11 ms·
“I'm wiping this repository away”
- throwaway125 11y agoI think a renamed fork is (maintained) here https://github.com/mgp25/Chat-API https://github.com/mgp25/Chat-API (it was linked in https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/issues/1140 https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/issues/1140)
- worklogin 11y ago52 minutes, 74 upvotes, and no context or discussion? Any context would be appreciated.
- andreyf 11y agoMissing the context... What code was there before? Was it a reverse engineering of the API whatsapp binaries use? Is there any legal basis for demanding someone remove that?
- dsl 11y agoYes, WhatsAPI was a reverse engineer and implementation of the WhatsApp protocol. It was mostly used by websites offering a web based chat interface for WhatsApp and by spammers.
- aryamaan 11y agoPardon my ignorance, but is it using the same api which inherently whatsApp client uses? Or is it just a open sourced version of whatsApp?
- soapdog 11y agoActually these libraries are used by third-party clients on platforms that Whatsapp doesnt officially support such as webOS, Firefox OS and others. Its not about spamming, its about being able to offer a decent client on platforms that are not covered by official clients.
- duskwuff 11y agoDoes the library enable the service to be used on more platforms? Yes. Does the library enable spammers to abuse the service? Also yes. It's not an either/or situation.
- soapdog 11y agoA library is just a tool, like a hammer, you can build a shelf with it or hit your neighbor. anyway, you don`t solve that problem by banning hammers....
- hakanito 11y agoThe code is still there, just browse code in the latest pull request. https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/tree/fd07b49a459cda2568c29433e58ee849000096b0 https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/tree/fd07b49a459cda25...
- veeti 11y agoCan you clone this somehow? You can get a ZIP from the sidebar, but having the history would be nice.
- cesarb 11y agoIt's not well-known, but if you use "git clone --mirror" instead of just "git clone", you get a copy of all the pull requests as git commits, with the full history leading to each of them.
- pluma 11y agoI don't think there's a legal basis for preventing someone from reverse engineering an API in general. The "non-circumvention" clause in the DMCA is often used to go after people reverse engineering DRM, but I fail to see how it would be applicable in this case.
- Cacti 11y agoNot sure I get it. Are the individuals/firms sending these letters to the repo maintainer actually connected to WhatsApp in any way?
- jjcm 11y agoYes. WhatsApp has been pretty aggressive with hunting down and stopping any third party implementations out there. They're also issuing temporary bans for anyone caught using third party clients: http://mashable.com/2015/01/22/whatsapp-third-party-apps/ http://mashable.com/2015/01/22/whatsapp-third-party-apps/
- _delirium 11y agoReminds me a bit of the old dispute between AOL and GAIM, which was later renamed to Pidgin in part to appease AOL. WhatsApp seem to be acting in an even more aggressive way than AOL was, though. AOL limited themselves mainly to: 1) complaining about the name; and 2) playing occasional games with the protocol to break third-party clients. Afaik they didn't sue anyone claiming that simply distributing a third-party client was illegal.
- kuschku 11y agoThere was recently an article from a person working at Microsoft who implemented AIM support in MSN Messenger back in the day who had similar experiences.
- tacticus 11y agoWhich was a really entertaining article when microsoft were also doing it to block trillian and other third party clients.
- guelo 11y agoThe letter says "any legal proceeding that WhatsApp may choose to pursue against you". Definetly sounds like a legal threat from WhatsApp.
- mahouse 11y agoIt is not like there are no forks https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/network/members https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/network/members
- SuperKlaus 11y agoThis seems to be one of the most recent repo clones: https://github.com/rtoIedo/WhatsAPI https://github.com/rtoIedo/WhatsAPI
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThanks. Dropping that in the Internet Archive.
- voltagex_ 11y agoIf you're going to archive it, you should grab: https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/tree/16a6349a1fbc9e9ad8770bbafbea2a34746326dd https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/tree/16a6349a1fbc9e9a... And all pull requests - add .patch to the URL to pull it out as a diff - see https://api.github.com/repos/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/pulls?state=open https://api.github.com/repos/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/pulls?state... and https://api.github.com/repos/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/issues https://api.github.com/repos/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/issues
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThanks! Rolling through all of the URLs now.
