosts are not considered responsible for the statements their users make. But I can see a scenario in which determining what, exactly, Secret is introduces complications to the "message board" category. In your Google example, Google is in no way responsible for the content of someone's blog post. Google is not the publisher of that content, and is debatably not even the distributor.
wyager 12y ago
Some people are getting bullied? Better ban an entire nation from using some software! At least when US politicians try to ban something, they generally try to have a good bullshit excuse, like terrorism or "national security".

by soneca 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago

The bigger story there is not that Brazil banned Secret, but that Google, Apple and Microsoft, all have the power to delete those apps from your device. That Orwellian power is the truly terrifying story there. And yes, personally, I've been aware for a while that they can do that, but I bet the vast majority of people don't know that. When will these companies learn that "if you build it (the infrastructure for censorship/surveillance), they (the governments) will come"? It's inevitable, and they should know better by now.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
That Orwellian power is the truly terrifying story there. Only if you somehow consider the app store and mobile infrastructure a public good, which is most certainly is not. There are open source/decentralized options that you are free to use.
- sp332 12y ago
  Google doesn't have to literally be the government to wield power that only a government (or not even a government) should have.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    At the same time, you don't generally get a choice about what laws are in effect in the land you live in, but you do get to choose whether to buy Google or Apple products and partake of their app stores, or whether to go F/OSS and keep your freedom.
- tedks 12y ago
  I consider my phone to be my property. Typically, other people or corporations can't make changes to my property without my permission. I guess by "mobile infrastructure" you can extend that to "every phone," in which case why not remotely remove programs from PCs as well? Why not just say outright that the coalition of your local government plus Apple/Microsoft own your computer, rather than you? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and advocating free software, or openly advocating for autocratic computer systems management. (This is of course what RMS has been saying for literally decades, but for the people on HN who disagree with RMS, ... told you so.)
  - blazingfrog2 12y ago
    > other people or corporations can't make changes to my property without my permission. IANAL but it seems you have given permission: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its principals reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any App and Book Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the App and Book Services at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for making these changes. http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms...
    - judk 12y ago
      Tolerating is not the same as agreeing. There is no meaningful alternative to allowing app deletion.
      - arjie 12y ago
        If this is really a problem for you, here's a solution: 1. Get a Nexus phone. 2. Flash to a custom ROM. 3. Don't flash Google Apps. 4. Sideload APKs or use an alternative store. 5. Enjoy. The reason you can't have everything is that the app devs and most people prefer the store situation. If this is a particular problem for you, there will be sacrifices.
    - Chronic29 12y ago
      This. If you don't want to give permissions to the apps on the app store. Feel free to use something else.
smackfu 12y ago
>Google, Apple and Microsoft, all have the power to delete those apps from your device Where does the article say that?
walterbell 12y ago
The Onion on The Power of Selling Out, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o
imgabe 12y ago
Does this apply to only apps downloaded from their respective app stores or can they do it with apps you download and install independently too?
nols 12y ago
It never says they can, it just says they have to. Completely separate meaning, in fact it calls it a "tall order" which means at the very least that's it's pretty difficult if not impossible.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  Even if it's technically impossible now doesn't mean that it won't be technically impossible in the future. It's plausible that future iterations of smart phones will make progress on this "feature", should it become a more stringent requirement for shipping in Brazil.
nfoz 12y ago
The infrastructure for censorship/surveillance is the infrastructure that gives you ad revenue. This train can't be stopped.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dmdeller 12y ago
> Google, Apple and Microsoft, all have the power to delete those apps from your device. This is been public knowledge for as long as the App Store has existed: http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/11/30-million-in-app-store-sales-in-one-month/ http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/11/30-million-in-app-store-... Jailbreakers found it almost immediately: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=549203 http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=549203

msantos 12y ago

Based on this (far from scientific) test, Secret's moderation is appalling http://fortune.com/2014/08/07/we-tested-secrets-anti-bullying-system-and-it-failed/ http://fortune.com/2014/08/07/we-tested-secrets-anti-bullyin...

k-mcgrady 12y ago

>> "The app is being extensively used to bully people" Sounds like ask.fm all over again. Afaik there were news stories about people getting bullied actually killing themselves on that site so I have no problem with apps being removed if they fail to moderate this stuff correctly.

personlurking 12y ago

Interesting about why it was banned…the Brazilian constitution says "the expression of thought is free, and anonymity is forbidden;" (in other words, you can say what you want as long as it's accompanied by your name). There is also a Tumblr called "Os Melhores Secrets" (The Best Secrets) which publishes secrets (no NSFW pics on the blog). If anyone speaks Portuguese, you can get an idea of what kinds of things are being passed around, though certainly there are worse secrets (w/ pics) on the app's network.

diminoten 12y ago
The Brazilian government is still, to me, a very reactionary one, especially when it comes to technology. It reminds me of the US government, but without the slowdown that causes most terrible/great ideas from making it through the legislative process.

madaxe_again 12y ago

I have quite a few friends using this, and am befuddled as to why people are willing to trust their deepest, darkest, to god-knows-who.

jonnathanson 12y ago
I'm not sure the predominant use case is people posting their own secrets, so much as people posting gossip or secrets about others. I don't use Secret all that often, but I have a lot of friends who do. Most of them run in tech circles in SF. Most of their use of Secret seems to be "Heard X is happening," or "Heard Y is leaving Z," or "Heard A is working on B." This stuff isn't entrustment; it's the opposite. It's a willingness to divulge. I find the gossipy aspect of Secret entertaining, occasionally useful, and maybe 25-50% reliable. It serves its purpose. I don't post anything to Secret, though, and I would certainly never post any of my own secrets. I share the concerns over cyberbullying, libel, and other potentially dangerous issues with any service of this nature. I don't think banning a class of apps altogether is the right solution. More likely, it's a flagging system, combined with a very active moderation policy on Secret's part. There will come a time -- maybe it's triggered by government regulation or banning in some regions; maybe it's triggered by lawsuits in others -- when Secret decides it needs to get serious about moderation. IANAL. But I can't imagine that, in a hypothetical libel suit, Secret can mount a strong defense right now.
- lobotryas 12y ago
  Why would Secret have liability in such a suit? If someone starts a blogger account and uses it to accuses someone of being a (for example) a neo-Nazi, then would the accused sue Google for libel?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    It's tricky, but it would probably come down to a determination of whether Secret is a "publisher" or a "distributor" of its content. Case law is generally on Secret's side, in as much as online message boards and hosts are not considered responsible for the statements their users make. But I can see a scenario in which determining what, exactly, Secret is introduces complications to the "message board" category. In your Google example, Google is in no way responsible for the content of someone's blog post. Google is not the publisher of that content, and is debatably not even the distributor.

wyager 12y ago

Some people are getting bullied? Better ban an entire nation from using some software! At least when US politicians try to ban something, they generally try to have a good bullshit excuse, like terrorism or "national security".