Apple Hit With Lawsuit Over FaceTime Eavesdropping Bug

[dypeterc]

Taking a deposition doesn’t mean he was in court. He could have been in his own office while the person was being deposed. The angle for Apple to take would be to try and prove that he staged the deposition after learning about the bug in order to file a lawsuit. Apple’s failure to deal with this sooner will cost them and ultimately this will be good for the consumer.

How far this goes into the discovery stage will be telling.

Also this is 2019’s “battery-gate.”

 

[Baymowe335]

A 'while ago' is maybe a week. After that, you have no knowledge of what Apple has been up to, but certainly they weren't sitting on it.
[doublepost=1548879487][/doublepost]
Craig is too valuable to the team. I'd fire you. (Actually, I wouldn't fire anyone. That's not how good corporate cultures operate.)

I like Craig. He is valuable. He's even CEO material down the road. But I'd make it clear this crap can't happen...it might not need to be Craig, but someone close to Craig, maybe responsible for this part of the platform.

Again, I'm a huge Apple defender. I just don't think this one can go unpunished.

 

[jaxemer11]

Silly lawsuit. Unless there is a protective order in place, deposition testimony is not confidential. The whole purpose of a deposition is to obtain sworn testimony that can be submitted in open court (which is available to the public). Also, most (if not all) courts allow lawyers to have cell phones in court, although they have to be silence. I'm sure this bug will create a lot of problems for Apple, and there are likely legitimate lawsuits that will be filed, but this one doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[myscrnnm]

I think the point is you wouldn't know that you were being listened to:"a person could force a FaceTime connection with another person, providing access to a user's audio and sometimes video even when the FaceTime call was not accepted."

I'm perfectly aware of what the problem is. I'm saying it's a frivolous lawsuit. The lawyer/firm is just going after publicity.

 

[jaxemer11]

As long as imperfect people write code, and imperfect people audit said code, bugs of various levels will happen. No way to prevent it.

Apple is not the only company that releases software with bugs.

But Apple is one of the few companies that slams their competitors for lack of privacy protection and brags about having flawless products. This is karma for them.
[doublepost=1548884962][/doublepost]

So people hating on the lawyer but not mentioning Apples massive mishap here. I agree with the attorney in this case. If the bug indeed lead to someone being able to listen to his client’s privileges testimony with an attorney then it could indeed have material impact on that individual. Apple violated this persons privacy and client-attorney confidentiality.

This is not a laughing matter nor a minor claim. I would like to see details of the case before I form an opinion on its merit.

There's no such thing as "privileged testimony." Testimony is not confidential unless the judge issues a protective order. The lawsuit is indeed a laughing matter.

 

[Jerry Fritschle]

What is not clear is 'did the eavesdropping occur' or is he suing because of the possibility of eavesdropping occurring?

From my reading, it was the "possibility." The legalese just creates a soundbite that most will hear as "it happened."

 

[iMi]

But Apple is one of the few companies that slams their competitors for lack of privacy protection and brags about having flawless products. This is karma for them.
[doublepost=1548884962][/doublepost]

There's no such thing as "privileged testimony." Testimony is not confidential unless the judge issues a protective order. The lawsuit is indeed a laughing matter.

That is your opinion. I disagree.
[doublepost=1548899763][/doublepost]

how is it that he knows an unknown person was eavesdropping?

Jury will no doubt learn how when they are asked to examine the case. That's why no one should form a firm opinion on the merits of the case until facts become known. If the alleged violation did take place, which testimony and evidence presented may or may not sufficiently support, then this could very well be a legitimate case. They will likely settle without Apple admitting any fault, but who knows...

 

[Tech198]

wow.. the fastest lawsuit raised ever.. Not even 3 weeks has gone buy yet.. No one even wants to gives Apple a chance to fix it by themselves.

If Apple said "We are working on a fix" I wonder would that have changed the outcome of a lawsuit?

Its like hearing "This a serious bug,, we don't have time to wait for a better response"

 

[Diazepam]

What a fraud!

There’s someone who’s seen an opportunity to make money. Lawyers are vile rats.

People constantly looking for loopholes to grab some quick cash/attention they couldn't legitimately earn ... just like the racial discrimination / transgender toilet sign zealots ... sad state of affairs.

 

[I7guy]

That is your opinion. I disagree.
[doublepost=1548899763][/doublepost]

Jury will no doubt learn how when they are asked to examine the case. That's why no one should form a firm opinion on the merits of the case until facts become known. If the alleged violation did take place, which testimony and evidence presented may or may not sufficiently support, then this could very well be a legitimate case. They will likely settle without Apple admitting any fault, but who knows...

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit comes to mind (in other words, the alleged violation took place, but for whatever reason, the case is dismissed). But who knows is correct.

 

[yoz-y]

Just for clarity, this only happens if you don't answer the other parties FaceTime call. Or alternatively you press the power button to try and decline the call by muting/stopping the vibrate function of the iPhone and consequently your video can be seen.

However is it correct to avoid this entirely by rejecting the FaceTime call (i.e. pressing the red decline button) ?

Yes, people can only hear you while your phone is ringing. Which means that he either let the phone buzz during the deposition, or like you said put in on silent. In any case face time can only be initiated from an AppleId so he knows who allegedly snooped on him. And he did sue that person too right? Right?

 

[chineseguy38]

This bug is not something one would do unintentionally. You have to know about it ,in order to exploit it. Bugs like this exist everywhere. The fact that Apple stopped Group FaceTime is a good thing.
[doublepost=1548842033][/doublepost]
Did you talk to Apple Support about this?

Yes they're hopeless. I've the issue since day one I got the Xs and Xs Max

 

[ronno]

So he's admitting to having a prohibited item in the courtroom.

Wrong.
Sworn deposition can happen anywhere, they often happen in peoples private offices, etc.

 

[mi7chy]

The secret recording has been known as early as October 2018 without disclosure. That's what these lawsuits are about, to protect consumers.

 

[DamFu]

Like apple not spending any of their trillions on quality control?

Is that what you meant?

Nice try

 

[cmaier]

Why do americans sue everybody instead of claiming liability for their own mistakes? If this bug did affect the lawyer, it is his fault. His phone isn't allowed in a court room, and if he can't disclose who the person listening in was, there's no proof that they were listening.

Actually, in many court rooms that don’t allow phones, attorneys are allowed to bring phones. I haven’t had to turn in my phone in federal court for a long time. And depositions are not in a court room.

 

[C DM]

Wrong.
Sworn deposition can happen anywhere, they often happen in peoples private offices, etc.

Seems like that's been covered more than a few times in this thread already.