For Debate: Is Apple Using Steganography In iTunes Plus Songs?

[johnee]

I guess i don't understand how most of you feel this is ok. I want to reduce the ways people/companies can track me, not allow them to increase that type of activity. especially without my knowledge.

a bit big brother-esque if you ask me.

 

[network23]

It's odd. What is the benefit of not telling us *if* they are using this technology? If it will be used in lawsuits against illegal file sharers, then Apple will have to disclose HOW they know a song belonged to a particular individual. Once they do that, the cat's out of the bag. By not disclosing:

• As mentioned before, they could open themselves to lawsuits
• They lose more trust from iTunes users

So unless they sit on this for a long time before using it, this tech will only be good for the first round of lawsuits. After that, I'm sure folks will figure out how to circumvent it.

I guess it could have been a requirement from the record labels, both using it and keeping quiet about it.

It could also be something Apple is using to collect data on how many DRM-free tracks make it out into the wild, which could be used to prove/disprove the theories if DRM increases or decreases piracy. *shrug*

Then again, there may not be any steganography at all. Hopefully we will know one way or the other soon. *shrug shrug*

 

[Sabon]

This is incredibly LAME.

I can't believe people are complaining about something like this. WHY DO YOU CARE???? if they are putting this info in there? The only reason you --should-- care is if you are going to be sharing music that you legally should not be sharing. Other than that there is no reason to care. And NO, Apple has no reason to tell you.

I mean DUH, Apple --has-- to have some way of tracking if people are sharing music they aren't supposed to be sharing.

This whole thing is as lame as a teenager complaining that mom didn't tell them they have to pull down their underwear before using the toilet. Yes, it IS that stupid.

 

[Bern]

Correct.

However, if Apple is using the technique and not notifying users in its terms of service, they could be opening themselves up to lawsuits.

🙄 Probably in the U.S. where lawsuits for no purpose accept to maybe to earn some cash out of someone else's had work happens almost every day.

So some person has found so many mb's in a song she bought from iTunes that "she" can't account for and she makes the logical conclusion that it's steganography.... I guess she stripped this song on her Windows Vista PC too huh? WOW!

Next thing we'll be hearing is that Apple have embedded the music with weapons of mass disruption... get over it.

 

[nitynate]

If they are, i am pretty sure it's not hurting any of us.

Its not like an mp3 you ripped yourself, but you can still use it however you want.

 

[kuebby]

Steganography is a very cool technology. I worked with it on a project when I was performing Top Secret military contract work for the Pentagon, NSA and CIA 7 years ago. Very cool, powerful stuff. I can only imagine how it's improved and advanced over the past several years.

Should you really be telling us that? Are you going to have to kill us all?

As for the fingerprinting goes, I don't care. If you're keeping the songs for yourself then it doesn't matter. Even if you lose your iPod someone couldn't get the account information because it's hidden in the song.

 

[nagromme]

I assumed some kind of watermark or fingerprint would be used ever since they first said no-DRM was coming.

I have no problem with it, and Apple IS clear that you identity is marked on the file--it's plain as day in Get Info. They're just not telling your identity is there twice.

Under what circumstance would anyone ever be able to read my identity off of a song... without ALREADY being able to tell the file was mine by much simpler means like the fact that it's on my computer or player?

Look at it this way: the labels can now see for themselves how few pirated songs come from iTunes Plus.

 

[ajhill]

Garbage

This story is nice creative writing, but didn't anyone read Steve Jobs letter about releasing DRM Free music. The last thing he would do is put anything in the file that could be seen as copy protection. Besides that, the LAST THING Jobs would want to do after calling for the end of DRM, would be have Apple act as a police state for the record industry. Look to the RIAA for the source of this idiotic story.

The usage agreement, as I read it, specifically states that iTunes Plus songs do not contain any security devices. End of story... here's the quote from the usage agreement:

b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.

 

[AgingGeek]

So... if I bequeath all my iTunes plus songs to my son and then die (yeah, it will happen eventually), does he have to worry about getting arrested for possessing music with MY fingerprints all over it?

Seriously, there's no reason why music downloads can't outlive the original purchaser, so long as they're not *copied*. Right?

 

[SeanMcg]

This is nothing new..

According to Chris Breen, nothing has changed in this respect, so if you are going to get mad, get mad for many a year of this happening. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. It's your file (note: I didn't say, "it is your song") so who cares if it has your name in it, in whatever form your name might take in this digital age.

 

[swingerofbirch]

I am not against this--I could see it protecting users in some cases and in some ways (abstractly at least) increases the value of the music they purchase. But whether it's good or not gives Apple no right to deceive customers. They're almost as bad as the justice department!

 

[johnee]

I can't believe people are complaining about something like this. WHY DO YOU CARE???? if they are putting this info in there? The only reason you --should-- care is if you are going to be sharing music that you legally should not be sharing. Other than that there is no reason to care. And NO, Apple has no reason to tell you.

I mean DUH, Apple --has-- to have some way of tracking if people are sharing music they aren't supposed to be sharing.

This whole thing is as lame as a teenager complaining that mom didn't tell them they have to pull down their underwear before using the toilet. Yes, it IS that stupid.

anytime there is personally identifying information in a file, there is a chance for that information to be used :
1) without your knowledge
2) used in ways not intended

You just don't seem to understand the concept of information.

