Apple Wins Lawsuit Over Group FaceTime Eavesdropping Bug

[gnasher729]

I have many things I dislike about Apple, but I'm also a software developer and I know from hard experience that even the best testing strategies and the most stringent code reviews cannot catch EVERY bug. I'm in total agreement with this decision.

Developers are usually told what their software is supposed to do, and that's what they develop, and that's what their code does, and that's what your code review checks. And then the testing checks that it indeed does what it is supposed to do, and you think it's fine.

If two people are in a Facetime call, a third one is supposed to be able to join the call (if the two agree, and not without them noticing). That's what went wrong, someone managed to join a call without the others being asked and noticing. There was no code that _did_ this. There was nothing wrong with the code that was there. The problem was that some code was _missing_ to prevent this from happening. That's much harder to prevent.

 

[eternlgladiator]

I have many things I dislike about Apple, but I'm also a software developer and I know from hard experience that even the best testing strategies and the most stringent code reviews cannot catch EVERY bug. I'm in total agreement with this decision.

This is one of the problems with our world today. As soon as something goes wrong, there's a line of people waiting to accuse you of negligence and malice. It's a wonder anyone actually gets ahead in the world today.

Even if someone - a single person or a very small group - within Apple deliberately introduced a bug that could be misused, it's hardly fair to blame the entire corporation. To make a claim like this you'd have to be able to claim that Apple, as a company, deliberately and with full knowledge introduced and pushed a bug that allowed eavesdropping. And you'd also have to be able to say it was Apple's own decision (i.e. not because of government coercion). Even though I disagree with many of Apple's business practices, I can't believe the company would approve that willingly and knowingly.

We need to stop assuming everyone is out to get us, that everyone is deliberately acting against us. Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes you have to fix your mistake. But it's not fair to accuse anyone of malice when the fact is that it was just a mistake.

Of course, the problem with our legal system - and with any system for that matter - is that unless someone stupidly admitted in a recording or letter that they were acting maliciously, you cannot prove what was going through anyone's head.

While I agree, I think one step back could be the right position. Yes mistakes happen and I have no doubt that's all this was. However, his case might have had some legs if Apple had knowing not made attempts to fix it. Again I doubt that's the case and I'm sure they were able to quickly and easily prove that it was given priority as soon as it was found. If I remember correctly this took about a week to fix from when it was found. Even then this case is obviously an attempt to get rich quick but we should be careful giving large corps the benefit of the doubt. I know Apple has publicly been a big proponent of privacy rights but they serve share holders at the end of the day and we should still be allowed to scrutinize them to some degree.

 

[AngerDanger]

Finally! The amount of painful **** I've heard my "friends" say about me when I gave this bug a whirl was so sad…

 

[I7guy]

These frivolous lawsuits make it harder for legitimate lawsuits to be taken seriously, such as Apple intentionally slowing down phones due to a design defect, hiding it, then lying about it when discovered.

No design defect, surely like the note 7. That was a design defect. The lawsuit is/would be no more legitimate than this...

 

[realtuner]

It was a bug, not an intentional way to spy. In developing software, sometimes **** just happens. You can't catch every bug when you're dealing with infinitely complex software.

True.

Further, this shows how many people who commented on this ARE NOT developers. Any developer could easily come up with a scenario to explain how this happened. Here's two theoretical methods I came up with to connect FaceTime calls, with one being susceptible to the bug:

Scenario One:

• Person initiates a FaceTime call on iPhone A to iPhone B.
  
• iPhone A connects to the server and requests connection.
• Server contacts iPhone B and requests a FaceTime call.
• iPhone B puts up the FaceTime dialog to allow the person to answer or decline the call.
  
• If iPhone B declines the call, a message gets sent back through the server to iPhone A notifying them of the declined call.
  
• If iPhone B accepts the call, it starts a connection back to the server to stream audio/video.
• iPhone A is notified of the accepted call, starts receiving the stream from iPhone B, and it also creates a streaming connection back to the server for audio/video.
• iPhone B starts receiving the audio/video stream from iPhone A.
• When either person ends the call all streaming is stopped and both iPhones are dis-connected from the server.

The problem we're having with this is the delay between each iPhone starting to stream and connecting the the server. This manifests itself as a wait of a couple seconds before each party can see/hear the other person. Developers are asked to speed this process up.

Scenario Two: Faster Connections.

• iPhone A initiates a FaceTime call.
• iPhone A immediately starts streaming audio/video to the server.
• The server connects to iPhone B and requests a FaceTime call.
• iPhone B, upon receiving this request also immediately starts streaming audio/video back to iPhone A via the server.
  
• On both iPhones the audio/video stream is kept muted for privacy until the call is accepted.
  
• When iPhone B accepts the call the audio/video stream is immediately un-muted and both parties have an instant audio/video connection.
• If iPhone B declines the call both iPhones cease streaming audio/video and end their connection.

