The difference between a hammer and Secret is Secret's only use is for (in Brazil) a prohibited behavior.
While you can assault someone with the hammer, it still has other legitimate uses.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Blocking 'Secret' in Brazilian App Store After Court Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The difference between a hammer and Secret is Secret's only use is for (in Brazil) a prohibited behavior.
While you can assault someone with the hammer, it still has other legitimate uses.
iPhones check a URL that Apple maintains. If that URL contains information about an app, then the iPhone will no longer let that app run.
Here's an article from back in 2008 about the subject:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9112303/iPhone_includes_app_kill_switch_Jobs_admits
You compare my "anonymous statement" to someone "anonymously bullying someone else"?
----------
You're right, I should have been clearer about this.
The whole case started because someone was bullied using the app and that is a problem, not only in Brazil but all over the world, and I personally can't accept that.
My guess? Kids post to it, other kids read it, and start sharing rumors, etc around the school/area/whatever.
Based on the inventory they were actually able to sell, maybe they lost $9,000 per surface sold :-O
Yes anonymity brings out the worst in people, but it also brings out Honesty. Sometimes this is brutal and feels like an attack, and sometimes it is an attack. However, why does an anonymous attack bother you? especially from someone probably at least half way across the country that doesnt have any clue who you are (especially considering you are anonymous too). So how can it really be an attack? And besides words are words, when is society going to start following what we tell our children "Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you".
And if you truly have a different opinion on this, why are you anonymous on this forum? You should be using your real name, and have your full address and phone number in your signature if you truly believe people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.
And you are wrong, a Judge's decision is not the end - plenty of judges make the wrong decision or decisions they are not really allowed to make. And there is plenty Apple can do other than comply - for one they could just not comply and pay the fine or just not pay the fine (which could have consequences). More likely they will appeal. And the fact is, this probably is outside the bounds of the Judge's power, as the OP originally stated and gave examples, a judge cant force a company to go to peoples houses and remove purchased products - just because this is digital and they dont have to go to your house does not make it any different. What a judge can do is enforce a Manufacturer's recall be sent out - but then it is still up to the customer to follow the recall and it is their choice not to.
Additionally, I dont know Brazilian law - but I would suspect that the law prohibits a USER from hiding their identity online - so selling an app in Brazil that allows you to do this would not be illegal, but using it would be. And no matter the wording of the law, it is absurd because the entire internet is Anonymous - they would have to disable the entire internet in Brazil to enforce this....
That the government will choose what things are allowed to be annonymous (reporting abuse) and what wont be (trolling, critisizing the government) and that it will all work out?
You didn't mention bullying. Slander is actually illegal in the U.S., but it doesn't mean they ban all places where you can make anonymous statements (MacRumors included). Banning Secret might sound like a good idea, but there's a slippery slope. I, for one, would hate to see my freedom of speech infringed upon just because other people can't take harsh comments or feel the need to bully others. I especially don't trust the Brazilian government with this kind of power.
----------
Some people aren't strong like us
I'll bet anything people have "cyberbullied" (90s lingo used in 2014) me on the Bathroom Wall and that other thing I forgot the name of, and I don't even know because I've never been there.
Last edited:
To be clear: Bullying is wrong. It should not be permitted and many jurisdictions are/have created legislation to criminalize it. Rightly so, too.
The issue I have is that the courts are reprimanding the retailer for the (what should be) illegal actions of individuals. In reality the ruling does nothing to stop the illegal activity. An office supply store is not going to go around collecting all the pens and paper they sold because some student left an anonymous, bullying note in another student's locker. But in Brazil, that's what Apple has to do. It does not make sense and does not address the heart of the issue.
Bullying is wrong, and it must be dealt with, but in my opinion the ruling of the court is not appropriate.
----------
So does the app.
So does paper.
So does e-mail.
So does some forum hosted in another country.
The list goes on. Should we just shut down the entire Internet?
interesting read. thanks for the link!
but besides malicious apps, I've always wondered how iOS would protect against malicious websites? Apps can mostly only be obtained from the App Store, but iPhone Safari on the other hand can visit any website on the web including all malicious ones
The judge ruled to ban the Secret app because someone was bullied with it.
In what universe is that ok?
Please read the article again and then form an opinion, it seems you read my comment out of context.
I am prepared to assume responsibility for my comments but this doesn't mean I am willing to renounce my privacy.
As I've said in a previous comment, it's one thing to make anonymous comments and another thing to bully someone from the shadows.
Well, the issue is that you cannot 'enforce the law' unless you can identify the lawbreaker.
You cannot have both the tool and the bad behavior in a civil society. The optimum solution is for people to actually act with civility at all times, whether anonymous or not. But that's not happening, some people these days wear their lack of civility with pride and pronounce it's their 'right'. I suppose it is. Being PC these days is looked down upon by a significant segment of society. But what is 'being PC?' Nothing more than being civil to each other.
I have no solution. I don't think apps should be deleted by anyone except the owner (even if it was free). And trying to legislate morality or civility has never worked in all of history. I have little hope it will work now.
Again, not in Brazil.
From the sounds of it, while Brazil agrees with privacy, they do not enshrine anonymity into their constitution. While you and I have our privacy here on these forums, we do not have anonymity here. It would be possible for them to identify us (without us using more means like proxies, etc) from our postings here, but we still have privacy in our real lives.
