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

U.S. Government Orders Apple and Google to Identify Users of a Gun Scope App

Dave-Z said:
For example, perhaps the local store employee saw nothing but the store has a security camera. Is the owner of the footage required by law to hand over the recording without any type of warrant?
Click to expand...

Yes. There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a store open to the public, so no warrant is necessary.

The same thing may be relevant here, called the "third party doctrine". You told a third party, Apple, that you wanted the app. Because Apple is a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore no search warrant is necessary.
 
SecuritySteve said:
This will be interesting. Publicly, Apple (or at least Tim Cook) has gone on about how he feels that gun control is a good thing. Well, now here comes some gun part control that interfaces with an Apple product. What is more important, privacy or gun control? I look forward to seeing how Apple handles this.
Click to expand...

This really isn't a gun control issue, and it's worth noting that Apple allows the app in the store to begin with.

Personally, the problem I have with the government's request is that it's asking for information about people who aren't breaking the law. So Apple's response should be a hard no.

On the other hand, if the government were to ask Apple for a list of names and IP addresses from people who downloaded the app in countries where it was illegal to export to, that would be a much different request and one that Apple should comply with. However, Apple should've already restricted the app as such to prevent illegal exports of the software.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nugget and AlexGraphicD
konqerror said:
Yes. There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a store opened to the public, so no warrant is necessary.
Click to expand...

Banks are open to the public. They have security cameras. There's an expectation of privacy there, too.

The same thing may be relevant here, called the "third party doctrine". You told a third party, Apple, that you wanted the app. Because Apple is a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore no search warrant is necessary.
Click to expand...

I guess this is why we have courts, because when I make a purchase from Apple in the privacy of my own home over an HTTPS secure connection using a personal credit card; I have an expectation of privacy. (Especially considering Apple says they don't sell my user data.)

I'm not disagreeing with you or anyone here, just asking questions to learn more because I'm not a lawyer and this request seems a little large in scope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexGraphicD
BJMRamage said:
why wouldn't the Gov't go "after" the app owners or the company the scopes are from and NOT the app stores themselves?


Doesn't make much sense....then again government.
Click to expand...
Because that would be bad for them. Why? If they can set precedent to get information on what apps a user uses, they could go further to collect even more app data to further their spy programs. If they go after the companies, they don't get that added benefit, and in addition, these companies might retaliate by no longer supporting certain political candidates while sending the NRA after them.

With data such as this, you can learn a lot about a person, such as what political party they favor, what sorts of religious beliefs they adhere to, possible medical issues they might have, and more. This is a very dangerous precedent to set. What's next—rounding up people who play games with guns?
 
Dave-Z said:
But there's a pretty big difference between asking a local store employee, "Did you see anything?" or "Have you seen this person?" And the request being made of Apple and Google. In Apple's and Google's situation they literally have a record of every single person and what he or she did.

For example, perhaps the local store employee saw nothing but the store has a security camera. Is the owner of the footage required by law to hand over the recording without any type of warrant? Because that's more like what's being asked of Apple and Google.
Click to expand...

You ask good questions. And that's an interesting aspect of technology-- something that might seem relatively benign and necessary at a small scale can take on an ominous and threatening aspect when scaled a thousand-fold by automation. We have that problem with surveillance; everyone agrees that your home is protected against unwarranted search, but the cops can set up a stakeout outside your house if you are under suspicion. But those rules were set up under the assumption that a stake-out was expensive, involving actual police sitting in a parked car-- in which case, the hurdle for being "sufficiently suspicious" to warrant a stake-out was high, due to sheer economics. But what happens when the government can place surveillance cameras on every street, and automated facial recognition/AI can monitor everyone's comings and goings? Now, the hurdle for being "sufficiently suspicious" becomes very low, maybe dangerously so.

So what's the answer? I think the way that most legal systems work, everything that is legal for the police with low-scale, traditional methods is going to be legal using highly-scaled, automated methods-- until it isn't, when overturned via superseding laws or judicial rulings, as each legal system dictates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave-Z
This looks to be what’s considered a general warrant which is explicitly prohibited under the constitution. Asking for confirmation that a specific person downloaded it is very different.

Dangerous ground.
 