Pretty simple. In an effort to make connections appear fast & seamless the streaming is initiated right away, but kept hidden until someone answers. The bug probably occurred when they added a second person and the system accidentally took that to mean the request was accepted, hence the audio/video being un-muted and the first person seeing the stream from the second person.


So, a simple bug inside a feature intended to speed up connections resulted in someone's stream being un-muted when it wasn't supposed to.

 

[Gutwrench]

The problem was that some code was _missing... That's much harder to prevent.

Like a missing fetch? Oh, was I suppose to fetch data?

 

[lkrupp]

Apple did not "win" the lawsuit. The court dismissed the complaint on a "without prejudice" basis. For non-lawyers, that means that plaintiff's complaint had defects, but he's allowed to correct those defects and re-file.

A "win" would be a dismissal with prejudice. That's not what happened here.

He has until June 7 to refile or it probably will be dismissed with prejudice. But he was unable to convince the judge in the first claim so I don’t know what he could do to change that. Was he able to prove confidential conversations were indeed eavesdropped upon? I don't think so. So for all intents this is a win for Apple no matter the spin applied.

 

[tito2020]

While the bug was nasty, it did not warrant a lawsuit. He was just looking to get rich quick.

No one will win against apple even these repair to fix people all over social media.

 

[white4s]

The entire legal system is a joke.

Especially here in NJ. Criminals are being let go left and right.

 

[coolfactor]

These frivolous lawsuits make it harder for legitimate lawsuits to be taken seriously, such as Apple intentionally slowing down phones due to a design defect, hiding it, then lying about it when discovered.

I see what you did there.

I truly believe Apple was acting in the best interest of users. Was it a perfect situation? No, but I don't think they were intentionally trying to harm anyone in any way. Quite the opposite. But too many people feel they were somehow "ripped off" by the strategy. Apple did not lie. Prove that.

 

[2010mini]

The entire legal system is a joke.

Explain.

Because as I see it, the legal worked exactly how it is supposed to.

Person A has a grievance against person B.

Person A petitions the court for restitution from person B.

Person A wins or loses if they present their case successfully.

 

[s15119]

yeah, if I could sue for computer bugs, I'd be a wealthy man.

 

[dlim1027]

I can't speak for the OP, but he's probably saying so because there doesn't seem to be consequences for filing frivolous law suits. At the very least, the plaintiff should be charged with the defendants legal expenses and court costs. Some might argue that if that happens, poor victims won't be able to get justice - to that I say "nonsense". If they have a legitimate case, the current system in which their lawyer gets a portion of proceeds - still works.

There is... It's called Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I don't know why others are saying the legal system is broken--it worked as intended, tossing a weak suit before being decided on the merits.

By the way, the court in this case is allowing the plaintiff to amend his complaint (to allege sufficient facts). Apple has not won definitively here. Depending on the amended complaint, this case could be decided on the merits, which means the plaintiff still has a chance. Headline is a bit misleading.

 

[twolf2919]

Explain.
Because as I see it, the legal worked exactly how it is supposed to.
Person A has a grievance against person B.
Person A petitions the court for restitution from person B.
Person A wins or loses if they present their case successfully.

Your definition/scenario doesn't take into consideration the cost, to both the tax payer (court costs) and the defendant (lawyer) when Person A doesn't really have a grievance, but sees an opportunity to profit.

 

[Plutonius]

Williams should have to pay court cost and the cost of Apple's lawyer.

The US needs Tort reform to cut down on frivolous lawsuits.

 

[apolloa]

Apple... the ones who believe in privacy, unless it’s their buggy software allowing anyone to spy on you....

I hope the plaintiff can get their act together and produce a decent case against Apple.

[doublepost=1557519540][/doublepost]

It was a bug, not an intentional way to spy. In developing software, sometimes **** just happens. You can't catch every bug when you're dealing with infinitely complex software.

Just wondering, do you have the same opinion when the company involved is not Apple? Curious as many Apple fans don’t have that same opinion of anyone else who isn’t Apple..

 

[yaxomoxay]

I can't speak for the OP, but he's probably saying so because there doesn't seem to be consequences for filing frivolous law suits. At the very least, the plaintiff should be charged with the defendants legal expenses and court costs. Some might argue that if that happens, poor victims won't be able to get justice - to that I say "nonsense". If they have a legitimate case, the current system in which their lawyer gets a portion of proceeds - still works.

Problem with your reasoning is that the legitimate case is decided AFTER the lawsuit is filed, so in many cases poor people will still have to carry a heavier weight.

 

[AppleFan91]

Apple did not "win" the lawsuit. The court dismissed the complaint on a "without prejudice" basis. For non-lawyers, that means that plaintiff's complaint had defects, but he's allowed to correct those defects and re-file.

A "win" would be a dismissal with prejudice. That's not what happened here.

That’s right, say words

 

[Khedron]

True.