Whether or not the law is morally right in Brazil about this, it was only official recognized (and banned) after being abused.
----------
The thing is, it is possible, apparently, to "renounce" ownership of something said in Secret. At that point, it's fully anonymous, not merely private (not even the Secret team can reconnect who posted it, apparently).
Also, there is a difference between privacy an anonymity.
How about living here before talking about what you don't know?
Well. No one really knows what is happening around here, ey?
People are posting naked picture of others, telling everyone about their sex life, making things up, destroying relationships, and far more.
The app wasn't used to freely express their feelings, it was used for heavy bullying, therefore the decision was right. If they can't deal with the power, take it off.
No one is really losing much.. 1% used it for good.
Well. No one really knows what is happening around here, ey?
People are posting naked picture of others, telling everyone about their sex life, making things up, destroying relationships, and far more.
The app wasn't used to freely express their feelings, it was used for heavy bullying, therefore the decision was right. If they can't deal with the power, take it off.
No one is really losing much.. 1% used it for good.
Remotely delete? So if I buy book at a local store and the courts then say that book should not be sold, the retailer must come into my house and physically remove the book? What kind of totalitarian society do we live in?
I think this is more akin to a drug bust. The cops caught your dealer, found he kept records of who he was dealing to, and is now going after them.
Not saying it's not totalitarian, but it's just a different perspective.
"Here is a picture of your dog, at your house, right now. Here is a picture of a chainsaw. Get the picture?"
bullying usually involves threats. Some of those threats can be very specific and very real. "You are fat!", is not a problem. "Your mother is about to die!", is
Unrelated, in many ways Brazil is far more free than the United States.
If only Apple were as powerful as FIFA...
----------
It's the principle that shocks me, personally.
As for posting naked pictures, etc - it's possible to make that specific behaviour illegal. This was a court decision though - they didn't create the constitution, they merely interpret what has already been written.
Still, I find it very peculiar and wonder if, as the internet spreads and Brazil's economy grows, people might start to want greater anonymity. Rouseff certainly made a big fuss about the NSA taking away the anonymity of Brazilians on the internet; shouldn't she just have accepted that people have to take responsibility for what they do and say and not expect any anonymity when interacting with the wider world?
----------
It's the principle that shocks me, personally.
As for posting naked pictures, etc - it's possible to make that specific behaviour illegal. This was a court decision though - they didn't create the constitution, they merely interpret what has already been written.
Still, I find it very peculiar and wonder if, as the internet spreads and Brazil's economy grows, people might start to want greater anonymity. Rouseff certainly made a big fuss about the NSA taking away the anonymity of Brazilians on the internet; shouldn't she just have accepted that people have to take responsibility for what they do and say and not expect any anonymity when interacting with the wider world?
Surely you aren't under the impression that a company must not abide by local and national laws if they're based outside said country?
The ramifications are exactly as you say. They must either pay the fines or close shop in the country.
I am not saying I agree with the ruling, but a government should never fail to uphold their laws because of fear of the uproar it causes. That is literally giving all of the power to the company by saying "do what you want because we don't want people to get mad".
At the end of the day Apple does a whole lot in terms of keeping governments where they sell their products happy. The simplest evidence of this is comparing what is available on the AppStore, iTunes, etc worldwide. There is content you would find in the US that you wouldn't find in huge UK, for example. I've also read that hardware (such as the camera) is gimped in some countries. The examples are virtually endless
----------
I get where you're coming from but...
If each user is truly anonymous...
How is "your mother is going to die" a threat that any reasonable person using the service can take seriously for even a fraction of a second?
I realize you just have a simplistic example, but I honestly can't think of a way any of these threats can be taken personally. Perhaps there is gear of terrorist threats? Idk.
You'd be a fool to think that they couldn't. Of course they can! They most likely send daily backups of your phone to the NSA.
Yes Apple can remotely delete things from our devices. Has everyone forgot that Apple deleted all my Disney videos from my Apple TV last year due to a change in their agreement with Apple.
Then Disney released a crappy app so we could watch them but no longer download them.
I downloaded the app to see how far Apple's hand reaches into my data and computer. If they try to delete the app from my computer I'll put a locked stickybit on it with root access only to see if itunes runs as root user.
Then Disney released a crappy app so we could watch them but no longer download them.
I downloaded the app to see how far Apple's hand reaches into my data and computer. If they try to delete the app from my computer I'll put a locked stickybit on it with root access only to see if itunes runs as root user.
"Please post your name, address, phone number, email address. We want to know who you are making this kind of statement anonymously." - The Hypocrisy Police.
Thankfully in the US the ability to be anonymous is recognized by the courts to be an important part of free speech. Thomas Paine, James Madison et al would not have been as successful without it.
Did they remove downloaded copies or merely prevent you from redownloading it? Disney and Apple removed the ability to buy/rent/download purchased copies late last year but that didn't delete already downloaded copies. Disney was supposedly working out a way for purchasers to download titles after purchase but I do not know if that happened.
The United States probably wouldn't be a nation today if certain activists couldn't spread anonymous information.
Though you may like living under a totalitarian regime. Many do not.
Also... you first. Cough up your name, address, and SSN.