Apple Blocking 'Secret' in Brazilian App Store After Court Ruling

[tagyro]

Well. No one really knows what is happening around here, ey?

I agree, it seems a lot of people haven't even read the article, just the comments.

----------

"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.

I corrected myself a few comments after.

It's not about making anonymous statements, it's about anonymously bullying someone - as the article states.

Please read the article, follow the link and only then comment.

----------

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.

We are talking about two different things ...but I feel like it wouldn't matter to you anyway.
Have you read the article?

How is it ok to bully someone online anonymously?

 

[H2SO4]

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.

You have to remember we all percieve things differently. Fact.
What may be harmless banter or even just an opinion to you may be offensive to someone else. So you get into an online debate with someone who is offended by you and feels threatened by what you might have said. As far as they are concerned they may feel you have bullied them. Anonymously.

----------

Apple is a US company, subject to US law. Why can't they just tell Brazil to **** themselves? What's the worst that can happen?

Maybe Brazil doesn't let the iPhone be sold in the country. However, the resulting uproar is probably something they don't want, so they probably wouldn't go that far.

I can't believe how paranoid some governments are about letting people express themselves freely. They can't take criticism! It's sad because criticism tells you what you're doing wrong and allows one to govern/do things better.

I can’t believe you just made a statement so ridiculous. Right, as back home in germany I can drive as fast as I like, (on some roads), and at 130Kph on other motorways I’m going to come and do it in your country. That fair?

 

[Menel]

Apple Blocking 'Secret' in Brazilian App Store After Court Ruling

I agree, it seems a lot of people haven't even read the article, just the comments.

----------





I corrected myself a few comments after.



It's not about making anonymous statements, it's about anonymously bullying someone - as the article states.



Please read the article, follow the link and only then comment.

----------





We are talking about two different things ...but I feel like it wouldn't matter to you anyway.

Have you read the article?



How is it ok to bully someone online anonymously?

Its not ok. But that is irrelevant.

I'm pointing out the consequences of banning anonymous speech. Particularly if you give control of what is ok or not, to the regime in charge.

 

[tagyro]

Its not ok. But that is irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant? Have you actually read the article? The whole thing started because some was bullied online with the Secret app.

 

[Menel]

How is that irrelevant? Have you actually read the article? The whole thing started because some was bullied online with the Secret app.

And you want to ban free speech because of it... Its entirely illogical.

 

[tagyro]

And you want to ban free speech because of it... Its entirely illogical.

You're either trolling or you haven't read the article and my comments.
This is not about free speech, this is about bullying someone else anonymously.

To resume my thoughts: I strongly believe in free speech. I don't agree with bullying someone, anonymously or not.
If I publish nude pictures with you anonymously it's not free speech.
And before you say that that's irrelevant - this is the exact case here.

 

[Menel]

You're either trolling or you haven't read the article and my comments.
This is not about free speech, this is about bullying someone else anonymously.

To resume my thoughts: I strongly believe in free speech. I don't agree with bullying someone, anonymously or not.
If I publish nude pictures with you anonymously it's not free speech.
And before you say that that's irrelevant - this is the exact case here.

That still makes no sense, you cant have one without the other.

I think you need to educate yourself on how anonymity and free speech go hand in hand.

Start with the EFF

Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.

Instead of using their true names to communicate, these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them, secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.

https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity

 

[tagyro]

That still makes no sense, you cant have one without the other.

I'm just gonna leave this here until you actually realise how wrong you are.

 

[morrisz]

I have a different view on this.
Anonymity brings out the worst in people and although I believe in freedom of expression, I think people should not be allowed to make statements anonymously.
If you make a statement be prepared to assume responsibility for it, especially if you slander/attack someone (see where this whole thing started).
Yes, there are some exceptions, but I doubt they apply here (whistleblowers, abuse etc)
As for the fact that it was removed remotely, it's a decision from a judge, Apple can't really do much but comply.

...said on an anonymous forum

 

[tagyro]

...said on an anonymous forum

Let me guess:
- you haven't read the article
- you haven't read previous comments
- you are trolling

 

[FieldingMellish]

Judge is just ticked off about Brazil losing the recent soccer match.

