Again, that's nonsense. Unauthorized use of a computer system is illegal. I don't even need to password protect it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Puts a Stop to Beeper Mini's iMessage for Android Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My understanding is that merely accessing a computer, even without authorization, is not illegal under the CFAA, since the various articles in the CFAA typically require additional criteria to apply. This is one of the reasons why scraping is in itself not illegal even though the "host" might consider the access "unauthorized".
By reading the CFAA articles, the way I read them almost none apply since the access was not done to obtain privileged information, purposefully or recklessly cause damage etc... but IMHO articles 4) or 6) can actually apply.
Both require the "intent to defraud" though and it's my understanding that's often a point open to interpretation. That's also why scraping, while usually legal, can be illegal if that "intent to commit fraud" is established.
Said that, by reading the CFAA more in detail I do have a revised opinion and while I still think it's not a clear-cut case I do believe there is a fair chance the access was illegal under one of the 2 articles mentioned above.
Last edited:
Sure, but they aren't "merely accessing a computer". The fraudulently obtained credentials by their own admission, and used those credentials to access (at a minimum) users' public keys (privileged information), store user information, and commercialize the servers bandwidth and processing.
This situation is far away from any gray area.
But why exchange images and videos through messaging?
You should check out the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA):
(a) Whoever—
[...]
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
[...]
(C) information from any protected computer;
It has become very broad and a "protected computer" in practise applies to every Internet-connected device.
How many of those comments are serious though? Seems more like trolling to me. TBH, I don’t think teenagers care about Apple products as much as Gene Munster thinks they do.
If it’s publicly exposed it’s not “breaking in” to interact with the API….
Look, I work on a platform that has approximately the same scale as Apple’s notification network, possibly bigger (yes, really), and if we operated they way you think things should go the company’s legal team would have to like quadruple. The company could afford it, but there’s no real point. When something is exposed intentionally and gets used in a way we’d prefer it not be (not illegal use, just a way we arent intending the service to be used or linked to) we either block the use/user/traffic pattern or move to more auth on the endpoint.
But there’s no real point to responding legally, if the API endpoint is exposed and the auth requirement isnt sufficient to stop the unintended use that’s on us, not the person who figured out how to use it.
That’s how Apple responded, I doubt they’ll even *attempt* to pursue a dubious legal avenue, I doubt even more they’d succeed if they did pursue it.
Last edited:
That’s just nonsense. My bank’s website is publicly exposed. That doesn’t mean I can fake credentials to access it and call it “interacting with the API.”
Not at all. I’m not a part of a group literally upset over a color of a text message.
Again what lock in. Many people have literally switched from iOS to android lmao. There is no lock-in. If I for some reason lost my mind and decided to go android again, I’m free to do so.
I also own a galaxy and iPhone. Samsung is nowhere near Apple
The law deals with authorisation and not with how the computer was protected or not.
Please quote the posts from people (non-iOS users) in these Beeper threads stating they are upset at the color of their texts. I’ll eat my words at that point.
Spoiler alert- there are none.
Spoiler alert: I’m not doing the leg work for you. I. This thread as well as the other countless beeper threads they have literally complained about the color of texts for some perceived bullying and also because they feel they are less desirable to women for using android.
Just because you’re not ranting about it doesn’t mean I pulled that out of thin air. It’s literally on the forum.
What beverage would you like Since you’re eating your words?
Kids aren’t being bullied over a color. Any comments you see here about green is mainly people shocked that grown men and women care about a color of a text message on a phone and how others perceive them.
Lol. I've read those threads, no one is complaining about their texts being green. I wasn't talking about grown adults being bullied and excluded, I was talking about kids and teens in the U.S. I'm not going there anymore, it's pointless.
I'm enjoying my morning DD Midnight with some cream and chocolate syrup, it's quite tasty.
They are literally complaining about how they sssume iPhone users see them due to the color
Of their text messages aka to it being green. Even with RCS coming, they feel entitled to iMessage so they can be and show up as blue.
I’ll have to give that a try.
Charging doesn’t make a difference to the law they’re protected by, so that’s irrelevant.
That’s your opinion, not a fact, so please don’t portray it as such, as it’s immature.
Both OS’s have their pros & cons, and both OS’s are mature and pretty equal enough in feature that it’s more down to each users personal preference.
That's certainly a vague and unsupported claim. What law protects companies who hack into their competitor's infrastructure to use their private servers to store and process data while profiting off their bandwidth?
Exactly what I’m saying, it’s allowing a non-paying, non-iPhone user to access a service that Apple pays for. The equation ”as intended“ is for all users to pay for the service, it just 50% of them.
Thats like having a vending machine spit out 2 items for every purchase and being like “well the paying customer is in the equation as intended“
FaceTime isn't even supported now. So now you're going to have SMS people, RCS people in the near future, iMessage (beeper) people, and iMessage people each with different functionalities.
And when it inevitably breaks, all the existing conversations need to start over into new threads to convert back to either SMS or the future RCS implementation.
Like I said, step it through in your head and see the user story. It's a confusing mess. Just look at what happened now, it looks like now beeper resolved the issue by not using phone numbers. So what happens to the existing phone number threads? I have no idea.
What's more embarrassing is EU thinking they can continuously overstep their authority.
Only a matter of time before Apple decides to just nerf their products or move out of EU completely. We already see this with Tesla customers demanding for less regulation.
So you believe private corporations should have a higher authority than states?
Your vending machine analogy is lame. This would be proving a better experience to the iPhone user. The fact the android user on the other end gets a better experience as well costs Apple no extra money unlike your example. If you're just trying to protect some exclusive club status then by all means keep this stance. Cost is not the reason Apple won't all this though.