Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Federal Lawsuit Filed Over Apple's Location Tracking in iOS [Updated]

Where did this attorney go to law school?

"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "

Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible

Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don’t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
 
cjoy said:
statistics show that distribution of firearms mainly lead to more homocides and also suicides using firearms.
if guns are outlawed, their distribution is greatly limited, making it a lot harder for outlaws to obtain them.

the more you spread guns, the greater is the risk of them being used in illegal activities.

..oh wait... this forum is about apple and computers, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Noted,

But this is totally off topic, and this falls into the relm of Politics, Religion, Social Issues .

When you have a high enough post count, I am sure a few of us would love to discuss the inaccuracies of the facts you think you understand on this subject. ;) .
 
gwangung said:
While I would also like to know why, I'm not sure this is a big deal as it seems to me that the remedy to going to be very simple: a) encryption is on by default, and/or b) flushing the database after, say, six months.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree, it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.
I would still like to know the "why" part. If anything just to satisfy my own curiosity.
 
cjoy said:
statistics show that distribution of firearms mainly lead to more homocides and also suicides using firearms.
if guns are outlawed, their distribution is greatly limited, making it a lot harder for outlaws to obtain them.

the more you spread guns, the greater is the risk of them being used in illegal activities.

..oh wait... this forum is about apple and computers, right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Do you know what an outlaw is? Much less how an outlaw determined to obtain something is not going to stop "because it's harder" or because they are not allowed to? Hence the "outlaw" term?
 
840quadra said:
I love how Media and most everyone was asleep about this known issue, until just recently, and now it is some kind of emergency.

I am not an Apple apologist by any means, but it is NOT their fault if people are not securely backing up, their personal and private data.

Apple's only fault (IMHO) is not encrypting the location logfile on the phone, or the system with regards to backups. Regardless, security of data is the end user's responsibility, not the manufacturer of their computer or software.
Click to expand...

See, I have a very different opinion.

Apple has an image of things just working. Apple actively promotes this image. The image is includes the idea that people don't have to worry about the details, like security of their devices. Even for backups, Apple makes it so all you need to have full backups is plug in an $50 usb drive.

That said, looking at the iPhone the way it is intended to be used, it's an accessory of your computer. A mobile remote with limited access to the "main" computer. If we except that view point, then;
-the iPhone can safely assume the desktop it's connected to is safe and secure, (realistically, if "hackers" have control of your PC they have access to all the data that can gathered from your iphone anyway.)
-iOS is a closed system. (If you jailbreak you are already knowing voiding the warranties offered by the trusted computing model.)
-I'd imagine that encrypting a frequently used file would increase processing use, so data transfer, and reduce battery life.

I would understand if you were arguing that iOS should encrypted all user data, (although that would be a difference conversation.)


So, I basically, I think the file should not be encrypted, but that Apple has quite a but of responsibility for the user's data security.
 
JeffreyGreen said:
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "

Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible

Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don’t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
Click to expand...



You are right, but you are wrong in mentioning that you need a fence and a sign saying "NO TRESPASSING" for cops to come in and take a look. Look up the cases from the United States Supreme Court that hold otherwise. That will not stop cops and it has not stopped cops. For example, cases where people were growing pot in their barn. Cops jumped the fence, peeked into the barn, saw the rugs, boom you have a warrant because it is based on probable cause. . However, this is not the point of the discussion here.

I think Apple just moved for summary judgment as a matter of law and get with it because these attorneys are trying to see if Apple will settle, but I highly doubt they will even consider it.

"If you are a federal marshal you have to have a warrant to do this kind of thing, and Apple is doing it without one."

This lawyer needs to go back to law school. The 4th amendment, which protects our right to privacy, is to prevent the government from infringing on that right. Last I checked Apple was not part of the government.

Also, Apple is not tracking anything. They simple have a file on your phone that has all of this information. (correct me if I am wrong).
 
andiwm2003 said:
Apple did a shoddy programming job by not encrypting the data. Thaty is why Apple is under pressure by the various govenments and rightfully so. Nobody says Apple is using this data in a malicious way.
Click to expand...

If Apple is under investigation by the British government, then I am sure that Apple has a few employees living in Britain, and if there are more than a dozen, then with 99% probability the British government has "lost" sensitive information about the children of one of those employees.
 
....

Asinine

how did they think the location based features on any app worked? This is just a cashed file for those purposes.

And what about all the location based advertising? So it takes this to make people understand that the world has changed? This is old news and ridiculous that people are now making a scene about it. How about signing electronically at a credit card purchase machine. How about giving someone a check with your account number on the bottom of it. How about electronically giving your personal and sensitive info over the internet.

This is how it is people. You bought in to it a long time ago. Its what it takes to move forward. And the only reason why this is a bad thing is because people fail to police themselves. Including the people that attain this info, and thats why we will eventually have some negative repercussion from this collection of data.

