Apple Rumor Casualty...

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by jeffff
This is a critical point.

If I drive my car to a public parking lot and accidentally leave it unlocked, am I granting anyone the right to enter it?

If I set my lunch box on a picnic table and walk away for a moment, does that give anyone the right to open it?

One might say, 'You'd be a fool to do those things, because people will steal from you in an instant!'

Correct. They will steal.

In a very few years, the internet will be regulated like the public place that it is. We don't live in an anarchy, we live in a democracy, and people will soon demand a minimum of protection.

Let's face it, no one would go downtown to a baseball game if there weren't cops around.

You are talking information, not physical property.

If you paint your name on the mailbox, are you going to be pissed that someone knows your name?

If you use a credit card to buy gifts for your mistress, are you going to be pissed your wife finds out? And what if it's her account to begin with?

If you put a bunch of photos, mp3s, movies on the web for people to look at and copy, are you going to be pissed that they look through every folder you leave open?

Is a company going to be pissed that you leave a super secret widget covered by a NDA in plain view on the front seat of your car in a newspapers parking lot?

What happens if you take the new Chrysler prototype car out to lunch to impress the babes? Hope the plaque in braille that warns to not take picture works, even if you left it in the trunk...

If you leave directory browsing enabled, and leave your website 100% open with no html front-end -- where's the line between public and private?

Oh that's right, it's private because you haven't told anyone about it -- but you did leave a link back to it on slashdot. 😉

[edit - left out a word, while information is a form of property, it gets a little harder to define when you go to the police station]

 

[kettle]

Originally posted by longday


OMG That whole comment was tongue in cheek, you're trippin.

ditto

except I'm assuming you're dim rather than on drugs

 

[jante99]

About this open webserver issue. Some companies have sued people for accessing information on a webserver that is not directly available (like in this case) under the DMCA. But in my opinion these are really stupid lawsuits.

Adam really does not have a case for sueing pbzone though since pbzone was acting as a journalists. Since Adam broke his NDA he broke the law. This instantly makes him a public figure and hence can be covered by the news media.

Also if you read the pbzone they clearly state that Apple already knew about the postings since the pictures were originally found by other Apple employees. Adam was caught even before the pbzone knew about the pictures. Pbzone is not to blame.

This hoepfuly proves once and for all that NDA are real and if you break them you will be fired.

 

[Sayer]

Warning: Stupidity Alert!

I have some problems with his "story."

First of all why did he screenshot various internal software that Apple uses for tracking repairs of Mac hardware? Software that manages lots of personal information about the customers of Apple Computer, Inc.

The guy states that in addition to screenshots of the Apple software displaying his own information "I had one screenshot of open repairs for the store, but all the names and SNs were blured out." So he realized that *someone* other than himself would see these images and thus obscurred serial numbers and names to protect this info. Innocent victim my ass.

Why were these screenshots saved to a directory on a WEB SERVER? Just about any directory on a web server can be accessed publicly even if there is no HTML file located within. In fact without an HTML file you get a nifty directory content listing!

From this guy's posts he's obviously web server (Apache)-savvy including bits like these: " looked at the virga.log from apache" and "I grep'd the access_log." and also " even null routed anything in the 17.0.0.0/8 block." All of these tasks are performed by UNIX-savvy Apache web server users, not dumb "I can barely turn on my Mac let alone upload a folder of blurred screenshots of Apple internal software and info" people.

So how did he goof up and put screenshots in a publicly accessable directory on his personal, fully public, web server which he linked to in a post to the largest geek news site in the world (thereby assuring lots of web-server savvy people would see it)?

Frankly I have no respect for this guy. He was a complete and utter dumbass for doing what he did. He knew he was doing *something* wrong because he obscurred info in the screenshots (if only he saw them why would he need to obscure the info?). And he obviously knows his way around an Apaache-based web server including which directories are publicly available.

Bravo guy! Hopefully you won't take a job at the FBI or other government agency any time soon and upload troop movement information to another public web server directory and post a link to the server on an Iraqi message board.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

For some reason society no longer wants to look at things as right or wrong. They want to blame everyone and their mother except for the person screwing up. Just like good old Saddam. Lets give this a million shades of grey instead of just say Saddam you are screwing UP. This is the same, he screwed up! Black and white. Sounds like he was a good worker though and if so he will find work!

 

[jeffff]

Re: Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by Sun Baked
You are talking information, not property.

Some information is property. Apple's actions clearly demonstrate that!

Adam has suffered monetary damages. Whether or not he is truly negligent may be determined by a jury. I'll bet on Adam.

