Apple Blocking 'Secret' in Brazilian App Store After Court Ruling

[tennisproha]

That's safe because of the sandboxing of Safari on the iPhone and iPad. Unlike a Mac or PC the Safari app has no access to other parts of the phone and is not allowed to install any software on the phone. On a Mac or PC any browser can download a self starting program file that will install on your system. Not on your iPhone as apps can only be installed through the app store.
Hence the whole thing of "virus scanners" on an iPhone are nonsense as none of these apps will have access to any other apps they should scan for malicious software.

ah okay. didn't know Safari was sandboxed as well. thanks.

I've always wondered about those 'virus protection' apps for iOS. for one, apple is unlikely to give any one app system wide access for it to be effective.

and secondly, I guess my only concern is can data that's synced to icloud be manipulated. for instance if you save a page in your Reading List for offline access, can potential malicious code be saved with it?… idk

 

[gnasher729]

I understand apple can install / remove apps, that makes sense. but can they access App Documents and Data?

I'm assuming apple can definitely access your icloud sync data; notes, reminders, contacts, etc…

According to Apple, all this is protected by encryption keys that are only available to you, and Apple has no means to access any of this data. Apple can easily _delete_ data; encrypted data is just as easily deleted as unencrypted data. But Apple cannot read it.

(You need to trust Apple on this. According to what Apple says, they cannot read data that you stored just now, and they will never be able to do this. Apple _could_ be lying. Apple _could_ change the way they store data so they can read data that you store in the future. What speaks against this is that (a) Apple has no benefit from this. (b) It takes time and costs money to implement. (c) It would be very, very bad publicity if they were found out. (d) Some programmers and others would know about it, and therefore it would be found out. You can't keep something like that secret. (e) If the police and/or NSA found out, Apple could be forced to access your data which costs Apple money. )

 

[Swytch]

The judge ruled to ban the Secret app because someone was bullied with it.
In what universe is that ok?
Please read the article again and then form an opinion, it seems you read my comment out of context.
I am prepared to assume responsibility for my comments but this doesn't mean I am willing to renounce my privacy.

As I've said in a previous comment, it's one thing to make anonymous comments and another thing to bully someone from the shadows.

And i think you missed my point.. how is it bullying if you dont know who the person sending the message is? You really feel threatened by anonymous comments? you are anonymous too so they dont really know who you are either so the threats have no bearing...

and how are you going to enforce that people who are bullying are not allowed to be anonymous, but others are?

and how do you bully someone with a message anyways? words mean nothing until you take them in an offensive or bullying manner...

And really, people can still bully anonymously without this app. its called talking behind your back... your never gonna get away from it.

and how are you going to assume responsibility for your comments if you are anonymous? Just because you think you have not said anything that hurts someone doesnt mean you havent... words are words, and anyone could take any of your words as bullying... in fact you assuming that i read your comment out of context could be interpreted as bullying...

so yes, if you want people to be held responsible for their comments, everyone would have to renounce their privacy and not be allowed to be anonymous so that when someone files a bullying complaint you can be tracked down and held responsible... you really think an honor system on this would work?

 

[Rajani Isa]

That still makes no sense, you cant have one without the other.

I think you need to educate yourself on how anonymity and free speech go hand in hand.

False. I can make statements, that are free speech, without being anonymous.

While anonymity has long been a great tool for free speech when in places of suppression. But it is not a requirement of free speech.

And i think you missed my point.. how is it bullying if you dont know who the person sending the message is? You really feel threatened by anonymous comments? you are anonymous too so they dont really know who you are either so the threats have no bearing...

So if I go around your house, putting up posters that say offensive things about you (accusations of, to make it lighthearted, being a member of Slytherin) - it's not harassment if you don't know who put it up?

and how do you bully someone with a message anyways? words mean nothing until you take them in an offensive or bullying manner...

And really, people can still bully anonymously without this app. its called talking behind your back... your never gonna get away from it.

You have it right there - it's a case of even if the victim isn't using the app, enough others were to make it a big part of passing malicious gossip.

As far as it not enabling something that can't be done face to face - remember in the USA we almost didn't have VTRs/VCRs/Betamax recorders available because of the accusation that they would be used solely to illegally copy movies.

So if this service was being used almost exclusively to be nasty and bully/harass people I can see it being made to go bye-bye.

 

[tbrinkma]

I have a different view on this.
Anonymity brings out the worst in people and although I believe in freedom of expression, I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.

So... I assume "tagyro" is your real name?

Freedom of expression, by its very nature, includes anonymous expression. No one needs freedom of expression to express an opinion that everyone (or even just the significant majority) around them agrees with. On the other hand, if you might be punished (perhaps even 'unofficially') for expressing an unpopular opinion, then you may need to do it anonymously.