But to pin point apple and create a federal case out of something that the government already new was happening is ridiculous.
 
somebody named Adam posted on http://www.9to5mac.com/63593/steve-...o-set-record-straight-on-location/#more-63593

Folks, this is all in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The government way back then made it mandatory for all cel phones to track and record users. They also force all carriers to have back doors built into all devices to spy and steal your data. Look into it, this is pure evil and absolutely shreds the 4th Amendment.

The fact Senators are "demanding answers" is a joke. They were the ones who wrote the stinking bill. Why is Al Franken so clueless to this fact? Maybe they should investigate themselves first.

Want to get rid of this? Get rid of the nasty parts of the '96 Act and get your 4th Amendment back.
Wondering no-one knew about
 
This story is hilarious, in fact the whole debacle is.

The only reason people can check what their iPhone has logged is because some idiots released open source software to check your iTunes backup.

The insinuation that a Private Investigator could track your movements, as was suggested, is idiotic since a) they'd need access to your computer, b) need have access to your iTunes backup, and c) have the program released installed on your computer to check.

The second notion, that you could be caught cheating by your partner, here's a hint: Don't be a cheating c*nt then. And again, you'd need to have a tech savvy partner.

Massively blown out of proportion, but it's only because it's Apple. Google can drive down your street and film you for their street view maps. Sure, they edit out faces and license plates when the images are put online, but the original unedited images are kept at Google. Nosey b*stards.
 
andiwm2003 said:
So an old post says apple is exploiting them and you imply I said that then? I said on numerous occasions clearly that this is not about Apple using this data. Interesting way to quote posts you have there:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused - YOU quote MY post replying to someone suggesting exactly that Apple is exploiting customers through this, and now I'm selectively quoting you?

Though I am skeptical, to say the least, of YOUR point as well, it's not nearly as ridiculous as the people who DO claim Apple is trying to get people.
 
JeffreyGreen said:
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "

Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. This lawyer is a complete idiot. The reason that federal marshals or any other goverment actor needs a warrant is because they are government actors. The Fourth Amendment protects people from the government, not private parties. Purely private searches are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Apple is not a government actor and, unless they are acting in coordination or on behalf of the government, under the Fourth Amendment they don't require a warrant for a damn thing.

Did this guy miss the day they taught law in law school?
 
JeffreyGreen said:
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "

Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible
Click to expand...
Actually it would not be admissible.
The police would not be able to verify where it actually came from unless they actually watched you retrieve it.
At that point a good attorney would argue that you were acting as an agent of the police and the subsequent discovery and retrieval of the coke would fall under the same rules for gathering evidence and require a warrant.
The coke evidence would get tossed and you would go to jail for breaking and entering.
The officers who you handed the coke too would either be reprimanded or fired.
 
I have only found this file from my ATT iPad2.

It is NOT present on my VerizonWireless iPhone4.

I have spent some time going thru the DB schema and can find tie-in to my specific device. If someone were to get this file, they can see the data but so far I've not figured out anyone would be able to tie it back to my specific device.

Further more "they" would need my computer to tie this information together at which point I have much BIGGER problems than "they" having my location information...
 
This is RIDICULOUS! if you switch off location services your location is still being tracked by the mobile phone companies everytime your phone makes a connection with one of their masts, which happens everytime you move cell. Oh and this happens with every phone, otherwise they wouldn't work.
 
good luck with the lawsuit, sounds like a gigantic waste of time, money and resources.....pathetic
 
JeffreyGreen said:
Where did this attorney go to law school...
Click to expand...

If you want a free consultation, check him out here.

And one of the counts in the complaint doesn't even allege a civil claim.

He's in way over his head. Apple's lawyers are going to eat him alive.

This is going to be fun to watch.
 
Last edited:
iRobby said:
This is RIDICULOUS! if you switch off location services your location is still being tracked by the mobile phone companies everytime your phone makes a connection with one of their masts, which happens everytime you move cell. Oh and this happens with every phone, otherwise they wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
First, there is a difference between a carrier tracking you through external means and you phone's software doing it.
Second, the data is still collected even with locations services turned off.
 
As I pointed out in my earlier blog posting (LINK), until somebody proves that Apple is both collecting the data to their servers AND using the data in a manner that allows them to personally identify a specific user, this lawsuit is meritless and a waste of the court's time.

Mark
 
Mark Booth said:
As I pointed out in my earlier blog posting (LINK), until somebody proves that Apple is both collecting the to their servers AND using the data in a manner that allows them to personally identify a specific user, this lawsuit is meritless and a waste of the court's time.

Mark
Click to expand...

The lawsuit would still be meritless unless Apple was violating some act of Congress or state law. It seems these two idiot lawyers have not alleged that, therefore the lawsuit would still be meritless.
 
There is also a difference in whether the phone keeps and uses data to function and perform services, and whether that data is transmitted to Apple and used by Apple for tracking. The burden of proof (it would seem - in my non-laywer opinion) would be to show that Apple is specifically collecting that data and using or storing it. Not just that the phone keeps it resident, on-board for use by Apps which the user may "allow" to use location data.

I'm betting Apple is smart enough not to be collecting the data outside the SLA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back