Dave-Z said:
I guess this is why we have courts, because when I make a purchase from Apple in the privacy of my own home over an HTTPS secure connection using a personal credit card; I have an expectation of privacy. (Especially considering Apple says they don't sell my user data.)
Click to expand...
Apple providing data in response to a government request is not “selling” your data. Their privacy policy specifically details government information requests:

It may be necessary − by law, legal process, litigation, and/or requests from public and governmental authorities within or outside your country of residence − for Apple to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate. We may also disclose information about you, but only where there is a lawful basis for doing so, if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or protect our operations or users. This could include providing information to public or governmental authorities.
Click to expand...

A lot of mays in there, as they don’t provide data for every request.
 
Pelea said:
There is 0 reason for apple to give this information. People in the US Have the right to have as many assault weapons as they want, for whatever reason they want
Click to expand...

You almost sound like you're in favour of that. Why do you feel that owning 'assault' weapons is okay? You wouldn't use them to hunt for deer, which this X-Sight scope is designed for.

I hope this request is squashed, as it does go too far.
[doublepost=1567805576][/doublepost]... meanwhile, selling weapons of war to other countries for profit. What a twisted world we live in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brendu
jonblatho said:
Apple providing data in response to a government request is not “selling” your data. Their privacy policy specifically details government information requests:
Click to expand...

Thanks for replying. You're taking my comment out of context. I was not equating Apple honoring the USA gov't request with selling customer data/information. What I was doing was addressing a comment made to me that because I'm dealing with a third-party (Apple) there is no expectation of privacy. I was saying that I do, in fact, have that expectation because it is a private transaction over a secure channel.. Then, further to that, I added Apple goes so far as to say they do not sell my data, which builds upon my expectation of privacy.
 
TheColtr said:
When is the public going to actually do something about this. I was hoping trump, for all his flaws, would stand up against government outreach when it comes to the fourth amendment and privacy, but he clearly doesn’t see that as an issue.
Click to expand...

As a basic right wing sociopath he's only concerned with government overreach when it inconveniences him personally
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dana Beck and DVD9
Expecting the government to fix any issue, whether its guns or privacy, is a complete and utter waste of time. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hagjohn
I’m not pro gun by any means (never owned one and never will) but this seems weak. Using this app shouldn’t be illegal.

You can buy assault weapons and your fine but download an app and they are coming after you.

Maybe it’s another reason everyone should be using vpns ?
 
UBS28 said:
So if I buy the app for laughs, trump will go after me? :p
Click to expand...

No but you can look forward to your name, address, credit card, AppleID, phone number, and IP being leaked in a few months when an investigator accidentally emails the database to half the internet
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR
So does that mean all the folks who’ve bought bullet drop apps (like iSnipe) will be next?

Cook better fight this one just as hard as he did the last dustup with DoJ.
 
information requested herein will assist the government in identifying networks engaged in the unlawful export of this rifle scope through identifying end users located in countries to which export of this item is restricted.
Click to expand...
I strongly doubt that there's an organized network to export 790$ scopes. More likely someone buys it in the US and then takes it with them. Or they buy it somewhere else... it's widely available in Europe as well (for example). So, taking it to some banned country doesn't require a sophisticated smuggling network.

That, IMHO, makes the request quite disproportionate...
 
[AUT] Thomas said:
I strongly doubt that there's an organized network to export 790$ scopes. More likely someone buys it in the US and then takes it with them. Or they buy it somewhere else... it's widely available in Europe as well (for example). So, taking it to some banned country doesn't require a sophisticated smuggling network.

That, IMHO, makes the request quite disproportionate...
Click to expand...

There are significant rings tied into Mexican organized crime that procure and smuggle weapons over the border. A $800 is the cost of two to four handguns. It is certainly enough for them to be involved.
 
1.0 out of 5 starsGreat as a concept. Subpar execution
May 4, 2018
Style Name: 5-20xVerified Purchase
First lets start with what did work.
The new diopter system and internal visual screen is excellent and the new parallax ring on the objective lens got me so excited for this product that after turning it on and mounting it i immediately ordered a second. The one shot zero is as advertised and unfortunately the good ends there....

Not a single other advertised feature was without issue and this product from a software standpoint is alpha at best. The menu layout puts nightvision as the first option and makes you press a sequence of 3-4 buttons just to change your range. Which feature will u use more? Clearly the range finder....
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-...ef=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B079K1797S

Software issues. Maybe Apple should partner up with them?
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
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