- forkingforker 11y agoI put a copy of the pre-takedown repo here: https://github.com/forkingforker/WhatsAPI https://github.com/forkingforker/WhatsAPI Currently trying to figure out how to transfer issues and comments over as well.
- Canada 11y agoI'm trying my best to avoid using such closed services in favor of alternatives that have open clients and servers.
- jimrandomh 11y ago"Couldn't load network graph. Too many forks to display." (Finding forks of this is really easy; for example, you could go to the Pull Requests tab, and check some of the authors there.)
- tokenizerrr 11y agoHere is a list: https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/network/members https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/network/members
- marvel_boy 11y agoAccording to the company: “WhatsApp Messenger is a cross-platform mobile messenger that replaces SMS and works through the existing internet data plan of your device. WhatsApp is available for iPhone, BlackBerry, Android, Windows Phone, Nokia Symbian60 & S40 phones. Because WhatsApp Messenger uses the same internet data plan that you use for email and web browsing, there is no cost to message and stay in touch with your friends.”
- madez 11y agoActually, their service does cost money. They are lying.
- Kenji 11y agoWhat are they gonna do if you use TOR to set up a public repo of this code? It's not like they can send their petty legal letters anywhere. If github is forced to take it down, we need some kind of a distributed github.
- ludamad 11y agoGit is distributed. If it is taken down it will immediately be uploaded somewhere else. EDIT: Immediately in people-time, not some git mechanism :-)
- Kenji 11y agoNo, the origin is one central server. Or am I missing something? If I work on a piece of open-source code with a github repository, if github is down, nobody else will be able to access my code unless I upload it somewhere else (which doesn't happen automatically).
- rubyrescue 11y agoanyone who has ever cloned the repo will have a full copy though.
- granos 11y agoWith git there doesn't need to be a central server. Many people/orgs use one (e.g. github) because that pattern is very well understood and most developers are used to it. There is no reason that you can't push branches/commits between individual clones (in this context called remotes). Origin is one remote, but you can set up any other clone to be a remote as well.
- schoen 11y agoOr even exchange pull requests via e-mail, like git was originally designed for.
- mahyarm 11y ago
- dfabulich 11y agoFYI, this repo used to be an unauthorized PHP API to WhatsApp Messenger. https://github.com/mgp25/Chat-API https://github.com/mgp25/Chat-API
- jimrandomh 11y agoSending legal threats to individual contributors to open source projects is extremely poor form, and reflects badly on both the company that sent them, and the lawyers or law firms who helped them do so. From the perspective of the open-source software development community, this will be perceived as both an attack and a breach of ethics, and the reputation cost is likely to affect WhatsApp's ability to hire and retain developers in the future. Just saying.
- strommen 11y agoThis raises an interesting theoretical question: If you develop a web service and make it accessible from the public internet, what restrictions should you be allowed to place on its usage? And what should the consequences be for individuals trying to bypass those restrictions?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> If you develop a web service and make it accessible from the public internet, what restrictions should you be allowed to place on its usage? Whatever you want. Public API access =! protected right. > And what should the consequences be for individuals trying to bypass those restrictions? Denial of future access by technical means.
- teacup50 11y agoI agree if you mean "whatever [technical] restrictions you want". However, providing the tools that allow instituting legal restrictions is a big can of worms; property rights just don't apply cleanly to client/server communications.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoI agree that legal restrictions carry little to no weight in the technical world (I'm not arguing if they should or not, just if the do). The solution is to require API accounts, which you can then monitor and terminate with prejudice. Tie the account to something unique-ish, or difficult to constantly cycle (SMS? check provider, deny if Google Voice, Twilio, has to be a physical carrier if we're talking messaging client). The law may eventually catch up to tech. Maybe.
- pavlov 11y agoIf WhatsApp wants to get rid of the project, shouldn't they send a DMCA request to GitHub rather than individual users? That way they could wipe out the clones/forks too. (I'm not saying I want them to do that -- just curious why the lawyers aren't using that technique.)