Personally, I hope PBZone has to spend a bundle to defend themselves. An ambitious lawyer might take up Adam's cause on a contingency basis.

This case has all the makings of a big-time trial: 1) A name brand player (Apple), 2) A babe-in-the-woods (Adam), 3) A malicious fiend (PBZ), 4) The bigotry angle (Cha-Ching), 5) Internet Privacy.

I can't wait for the headlines!

 

[arn]

hey all...

everyone's entitled to their opinion... however, let's not make this into a "witch hunt" of sorts.

arn

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jante99
Since Adam broke his NDA he broke the law. This instantly makes him a public figure and hence can be covered by the news media.

He didn't break any law, he violated a contract.
He suffered the consequences of that error. If Apple could prove he did what he did on purpose with malice, and it cost them money they could sue him for damages, but in this case, I'd say the only who'll lose money is him. Stop categorizing him as a criminal.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me For some reason society no longer wants to look at things as right or wrong... Black and white...

Really? I'd say things were the other way around. Most people like things to be black and white, good and evil, right and wrong. People like a fairy tale with its clearly defined villain and for things to be simple so they don't have to think about mitigating factors or silly things like evidence and proof.
When someone steps in and calls for reason and further discussion, the simpletons accuse them of supporting evil or being cowards and dismiss them.

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by jeffff
Some information is property. Apple's actions clearly demonstrate that!

Yeah, I had caught that before you posted.

In your example...

If you leave the car door open and catch someone entering the car to take the stereo and the $100 on the front seat, it's real easy to go to have the guy arrested.

However, if you leave a page of sensitive information on the front seat and someone takes a photo of it -- they may have "potentially" stolen far more than a few hundred bucks. But try getting a police office to arrest a guy for taking a photo of your car.

Can't really use the physical property angle to describe information.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Re: It won't do much but...

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Send a petition to Apple requesting an apology:


http://www.petitiononline.com/apple123/petition.html

Include what Apple products you own--Tell them Apple enthusiasts are the reason they exist.

I'm not signing a petition for a guy who posts internal material to the web like that. I don't understand why it was even on the web as such either if it was personal. Besides, he's not much of a computer-science student if he couldn't tell that that was in a public directory. PBZone may have linked it, which is questionable, but this kid knew what he was doing and got caught with his pants down. Having had similar information a couple years ago when I worked for IBM, I always handled internal docs and info with great care. Besides, if you truly like the company you're working for, why would you want to post internal info that could weaken competitive advantage. You might think it's harmless, but you have no idea what a comptetitor might think. If anyone should issue an apology, Adam should issue one to Apple.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by xDANx
as adam described in his weblog, the screenshots he took were of an application called 'vantive' which is a database application that apple uses to track customer information, purchases, serial numbers, applecare info, etc. if you've ever called apple for tech support or to buy something then whatever personal information you gave is stored in that database. the main issue with posting screenshots of vantive is that it could violate apple's privacy policies by having sensitive customer information posted on the web. adam claimed in his weblog that the vantive screens were of his own personal information...which probably makes no legal difference in apple's eyes, but makes the whole thing seem pretty insignificant in general. not that managing to have those images viewed by someone who has the capacity to fire him was a great display of common sense, but it's hardly a huge offense.

as for apple's reaction, i don't find it surprising or inconsistent. i worked for them doing frontline technical support on the phone for about a year and they are not a nice bunch of people. while i admire the products they create, i find that they treat their employees with serious disrespect. a huge portion of apple's tech support is contracted out to firms specializing in phone based customer support (such as the one i worked for)...contracting out benefits everyone but the actual employees. we were instructed to lie to customers if they asked us any questions related to who we actually worked for...as far as anyone who called in knew, they were talking to someone who worked directly for apple. getting threatening e-mails sent to all employees about keeping our mouths shut when we left work was not uncommon. the point is that apple's reaction to adam's indiscretion is fully consistent with how they treat their employees in general, and not very fair.

and BTW, it's been over a year since i worked for apple and so my non-disclosure agreement so longer applies.

Contracting out tech support info is common practice - as is making people unaware of it. IBM did it when I worked for them, still does. The big companies usually aren't the ones that ensure people stick to the NDA, it's the small companies. Why? Because they have a big NDA with the compmany they contracted out to. They don't want you to do anything because if you do, they'll get sued by Apple and lose the contract.

I know people who actually work for Apple in Cupertino. They love it. They get to refer to Jobs simply as Steve, and they are encouraged to enjoy what they do. It's never the same when working for a contractor. That's because the contractors are too busy worrying about their margins and $$$.