Further, this shows how many people who commented on this ARE NOT developers. Any developer could easily come up with a scenario to explain how this happened. Here's two theoretical methods I came up with to connect FaceTime calls, with one being susceptible to the bug:

Scenario One:

• Person initiates a FaceTime call on iPhone A to iPhone B.
  
• iPhone A connects to the server and requests connection.
• Server contacts iPhone B and requests a FaceTime call.
• iPhone B puts up the FaceTime dialog to allow the person to answer or decline the call.
  
• If iPhone B declines the call, a message gets sent back through the server to iPhone A notifying them of the declined call.
  
• If iPhone B accepts the call, it starts a connection back to the server to stream audio/video.
• iPhone A is notified of the accepted call, starts receiving the stream from iPhone B, and it also creates a streaming connection back to the server for audio/video.
• iPhone B starts receiving the audio/video stream from iPhone A.
• When either person ends the call all streaming is stopped and both iPhones are dis-connected from the server.

The problem we're having with this is the delay between each iPhone starting to stream and connecting the the server. This manifests itself as a wait of a couple seconds before each party can see/hear the other person. Developers are asked to speed this process up.

Scenario Two: Faster Connections.

• iPhone A initiates a FaceTime call.
• iPhone A immediately starts streaming audio/video to the server.
• The server connects to iPhone B and requests a FaceTime call.
• iPhone B, upon receiving this request also immediately starts streaming audio/video back to iPhone A via the server.
  
• On both iPhones the audio/video stream is kept muted for privacy until the call is accepted.
  
• When iPhone B accepts the call the audio/video stream is immediately un-muted and both parties have an instant audio/video connection.
• If iPhone B declines the call both iPhones cease streaming audio/video and end their connection.

Pretty simple. In an effort to make connections appear fast & seamless the streaming is initiated right away, but kept hidden until someone answers. The bug probably occurred when they added a second person and the system accidentally took that to mean the request was accepted, hence the audio/video being un-muted and the first person seeing the stream from the second person.


So, a simple bug inside a feature intended to speed up connections resulted in someone's stream being un-muted when it wasn't supposed to.

That's a terrible idea to solve the problem though. Especially for a company that supposedly values privacy.

 

[macsba]

Is there a link other than Scribd that has a PDF copy of the court ruling that I can download?

Scribd requires registration or a facebook account to log in for downloading. I don't want to do neither of them.

 

[kildraik]

It’s good it was dismissed. The customer should always know what they’re using in relation to how it was used.

Per their terms of service that everybody agrees upon before gaining access to their devices;

“Apple is responsible for providing maintenance and support for Apple Apps only, or as required under applicable law. App Providers are responsible for providing maintenance and support for Third Party Apps.”

To which they made good on by fixing the issue, and;

“NO WARRANTY: YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT USE OF THE LICENSED APPLICATION IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE LICENSED APPLICATION AND ANY SERVICES PERFORMED OR PROVIDED BY THE LICENSED APPLICATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND “AS AVAILABLE,” WITH ALL FAULTS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND LICENSOR HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE LICENSED APPLICATION AND ANY SERVICES, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY, OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OF ACCURACY, OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, AND OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD-PARTY RIGHTS. NO ORAL OR WRITTEN INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY LICENSOR OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY. SHOULD THE LICENSED APPLICATION OR SERVICES PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR, OR CORRECTION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABLE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF A CONSUMER, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

f. Limitation of Liability. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL LICENSOR BE LIABLE FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO YOUR USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE LICENSED APPLICATION, HOWEVER CAUSED, REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY (CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) AND EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY, OR OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. In no event shall Licensor’s total liability to you for all damages (other than as may be required by applicable law in cases involving personal injury) exceed the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00). The foregoing limitations will apply even if the above stated remedy fails of its essential purpose.”

Boom.

 

[Crowbot]

The entire legal system is a joke.

He made up a ridiculous lawsuit which was basically thrown out in preliminary. That's how the system works. That way there are fewer limits on "redress of grievances".

 

[kildraik]

Apple... the ones who believe in privacy, unless it’s their buggy software allowing anyone to spy on you....

I hope the plaintiff can get their act together and produce a decent case against Apple.

There is no case, because they agreed to Apple’s Terms of Service.

 

[Kaledatheone]

While the bug was nasty, it did not warrant a lawsuit. He was just looking to get rich

While the bug was nasty, it did not warrant a lawsuit. He was just looking to get rich quick.

This guy would have better luck suing Microsoft for their buggy and virus prone OS

 

[BootsWalking]

No design defect, surely like the note 7. That was a design defect. The lawsuit is/would be no more legitimate than this...

If it wasn't a design defect then why is it that only the iPhone 6 series of phones would reset/shutdown during peak current usage on an average-wear battery, where no model before or after the 6-series had a systemic issue with that?