- usingpond 11y agoTake a wild guess. (hint: they're dumb)
- schoen 11y agoThe DMCA takedown procedure is only applicable if your complaint is about copyright infringement. If WhatsApp is invoking other, non-copyright theories, a DMCA takedown related to those theories would be invalid.
- nordic_nomad 11y agoLooks like you may be right: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=13f9814f-b56e-4314-8e1b-95215ce60a6d http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=13f9814f-b56e-... Still, most platforms have somekind of program like eBay's Vero service that is used to report and enforce violations of its terms of service that trademarks and copyrights not be used without permission. Which would have been the better way to go in this case.
- nordic_nomad 11y agoYeah, seems like one of those law firms where companies hire them to handle the distasteful part of their obligation to defend their intellectual property. It sounds good, we'll do this basically free for you and collect our own fees from violators. But they don't know just how much damage these groups can do to their credibility. Rolex is another company that has lost my business forever with their scam. The law states you have to send a letter. The scam part is in demanding money or profits made from a perceived violation of IP. Companies that do that crap can die in a fire.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Gonzih 11y agoAnother reason to use Telegram I guess.
- XJOKOLAT 11y agoLet me double that recommendation. It's easily as good as WA and truly multi-platform. (Disclaimer: totally unconnected to Telegram).
- toomuchtodo 11y agoTriple! Telegram > Whatsapp.
- aw3c2 11y agoBetter use TextSecure/Signal. That's fully free and open-source AND encrypted by default.
- hoverbear 11y agoI am not a cryptographer but I'm not sure Telegram is "better" http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegram-secure http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/49782/is-telegra...
- Gonzih 11y agoat least they have 3rd party clients and apis.
- josegonzalez 11y agoShouldn't those letters have been sent to Github and taken down that way?
- jeffbush 11y agoIndividual developers are easier to intimidate. I suspect they don't have a strong legal argument. It's relatively cheap to have your lawyer draft a letter.
- mratzloff 11y agoWhatsApp complained about users of the API spamming the service; instead of taking the necessary steps to secure their service, they sent lawyers. So they've been dealing with legal threats for a long time. https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/issues/83 https://github.com/venomous0x/WhatsAPI/issues/83
- roflc0ptic 11y agoI'm curious about the legality of this. Someone wrote that it was an "unauthorized" PHP API which was a client to the Whatsapp service. You don't need authorization to write a client to someone else's API, do you? They own neither the API, nor the right to build clients to it, right? A second question is: so you have the right to build a client. Do you actually have the right to run that client against their service? Is that "unauthorized access"? It makes sense that you can control who accesses your computer system; controlling how they do it seems murkier to me.
- pionar 11y ago> They own neither the API, nor the right to build clients to it, right? That's something that courts have been trying to figure out. The most famous case, of course, is Oracle v. Google. I think the biggest thing here was the usage of WhatsApp and the name WhatsAPI.
- BHSPitMonkey 11y agoThat's a very different kind of case. This one refers to creating third-party presences on WhatsApp's messaging platform by talking to their servers remotely and mimicking the official client software in order to gain access. The Oracle case is a matter of Google implementing a Java standard library so that their Google's Java VM could run the same code that runs on Oracle's. Aside from an overloaded meaning of the term "API", the two situations have very little in common.
- maxlybbert 11y agoI can see two claims here: (1) the name is arguable confusingly similar to WhatsApp and could be considered a trademark violation, (2) using the service without permission could qualify as "exceeding authorized access" under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which is meant more for people who crack security for other purposes; although there's an argument that it applies here).
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoEven if we were to assume the CFAA is a reasonable and just law that should be applied in this case, it would still apply to those who use the code in a way that was against WhatsApp's permission, not for the one who provided the code. You might as well send legal threats to github for hosting the code.
- dwg 11y agoThe authors intention of wiping the repository is in direct conflict with one of the demands (the last bullet): "Immediately take steps to preserve all documents, tangible things and electronically-stored information potentially relevant to the issues addressed in this letter." I'm not a lawyer and don't know how enforceable it is, and I doubt that WhatsApp would take any action once the repository is no longer a concern, but I'm curious if there are any comments about this.
- sgtpepper 11y agoPresumably the person did preserve all those things... just not on GitHub.