 

[jeffff]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by Sun Baked
...if you leave a page of sensitive information on the front seat and someone takes a photo of it -- they may have "potentially" stolen far more than a few hundred bucks. But try getting a police office to arrest a guy for taking a photo of your car.

That's true, you won't be able to get a police officer to arrest him. But you can certainly use the legal system, particularly if that person has caused you monetary damages as a result of their actions.

In your example, if the person taking that photo causes you to lose your job as a result of the photo, and their actions are furthermore on the public record, the photographer could well be liable. Don't forget, there are real damages here.

I think this case is actionable. Let PBZone prove they did no wrong in a court of law. Adam has nothing to lose, if he can get an ambitious lawyer to take his case.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by MacWhispers
This whole incident raises an important question.

Just what are the rights to materials many of us have posted on our web servers? Does the fact that they are "accessible" make them public property?

I, briefly, failed to have an index.html file in my root directory a couple of weeks ago, inadvertently leaving all of my files there open to simple browser access. That's fixed now. But, during that two-day period, did the whole world have a "right" to rummage through everything there, grab whatever they might want, post direct links to those files?...

What ever happened to the concept of "permission?"

Just because I can gain "access" to a place does not somehow empower me with the "right" to be there.

If my neighbors go to work and forget to lock their home, does that give me the right to enter their house and begin rummaging through their property?

This is a challenging idea, one that bores straight to the root of the nature of the internet.

I, personally, don't believe being crafty enough to enter a place without the owner's permission somehow embues me with the right to do so.

I am startled by people who post here with comments based around the idea that, "If he was silly enough to have th files on his server..." Whoa... hold on a minute... Are these people claiming that, if someone has property in their house, and leaves the garage door open, everybody in the world is somehow entitled to enter, plunder, and publish?

This whole line of faulty reasoning scares me.

Folks, the last time I checked, I could have a chair sitting just inside a glass window at the front of my house, one that everyone walking by could see; and, I could have my front door unlocked, and not be at home. If you walk by under these circumstances, is that then (somehow) your chair?

I think this is an important issue. What do you think?

The home analogy doesn't apply to the internet. You own your home (or at least are making payments to eventually own it). I'm sure you'd find that courts would rule that any unprotected data is open for public consumption.

Also, if you do leave your home unlocked, how likely is it that insurance would pay if something is stolen? How serious would police take you? Not very. If you leave your house unlocked then you are negligent, even if it is an accident - and you may not recover anything that is taken. Same goes for the web. If someone hacks in, then it is illegal. If you leave things open, tough luck. I believe legal precedent may have already been established on this one. Adam got caught making things public that he ought not to have. Why post these pics on a server? They seem to have had been there for awhile. If he was worth anything, then he would have realised they were public. I for one don't post private stuff and not check where I've put it - just like I always check that my car or house door is locked when I leave. PBZone should have been more discreet, but Adam's stuff comes up on a google search for Apple Internal. All his info is right there. If a rumors site posted this info without names, locations, etc then people could have found it anyways.

 

[jeffff]

Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
If you leave your house unlocked then you are negligent, even if it is an accident - and you may not recover anything that is taken.

What country do you live in? U.S. citizens enjoy much more protection than that. In the U.S., you cannot enter someone's home without their permission. Locks have nothing to do with it. Nothing.

I guess, in your example, I can just tell the police that I'm not a burglar, because the door was unlocked. Good plan!

 

[Sun Baked]

Re: Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by jeffff


What country do you live in? U.S. citizens enjoy much more protection than that. In the U.S., you cannot enter someone's home without their permission. Locks have nothing to do with it. Nothing.

I guess, in your example, I can just tell the police that I'm not a burglar, because the door was unlocked. Good plan!

Don't move in, just hunt for the deed and sell the house next time they're on vacation. 😀 😛

[edit - sorry meant deed, but it's happened quite a few times here. 🙁]

 

[Roger1]

Seriously... aren't all mac users gay? I got my girlfriend a powerbook for Christmas and I've caught her oogling some girls now.

Coincidance? I think not.

Maybe you two can find one to share😉...looking, that is.

 

[Sasha-1]

Re: Re: What I wanna know...

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy


Originally posted by MacWhispers
What a horror story...

I debate whether to post here or not, for fear of it seeming self-serving. But, I have to comment that a high-traffic Mac site, news, rumor, whatever format, has a tremendous power to screw up people's lives. At MacWhispers, I, literally, base every single item I publish on direct conversations with people working in the Mac supplier pipeline. A while back, I, personally, got creamed by some ugly web publicity, fostered by a high-traffic Mac site. I know how painful that can be. Now, I'm blessed to host a site pulling around 30,000 unique visitors each day; and, I take the responsibility that entails very, very seriously.