 

[iHateMacs]

It doesn't make sense.

If you are anonymous, how can another anonymous person bully you?

They don't know who they are bullying and you don't know who they are.

What is the point.

It's like someone in a burka walking up to someone else in a burka and saying "I hate you" then they both mingle into the crowd of a million similarly burka clad people.

it is laughable.

 

[MacLC]

You're either trolling or you haven't read the article and my comments.
This is not about free speech, this is about bullying someone else anonymously.

To resume my thoughts: I strongly believe in free speech. I don't agree with bullying someone, anonymously or not.
If I publish nude pictures with you anonymously it's not free speech.
And before you say that that's irrelevant - this is the exact case here.

If I may throw my hat into the ring or not I shall.
The original article is in Portuguese which I cannot read.

I just need to inquire about semantics. When I imagine "bullying" I think of several kids ganging up on one kid. For example, 5 kids laughing at a 6th for being fat. Tyranny of the majority.
When I think of harassment I think of one stronger kid pushing weaker kids around. For example, a 6th grader pushing around 3rd graders. Tyranny of the strong.

Posting any photo of somebody online without their permission involves a position of leverage and seems more of harassment and invasion of privacy than bullying. Threats on life also go in the harassment category.

If the service is anonymous, I don't see how anybody could get bullied. Non-participating members could get harassed perhaps, but not bullied. Even most harassment seems illogical. If two users don't know who the other is and one threatens the other's mother, what if it is really a mother arguing with her daughter online but they don't know it, and the mother inadvertently threatened her own life.

Roundabout conclusion, I have to wonder how much of this is just a PR stunt for the rest of the world. You know, the "Hey look, we are so independent and on the fringe that we just go banned in Brazil. We are so on edge that powerful governments fear us" junk marketing.

 

[tagyro]

It doesn't make sense.
If you are anonymous, how can another anonymous person bully you?

Only the bully is anonymous in this case. The bullied person's identity is known.
So I believe it does make sense.
Have you actually read the article?

----------

If I may throw my hat into the ring or not I shall.
The original article is in Portuguese which I cannot read.

If you haven't read the article how can you form an opinion?
Use google translate and read the article, then come back and state your opinion instead of talking about something which you don't know

Posting any photo of somebody online without their permission involves a position of leverage and seems more of harassment and invasion of privacy than bullying. Threats on life also go in the harassment category.

Call it whatever you want - bullying or harassment - is still wrong.
And we're not talking about any photo - we're talking about nude photos.

If the service is anonymous, I don't see how anybody could get bullied. Non-participating members could get harassed perhaps, but not bullied. Even most harassment seems illogical. If two users don't know who the other is and one threatens the other's mother, what if it is really a mother arguing with her daughter online but they don't know it, and the mother inadvertently threatened her own life.

Only the bully is anonymous, the "harassed" party is known (not to us, but to the judge)

Roundabout conclusion, I have to wonder how much of this is just a PR stunt for the rest of the world.

Nude photos of an innocent are published online and you call this a PR stunt?

 

[Ralf The Dog]

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.

How about, "Your mother will be dead tomorrow.", with a picture of your mother and a picture of a gun?

----------

Re: the story itself, perhaps one solution would be, each poster keeps their identity private, however, account information is recorded. With a court order, that information can be retrieved.

 

[gnasher729]

so Apple can remotely access specific data on our phones? this is actually news to me. can anyone confirm if they have insight on this?

Not "access". Apple can remove apps from the app store which means they can't be downloaded again. Apple may be able to _remove_ apps from an iOS device.

I thought Kill Switch was the anti-theft system started last year, where it's locked to icloud account.

how would the remote access work…

Apple can install apps or update apps on your iPhone, so obviously they can delete apps as well. They only install apps when you select the app in the app store, click on "buy" and enter your AppleID password, but obviously they _could_ install an app without that if they wanted - they just don't. And they could remove apps every time your phone checks whether there are any app updates available.

If a company buys phones for their employees, that happens all the time. A company can buy 1,000 iPhones for their employees. Then buy 100 licenses for some software, and control which 100 employees can use that software. If you don't need the software anymore, someone in your company clicks a button, the software is removed from your phone, and someone else can then use it.

