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 Removes Unofficial WikiLeaks Application From App Store [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mattie Num Nums
macrumors 68030
HLdan
macrumors 603
"We removed WikiLeaks because it violated developer guidelines. An app must comply with all local laws. It may not put an individual or target group in harms way."
> An app must comply with all local laws.
agree
> not put an individual or target group in harms way
not too sure... a lot of news puts groups in harms way... it just depends on which group you are in. doesn't it?
P.
> An app must comply with all local laws.
agree
> not put an individual or target group in harms way
not too sure... a lot of news puts groups in harms way... it just depends on which group you are in. doesn't it?
P.
Swift
macrumors 68000
So... the question still is...
What law has Wikileaks broken? Bradley Manning, as the source of the leaks, a member of the US military, has legal problems. But the U.S. has no Official Secrets Act. It has never been found unlawful to publish secrets -- that was the key finding of the Supreme Court in the case of the leaks of the Pentagon Papers, that established that Washington had been lying to us about Vietnam for many years. Do we now have an informal, de facto corporate "Official Secrets" act? News to me.
What law has Wikileaks broken? Bradley Manning, as the source of the leaks, a member of the US military, has legal problems. But the U.S. has no Official Secrets Act. It has never been found unlawful to publish secrets -- that was the key finding of the Supreme Court in the case of the leaks of the Pentagon Papers, that established that Washington had been lying to us about Vietnam for many years. Do we now have an informal, de facto corporate "Official Secrets" act? News to me.
Earendil
macrumors 68000
I don't think anyone is questioning the legality of it. At least not seriously. Most of us are focussed on ethics, a far more fun and vague topic 🙂
I understand why Apple and other corporations are opting out of helping to release this information. That doesn't mean, however, that they are opposed to it being released.
Last edited:
They have put down hundreds of hours into trying to protect civilians, unlike those U.S. soldiers who couldn't wait 20 seconds for a civilian to cross the street before they blew up a building containing three suspected terrorists, killing an innocent bystander.
When such things happen, it is the duty of every honest man to report it so that people can be held responsible.
tatonka
macrumors 6502
Well .. Apple does though, right? I mean they removed the app because it allegedly is not complying with local laws ..
I don't agree with a lot that WikiLeaks or the founder does. But banning the app from the app store seems a weird move. I would have thought Apple had a little more of a backbone there.
T.
Apple doesn't make the law - and whether or not any law is being broken at all is yet to be determined by the folks who do make them.
Smart move to remove the app.
Mattie Num Nums
macrumors 68030
Cool next time there is a gang shoot out in my area, I am going to call a time out so I can get out of the way.
Look we all get what you are trying to say and none of can disagree in principal but come on the real world is a very murky place.
Dmac77
macrumors 68020
I think I just peed myself🙄
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black. Then again you might be a voice recognition soldier, who literally talks a big game.
-Don
Earendil
macrumors 68000
Um, no. You had to have just made that up AND not read through this thread. There are at least two other good reasons, one of which has nothing to do with what the app actually does.[/QUOTE]
A corporation doesn't need a backbone, they need profit. But this has nothing to do with Wikileaks as far as we know.
Mattie Num Nums
macrumors 68030
Just for your information... I was accepted into the Air Force Academy in 1999. Shortly after that my grandmother (who I lived with) was diagnosed with Dimentia. I made the choice to ensure her final 3 years were comfortable instead of in a cold nursing home. My family comes from a long line of soldiers. From WWII, to Korea, Vietnam, etc. When my family came here from Korea they knew what a real tyranny was. When the Japanese came and massacred half of my family they came to America taunted and hated, called Japs, and told to go home. Instead they enlisted to protect a country they thanked for giving them a chance to finally be free.
Honestly the bottom line is that under free speech it's allowed. I can't argue that. I can, however, take issue to the timing and taste of these leaks. While wikileaks is free to publish these (potentially), as many other people have said certain things are meant to be classified, and should stay that way. Transparency is nice, but its naive to assume that everything should be open and revealed.
For example, if you talk bad about your co-workers in the privacy of your home to other friends, do you think its prudent for those conversations to be published for the whole company to see? Those diplomatic cable releases were no different.
Wikileaks isn't doing anything wrong legally, at least according to the last supreme court ruling. Personally I think disseminating classified information should be a crime, but hey, that's just the way it goes. Maybe that policy will change, who knows. As for Pfc Manning, or whoever leaked all of this off of Spirnet, they should be tried for treason. Leaking classified information in the military, especially when you have access, should not be tolerated; I mean wikileaks had to do redaction and vetting for already potentially damaging information.
Just my two cents.
For example, if you talk bad about your co-workers in the privacy of your home to other friends, do you think its prudent for those conversations to be published for the whole company to see? Those diplomatic cable releases were no different.
Wikileaks isn't doing anything wrong legally, at least according to the last supreme court ruling. Personally I think disseminating classified information should be a crime, but hey, that's just the way it goes. Maybe that policy will change, who knows. As for Pfc Manning, or whoever leaked all of this off of Spirnet, they should be tried for treason. Leaking classified information in the military, especially when you have access, should not be tolerated; I mean wikileaks had to do redaction and vetting for already potentially damaging information.
Just my two cents.
res1233
macrumors 65816
Earendil
macrumors 68000
Citation required. Your statement would seem to contradict the results. And in any case, if you think "hundreds" of hours is enough to make it ethical, would you equate a human life to about a hundred hours of work?
1. In a court of law, what "Some other guy did" might help you justify your case. But since we aren't talking about law, but what is "Right", it's irrelevant what a soldier did someplace. In Ethics, it matters not that someone else did something worse, but what YOU do.
2. A guy held up in a server room with al the time in the world, and the decisions he makes, is not comparable to what a soldier faces in the heat of battle. Now, whether they should be in there in the first place is a different debate, but as far as a single human, and a single decision goes, I do not think the two are remotely comparable. And even IF they were comparable, see point #1.
Yes sir. But me reporting a crime that you committed does not equate to me publishing your diary and financial records to the world. There is a sharp line there. I'm not sure why no one can see this. Wikileaks should have used some common sense and discretion. The lack of any sort of care for the effect (which is what an unedited spam of information equates to) is negligent and unethical. If a lawyer spammed that much irrelevant information to a court room when trying to prove a case, the judge would throw the lawyer out of court.
Earendil
macrumors 68000
I stand somewhat corrected. It would be nice if you had provided that in your initial post. That you didn't still implies to me that you had not read through the thread. In any case, if that is their reasoning than it still has nothing to do with wikileaks and that it is top secret documents. It just shows that wikileaks made an ethical mistake and other companies, with the law behind them, are not joining in.
If Wikileaks had synthesized the data down to just the illegal government acts, and taken the time to hold in reserve information that could cause another person harm or death until a trial was in place, than Apple would have nothing to stand behind. Instead wikileaks, in a grand case of not giving a frack, spammed everything in its entirety.
Not one soldier or person as been killed by the information wikileaks has released. All you hear from big brother is a script that's released anytime anything is leaked. Oh, wait. I guess Hilary Clinton was embarrassed by it
res1233
macrumors 65816
I agree. There is a point at which they've gone too far. The media in general doesn't seem to even remember the days when they would limit themselves to what was RIGHT to report, as opposed to what they CAN report. Nowadays, they'll do anything for a story, regardless of who they hurt, and that is unethical.