PBZone should never have run this young man's identity, nor posted direct links to his personal server space. And, while I'm venting, here's another one: no reputable site should have ever posted FTP security access instructions to the Toshiba storage site last week. I had the same information, but chose not to post the information, as nobody from Toshiba had given me permission to do so. If a directory sits behind a password, it is not "public information."

The tone of the article here is right: There is indeed a rabid, almost viscious intensity to the quest for Apple related product information. Understood. However, there simply must remain some bit of huma kindness, decency, and ethics in pursuing that chase. Information is neat, sure. But screwing a living, breathing person for that information flat isn't right, and it's not in the Mac community ethos to which I and all of my long time Mac friends subscribe.

PBZone was wrong.

MacWhispers, as much as I enjoy your site, you couldn't be more wrong. None of these rumor sites have Apple's permission to post any of this stuff. Think Secret leaves a anonymous email link. You, yourself go to people who do not have the permission of their employment to speak to you. Ethics my @ss, none of you have ethics. It is okay for me to speculate based on my own opinion. Some make great observations and can come close to the mark. Speculation is very fun, but I also know people at Apple and I have yet to ever ask them a single question about anything related to Apple. I don't play that game where I ask them to anonymously tell me something. I don't invite people to break their NDA. I don't invite so called people who overheard something that never signed an NDA to speak to me. That's just a bunch of bull and you know it.

If you ask me, you guys are the problem. You invite this on to yourselves because I guess you think you are special some how. You guys make a business out of releasing information you should have at all. PBZone does exactly what you guys do. You're not in this for anyone but yourselves. You want hits, you want the money and you want the popularity.

Why don't you focus more on helping the Macintosh community than spewing out this trash.

By the way, sorry to say this, I think Adam has some talent there and I hate to see this sort of thing happen, but come on, taking screen shots of corporate systems... If he didn't know he was screwing himself, he ought not work for Apple. As if he didn't know how private they try to be. If anything, I wouldn't want a kid like that working for me either. So he decides what to blur and what not to blur in an image? I don't think so... He should not be taking snap shots of anything and posting them anywhere, end of story. Heaven knows what someone with his thinking would do had he come across real information of new products. He is simply not using his head. At Apple, that is a bad thing, plain and simple.

 

[arn]

Re: Re: Re: What I wanna know...

Originally posted by sfoalex

If you ask me, you guys are the problem. You invite this on to yourselves because I guess you think you are special some how. You guys make a business out of releasing information you should have at all. PBZone does exactly what you guys do. You're not in this for anyone but yourselves. You want hits, you want the money and you want the popularity.

Why don't you focus more on helping the Macintosh community than spewing out this trash.

This is a topic I've thought about a lot...

First of all.... the info posted on PBZone could have been posted anywhere. If I had received a link for screenshots... I certainly may have posted a link to them. On a personal note, I would not have if I had known they were accidentally posted by an Apple Store employee... nor would I have posted his personal info... mostly because I don't want anyone to get fired... or sued. etc...

That being said... frequently, other "leaked" items are posted... such as the 20.1" LCD Specs on TCO's site... do I know for sure that someone at TCO didn't get fired over that? I kinda doubt it... but I don't actually know for sure.

What this comes down to is the ethics of rumor sites...

I guess I feel that rumor sites exist because of intense interest in Apple.... not the other way around. This sort of rumor-hunger was not created from rumor sites. Rumor sites are the product of the interest.

That being said... rumor sites are the low end part of that which is journalism. I'm not saying it's noble or anything... but the same issues you'd run into with any news source. Are there not news stories from sources which could get people fired? It's not isolated to "rumor" sites. For example, if George Bush accidently left some controversial documents exposed on his personal website... you can be sure the mainstream media would pick it up... and whoever does his web work would likely get fired.

I guess in the end, people should expect to be responsible for what they post to the public... that being said... I do think sites (including rumor and other) do have a responsbility to not maliciously link or try to expose people in an effort to "hurt" them (by getting them fired). Obviously, depending on the webmaster, your milage will vary.

arn

 

[pseudobrit]

Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
Also, if you do leave your home unlocked, how likely is it that insurance would pay if something is stolen? How serious would police take you? Not very. If you leave your house unlocked then you are negligent, even if it is an accident - and you may not recover anything that is taken.

That's one of the saddest things I think I've ever heard. Not to mention a ridiculous notion.

No one is supposed to enter your house illegally. Insurance will pay if your house is broken into, regardless of whether or not you've taken steps to secure it. See Bowling for Columbine and see why it's sick that we feel the need to lock our doors all the time.