- dwg 11y agoPerhaps. However, even if they did keep the source code, there are issues and other information on github that would not be preserved. I think it's safe to assume this information is very relevant to litigation involving a scenario such as this one. Even if that wasn't a factor, the court may get the idea that the repository was wiped in order to destroy evidence. Convincing them otherwise may be technically challenging.
- kosma 11y agoDemanding to gather self-incriminating evidence... pretty bold request.
- HillRat 11y agoSelf-incrimination does not apply in civil cases. This is actually a pretty standard warning against spoilation of evidence in a potential civil case -- if a party doesn't convey such a warning, then, in the event of ensuing litigation, the court is likely to find that they did not trigger a duty to preserve evidence on the part of the defendant. If a defendant is so warned and destroys evidence, then the trial court may impose sanctions such as an adverse inference instruction (essentially, instructions to the jury that any evidence not produced by a side should be inferred to be damaging to that side's case). So any lawyer who stayed awake during civil procedure is going to make sure that they keep that option alive in the event they decide to sue.
- emsy 11y agoFuck Whatsapp in particular.
- adam12 11y agoI probably would have never heard of this if someone wasn't trying to kill it. Now I am interested and have been looking through the source of the clone.
- hackaflocka 11y ago"What's" is a common English word. "API" is a common term in English. Combining them together should not be a copyright infringement of "WhatsApp."
- MCRed 11y agoThe Trademark examiners are actually generally pretty good at this sort of stuff. You can search trademarks at USPTO.gov I've seen numerous application turned down for using generic terms like this. Probably the one and only time I'll say the government does a good job.
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoYou mean trademark infringement. "Whats" isn't a generic term in the computing field. "WhatsAPI" isn't a dictionary word, it's a colocation of Whats and API, the first element being chosen specifically to render association with WhatsApp. The use of WhatsAPI differs in only one letter from the trademark. IMO provided they headline the fact they're not associated nor extraordinarily authorised by WhatsApp then there would be no actual trademark issue; the law I suspect will see it quite differently.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoAnother case where I wish the answer was for the court to tell the company: "This is venomous0x's and other contributors information. They developed it on their own and have no contract with you, and as such are free to do with this information as they see fit. Your lawyers, who are under contract with a local Bar Association may be in violation of their contract if they continue to make some outlandish claims concerning the law. We shall not be hearing from you again in this matter."
- MCRed 11y agoBinding Arbitration is a solution to this- companies don't sue each other so much these days because they just get it resolved by hiring a mutually agreed arbitrator from one of the Binding Arbitration organizations. The number of cases handled by this method now, today, in the USA is far larger than the number handled by courts. The government run the courts in a very inefficient way that makes the costs of lawsuits very high, and take forever and less reliable than arbitration. Worse, courts interpret the laws often in a way that favors the government. EG: Courts are not actually neutral in the way that arbiters are. (Remember many judges are hired via election, many more are appointed by elected politicians and these politicians re-electability depends on who they appoint... at the federal level the judgeships are highly political.) A lot of big problems, like copyright and patent disputes, could be resolved more quickly via an arbitration method (where the possibility of getting an arbiter who actually understands the technology issues at hand is a possibility.)
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoFirst, this shouldn't get to a court any longer than it takes to be tossed out. Second, arbitration among entities with vast differences in power is not fair because the more powerful entity will tend to have greater control over who they pick, thus corrupting the process.
- ams6110 11y agoThis is not really different to a civil lawsuit. If one side has deep pockets or significant in-house legal resources, they can delay the process with all kinds of legal motions and maneuvers until the other side runs out of money.
- davesque 11y agoSeems fair. After all, it must have been such an investment for WhatsApp to come up with their innovative product.</sarcasm>
- 616c 11y agoI wonder if he is here, but I was under the impression this dude was/is Bahraini or Emirati. I wonder what kind of legal pressure they could seriously impose, seeing as few in the GCC would care (locals routinley do not even show up for criminal legal proceedings, so I am skeptical). Now, could there be side channels they would use to pressure and bully him into giving up? Sure. But I would love to hear more from this venomous developer.