 

[gnasher729]

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?

That depends on the situation. If I was a witness in a serious court case and I received a message like that, I would take it very seriously. The police would also take it very seriously.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple is a US company, subject to US law. Why can't they just tell Brazil to **** themselves? What's the worst that can happen?

I don't know what treaties exist between Brazil and the USA, but a Brazilian court order might be enforcable in the USA (depending on treaties). If actions of Apple in Brazil constitute criminal activity, then again depending on what treaties exist, Apple employees responsible for that criminal activity might be extradited to Brazil.

If we ignore these possibilities, Apple could be fined in Brazil, and although the Brazilian government might not be able to force Apple to pay, they could confiscate any Apple property in Brazil (including all iPhones and iPads delivered to Brazil), and force anyone in Brazil owing money to Apple to pay that money to the Brazilian government instead.

 

[tennisproha]

Not "access". Apple can remove apps from the app store which means they can't be downloaded again. Apple may be able to _remove_ apps

I understand apple can install / remove apps, that makes sense. but can they access App Documents and Data?

I'm assuming apple can definitely access your icloud sync data; notes, reminders, contacts, etc…

 

[theBB]

"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

If you don't install the app, you won't even know that somebody is threatening you.

In order to prevent people from sending anonymous threats, you are also going to prevent people from blowing the whistle on any illegal acts of the powerful. Unfortunately, the governments prefer to make anonymity illegal because of that, even though they always use terrorists or psychos as the excuse.

Unrelated, in many ways Brazil is far more free than the United States.

Many? Umm, name three...

 

[Oletros]

Do you live in Brazil?

Not all citizens of the world enjoy the same freedoms and liberties as those of us in the "west". And there are many countries out there far worse than Brazil.

Brazil is not the "west"?

 

[foobarbaz]

How can you be bullied by an app that you can just delete and ignore?

You are not bullied by an app, you're bullied by people that use the app.

Spreading rumors is on page 1 of the bully playbook. Being anonymous makes it even easier to have it appear like multiple independent sources. You don't need to know about the rumors to feel the consequences. Listen to an example on This American Life.

Just deleting the app is taunting advice for someone affected.

(I'm not saying banning anonymity is the solution, mind you, just that this is a real thing.)

 

[morespce54]

Apple is subject to Brazilian laws when operating in Brazil, just like they're subject to UK laws in the UK, German laws in Germany, etc, etc
...

Yep, only Facebook can ignore other countries laws, everybody knows that...

 

[Nixie1972]

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…

That's safe because of the sandboxing of Safari on the iPhone and iPad. Unlike a Mac or PC the Safari app has no access to other parts of the phone and is not allowed to install any software on the phone. On a Mac or PC any browser can download a self starting program file that will install on your system. Not on your iPhone as apps can only be installed through the app store.
Hence the whole thing of "virus scanners" on an iPhone are nonsense as none of these apps will have access to any other apps they should scan for malicious software.

----------

How can you be bullied by an app that you can just delete and ignore?

Well, maybe your neighbor, friend, family member, children(!) or other relative didn't delete the app and shows you the content with questions when you were posing naked or if you worry about your Mom or other close relative as she has received a death-threat and he shows you. The world around you doesn't stop if you close your window curtain.
And if your real name or recognizable photo is used (or your Mom's with a gun) in the message it doesn't help that your account is anonymous. It's clear that it's directed at you.

 

[Snowy_River]

"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.

Let's be fairly clear. There are different levels of anonymity. Yes, here on MR we all have our screen names that may or may not have anything to do with our real names. Other users can contact us through the internal messaging service, but don't have direct access to any other information. However, every post we make is tied to our account, and the administrators of MR have much more information about who we really are, including email address(es), IP addresses, and so on.

On the other hand, it seems that Secret had the ability to disconnect comments from any account, making them completely anonymous, allowing people to abuse the system and abuse others.

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.

Even in the US, slipping a note in someone's mailbox with threatening, and/or offensive things on it is illegal. Given that the majority of the use of Secret seems to have been for this kind of behavior, it is not surprising that the courts took this action.

And, similar actions have been taken in the US, too. Napster anyone?