Insurance will also pay if your car is stolen when you've left the keys in it, by the way.

The police would take any burglary where someone left their doors unlocked just as seriously as one where someone had to defeat a thousand-dollar security system and tranquilize a dog. Theft is theft and you should not have to take steps to secure your property to enjoy equal protection under the law.

In this case, however, the information was made available to the public on a publicly browsable site, which makes the argument of breaking and entering null.

I've seen leaked screenshots of Jaguar, and in those cases, the website had removed all pertinent data from the shot and simply cropped the pictures to show the relevant window, but most importantly, the website DID NOT link to the information but hosted it themselves.

I think if pbzone would have downloaded the screenshots, notified the man of his publicly available sensitive information and told them they were going to release the images to the public, he would have had a chance to remove them from his site (and maybe saved the guy).

pbzone woud have been able to release cropped pictures of the apps and they STILL would have gotten a scoop, but no heads would have rolled.

His cover story that Apple already found out is not logical.

 

[bertinman]

sorry if this has already been talked about...

but if he took screen shots AT WORK, how did they get to his HOME computer? I think that would be reason enough for me to fire him if I was his boss. Company info should not go home. Seperate work and play.

Also, he proved his untrustworthyness by saying he'd lie to anyone who didn't know, and say he wanted to leave and he wasn't fired. I'd be glad I fired him, and tell others not too.

Now that the tech industry is slowing down, TONs of people are wiz coders, and companies are more competitive A coder who is not trustworthy is not a good idea.

2cents...

-- bert

 

[reiggin]

Originally posted by Arcady


I have met the guy who runs it. I have pictures of him from a party at macworld. However, I would not post them, or any of his information, because I don't want to be an ass like he has been.

Funny part: One picture has him and Ryan Meader in it. Two jerks in one picture!

Oh, I'd have to vote for that one as a MacRumors picture of the year... I can see the caption now... "Two guys who don't know diddly about running a website."

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Re: Re: It won't do much but...

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto


I'm not signing a petition for a guy who posts internal material to the web like that. I don't understand why it was even on the web as such either if it was personal. Besides, he's not much of a computer-science student if he couldn't tell that that was in a public directory. PBZone may have linked it, which is questionable, but this kid knew what he was doing and got caught with his pants down. Having had similar information a couple years ago when I worked for IBM, I always handled internal docs and info with great care. Besides, if you truly like the company you're working for, why would you want to post internal info that could weaken competitive advantage. You might think it's harmless, but you have no idea what a comptetitor might think. If anyone should issue an apology, Adam should issue one to Apple.

I agree with mcphisto apple doesnt have anything to apologize for? for enforcing their own rules and policies? please here we go again blame any and everyone but the one doing wrong. I know this is to simple of an idea for all those complex minds out there sorry.

 

[tsugaru]

Originally posted by xDANx
as adam described in his weblog, the screenshots he took were of an application called 'vantive' which is a database application that apple uses to track customer information...

I worked for Hewlett Packard over a year ago, so my confidentiality agreement is over with them. HP also uses Vantive (which is a horrible program) which ran on Windows. I wasn't aware that Vantive ran on Macintosh (if the Apple Tech people use Macs there.)

 

[janey]

Re: Re: Re: What is "private?"

Originally posted by jeffff
What country do you live in? U.S. citizens enjoy much more protection than that. In the U.S., you cannot enter someone's home without their permission. Locks have nothing to do with it. Nothing. I guess, in your example, I can just tell the police that I'm not a burglar, because the door was unlocked. Good plan!

Not necessarily true (true when you're talking about ordinary people though)...US citizens are protected from unreasonable searches (by government officials) by the Constitution. However, under the USA Patriot Act, which in itself is slightly unconstitutional, the federal and state governments have the right to search anything they want, do anything they want.
Why are you guys picking on the poor guy? He didn't know that those screenshots were even readily accessible and pbzone had no right to post those screenshots and his name as well. And even if he broke his NDA, Apple should have understood. It's not like he told EVERYONE that those pictures even existed. And I also find the NDA to be really pointless because a lot of people (unbeknownst to Apple) break their NDA's.

 

[GeeYouEye]

What Adam did could, at best, be described as negligent, and at worst as downright stupid. He should have at least checked to make sure that that folder was completely secured.

However, what PBZone did was completely out of line. One does not post personal information on a rumors site, even if they have been assured that the person has already been fired. In this case, either their contact who informed them of the imminent firing could have been either wrong or malicious, and that's if I buy that story from PBZ, which I don't.