- me_bx 11y agoInteresting observation: out of the 105 comments in this HN thread, none mention the company that owns whatsapp: facebook. Is whatsapp still a separate entity? Aren't whatsapp laywers facebook lawyers? just asking as I'm curious to know. In related news: "Facebook drops hint about MAJOR changes to WhatsApp – and you are NOT going to like it" [1] [1]: http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/578264/Facebook-Revenue-WhatsApp-Money-Subscription-Business-Company-Messages http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/57826...
- Veratyr 11y agoFrom what (admittedly little) I know, WhatsApp still operates as an autonomous entity beside Facebook. Kinda similar to Oculus and Facebook or YouTube and Google.
- _mgr 11y agoFacebook spent billions buying WhatsApp. There is no way they are operating autonomously. Same goes for Oculus, and the same most definitely goes for YouTube.
- kitanata 11y agoI suggest everyone here fork the repository in one of it's older forms and contact support@whatsapp.com to tell them how you feel about them attacking one of our own.
- gshakir 11y agoI would like to dump WhatsApp, any alternatives? I almost switched to Telegram once. No matter how bigger WhatsApp gets, I am glad there are some alternatives.
- logicchains 11y agoWhat made you decide Telegram was a worse choice than Whatsapp? At least Telegram doesn't send nasty letters to people developing unofficial clients.
- hjst 11y agoTelegram bills itself as secure, which comes with a rather large burden of proof if anyone is to take you seriously. As the saying goes: "don't roll your own crypto, unless you're a professional cryptographer, and even then…". Telegram are not cryptographers but decided to roll their own anyway and have come in for not a little flack as a result. Search for "telegram app crypto criticism" and you'll find plenty of examples of this. Is Telegram secure? I'm not qualified to answer that, but I understand enough to be sceptical.
- logicchains 11y agoIs Whatsapp secure? If not, and they're both insecure, then I think Telegram makes a better choice, if for nothing else than its better multi-platform support.
- gshakir 11y agoI liked Telegram but all my friends were on WhatsApp, so stuck with WhatsApp for that. I agree on your point that Telegram does not send nasty letters like this.
- ptman 11y agohttps://www.eff.org/secure-messaging-scorecard https://www.eff.org/secure-messaging-scorecard
- chdir 11y agoI see a lot of interest in saving the repo/forks as archive, perhaps to revive it to some extent in the future. Wouldn't it be more constructive to build an open client that can compete with WhatsApp instead? Granted that it's hard, but definitely more fun than fighting legal notices and guessing hidden features that break the code occasionally.
- zamalek 11y agoI believe that the Telegram (telegram.org) server is open source. There is also a publicly documented API. Correction: the clients are open source.
- chdir 11y agoThanks for reminding. I read about telegram a while back but forgot to try it out. Doing it now, hoping it'll have more friends over time.
- johnx123-up 11y agoAnyone knows what happened to Whoya app? https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ego.whoya https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ego.whoya Same DCMA issue?
- spystath 11y agoI may be slightly OT but to me it's kinda sad that the internet is increasingly being built around closed platforms instead of open APIs/protocols. Especially in the IM scene there must be a ton of services incompatible with each other. You need to have a dozen or so of IM programs installed (skype, viber, whatsapp, you name it). Too bad XMPP will probably never see any mainstream adoption. I know it had its share of problems but I believe that it was a step towards the right direction. My hope is with decentralized protocols but still if there isn't some form of standard you will still need a different client for each service. Admittedly opener (anyone can implement a client) but not quite there. Now I'm only waiting for Google to completely kill XMPP access to Talk/Hangouts. That will be... frustrating.
- kwhitefoot 11y agoPresumably everyone here will boycott Whatsapp. And tell their friends to do the same. It's easy for me because I don't use it but I suspect that for some it will be difficult, imagine telling your girl friend that you are deleting Whatsapp and that she can't contact you that way any more.
- shardulsoild 11y agoFacebook use to be open company, opening up platforms for letting other developer write amazing application on top of it. But with WhatsApp- approach has been very close than open. In India where whatsapp is so popular, companies and startup are trying to get hands on any form of access to build a solutions around it.