If you make a statement be prepared to assume responsibility for it, especially if you slander/attack someone (see where this whole thing started).
Yes, there are some exceptions, but I doubt they apply here (whistleblowers, abuse etc)
As for the fact that it was removed remotely, it's a decision from a judge, Apple can't really do much but comply.

Strangely enough, slander/libel/etc. laws don't actually punish a person for *speech*. They punish someone for causing unjustified *harm* to another.

Anonymous speech also doesn't prevent someone from being punished for slander/libel/etc., it just makes it a bit harder to figure out *who* is responsible for the harm caused.

----------

You compare my "anonymous statement" to someone "anonymously bullying someone else"?

No. He compared your anonymous statement to your claimed belief that you "...think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously."

Obvious hypocrisy is obvious.


Just for the sake of clarity, 'tagyro', the people who are disagreeing with you aren't *talking* about the article. They're talking about *your* *own* *statement* here:

I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.

You made an anonymous statement saying that you don't think people should be "allowed to make statements anonymously". People are simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy of your statement, and explaining *why* it is a poor position to defend.

 

[tbrinkma]

False. I can make statements, that are free speech, without being anonymous.

True. You can, indeed, make statements that are free speech without being anonymous.

While anonymity has long been a great tool for free speech when in places of suppression.

And here you touch on exactly *why* having the option for anonymous speech is required to actually have free speech.

But it is not a requirement of free speech.

And there you completely miss the boat, and drown. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

If you do not have the *option* to speak anonymously, then your speech is being restricted, just as if you didn't have the *option* to identify yourself when speaking.

If you *must* identify yourself, and you wish to say something to those in power who might wish to punish you or those close to you, then you are very likely to simply keep your mouth shut, and suffer in silence. This is known as 'chilling effects', as in the effect of the prospective punishment chills people's willingness to speak freely.

 

[tagyro]

You made an anonymous statement saying that you don't think people should be "allowed to make statements anonymously". People are simply pointing out the rank hypocrisy of your statement, and explaining *why* it is a poor position to defend.

A few comments after I corrected myself: It's not about making anonymous statements, it's about anonymously bullying someone - as the article states.
Sorry for my mistake, "statement" was a poor word choice.

... the people who are disagreeing with you aren't *talking* about the article.

Because those people haven't even read the article.

I live in a country where if I have a problem with the government, my boss or anyone else I have to right to express my opinion, even anonymously.
This doesn't mean I can attack, slander, bully, harass or generally intimidate someone anonymously - which, again, is what the article is about.

 

[tbrinkma]

A few comments after I corrected myself: It's not about making anonymous statements, it's about anonymously bullying someone - as the article states.
Sorry for my mistake, "statement" was a poor word choice.


Because those people haven't even read the article.

I live in a country where if I have a problem with the government, my boss or anyone else I have to right to express my opinion, even anonymously.
This doesn't mean I can attack, slander, bully, harass or generally intimidate someone anonymously - which, again, is what the article is about.

No, they're not discussing your original statement 'because they haven't even read the article'. They're discussing your original statement because your original statement was so bogus that it utterly eclipsed the article.

Someone commenting on *your* statement (which mentioned nothing in the article), doesn't need to read the article (which you didn't mention in the statement you made which is being discussed), because they're commenting on *your statement*, not the article.

How this confuses you is mind boggling.

1. You made a statement, which didn't address anything in the article.
2. People called you on your statement.
3. You told them they were wrong because they hadn't read the article.

Your original statement being badly wrong has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the article. It may well be that said statement was wrong because you worded it poorly, but *again* that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the article. The fact that you keep hammering on, 'but they didn't read the article', even after admitting your original statement was worded poorly, tells me that you still don't actually understand how (and how severely) your original statement was flawed.

 

[markyr17]

No, they're not discussing your original statement 'because they haven't even read the article'. They're discussing your original statement because your original statement was so bogus that it utterly eclipsed the article.

Someone commenting on *your* statement (which mentioned nothing in the article), doesn't need to read the article (which you didn't mention in the statement you made which is being discussed), because they're commenting on *your statement*, not the article.

How this confuses you is mind boggling.

1. You made a statement, which didn't address anything in the article.
2. People called you on your statement.
3. You told them they were wrong because they hadn't read the article.

Your original statement being badly wrong has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the article. It may well be that said statement was wrong because you worded it poorly, but *again* that has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the article. The fact that you keep hammering on, 'but they didn't read the article', even after admitting your original statement was worded poorly, tells me that you still don't actually understand how (and how severely) your original statement was flawed.

I think you won the debate. Agreed 100%