 

[longofest]

This story is nice creative writing, but didn't anyone read Steve Jobs letter about releasing DRM Free music. The last thing he would do is put anything in the file that could be seen as copy protection. Besides that, the LAST THING Jobs would want to do after calling for the end of DRM, would be have Apple act as a police state for the record industry. Look to the RIAA for the source of this idiotic story.

The usage agreement, as I read it, specifically states that iTunes Plus songs do not contain any security devices. End of story... here's the quote from the usage agreement:

b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.

Did you ignore the technological evidence of fingerprinting and steganography??? 😕

And, the use of products thing is exactly what the debate is about. If more conclusive evidence comes out that Apple us using steganography, then Apple should have put it in the usage agreement.

 

[bmb012]

Will iTunes let you transcode these songs into mp3s?

 

[morespce54]

If those who wish to do illegal deeds are going to be held accountable and this is the only way to do it, why not?

the problem (for me at least) it's not about doing it or not, it's about not telling me what, when and where this information is stored and for what purpose (I know, it discourage the kids to share it but as long as they don't tell me clearly that this is the ONLY reason, I have reasons to doubt). 😕

Okay I'm playing devil's advocate here but still... 😉

 

[longofest]

According to Chris Breen, nothing has changed in this respect, so if you are going to get mad, get mad for many a year of this happening. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. It's your file (note: I didn't say, "it is your song") so who cares if it has your name in it, in whatever form your name might take in this digital age.

Read the article again. The name-string is in the meta data. The file was STRIPPED of the meta data, and was still different.

 

[bignumbers]

I'm with the *yawn* crowd

I can't be bothered by this either.

I give it about fifteen seconds before someone writes an app to strip this stuff out anyway.

 

[wakerider017]

If those who wish to do illegal deeds are going to be held accountable and this is the only way to do it, why not?

This makes no sense...
This encrypted info is going to far...

This may stop people from sharing, but iTunes does not have the right to add this info to songs you rightfully paid for...



Based on your ideology, you would be ok with the police force adding chips to all our cars and when ever you went over the speed limit they could mail you a ticket... Sure it would save lives... But it is going too far...

 

[SMM]

I guess i don't understand how most of you feel this is ok. I want to reduce the ways people/companies can track me, not allow them to increase that type of activity. especially without my knowledge.

a bit big brother-esque if you ask me.

That argument is weak, if not silly. They open up restrictions and (perhaps) leave themselves some way to help prevent piracy, and you complain. If someone want to track you, this sure as heck will not be the method employed. Regardless, I read a plethora of rationalizations for media theft on this board alone. There are so many young people who have come to believe the world owes them everything they want, they steal it whenever they can. I do not blame any company for due diligence in protecting their products.

 

[morespce54]

anytime there is personally identifying information in a file, there is a chance for that information to be used :
1) without your knowledge
2) used in ways not intended

You just don't seem to understand the concept of information.

that's my point! Now you talking 😉 🙂

but the real issue is about doing it without telling it...

 

[FreeState]

b. Use of Products. You acknowledge that Products (other than the iTunes Plus Products) contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules, and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules.

Im sorry but how is an identifying number or something embedded in a song Digital Rights Management? Its not - it's like having a serial number on those CDs you buy or on your DVD player, TV, etc. It identifies the product - it in no ways manages what you can do with it.

The identifying information in no way "contain security technology that limits your usage of Products to the following Usage Rules" that you quoted. You can still post it online and everyone can still play it (just not legally).

 

[Sabon]

anytime there is personally identifying information in a file, there is a chance for that information to be used :
1) without your knowledge
2) used in ways not intended

You just don't seem to understand the concept of information.

I VERY much understand it.

You only need to be paranoid about things you do wrong. If you don't do anything wrong there is nothing to be paraniod about.

 

[Bern]

anytime there is personally identifying information in a file, there is a chance for that information to be used :
1) without your knowledge
2) used in ways not intended

You just don't seem to understand the concept of information.

Oh come on... once you get a driver's license, a passport, a credit card or even a public health card all the personal information about you is already out there.

Some of you need to get a hobby. Be paranoid if you're doing something you shouldn't be.

 

[SeanMcg]

Read the article again. The name-string is in the meta data. The file was STRIPPED of the meta data, and was still different.

The point wasn't how it was done, but that it WAS done...

 

[Baja2k]

If those who wish to do illegal deeds are going to be held accountable and this is the only way to do it, why not?

I was trying to think of a plausible way that this "could" be a problem for a legitimate user. The one think I can think of:

A user has a significant investment in Itunes music.
Someone steals their computer (Not necessarily for the music) but hey they have it now none the less. (For ease of argument this user had auto login enabled) Don't say noone does that.... I have my 4 year olds Mac Mini set up that way. (Although all your getting with that computer is a few Dora and Barbie games)

The user reports the crime but doesn't know their music can be tracted back to them so they don't do anything special about it. Heck, if they were halfway smart they have backups and it's no big deal. A few years go by and they end up getting one of "those" letters from the RIAA being sued because their entire library ended up on some pier to pier network.
Sure the user did nothing wrong, but I'll bet you a dollar against a donut that they'll have to hire a lawyer to sort it all out.

I really believe we have the right to know if our name/personally identifying information is floating around on files.

All I'm saying is that it is plausible.....