Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks App Removed From Apple Store
Stoobalou writes "An 'unofficial' WikiLeaks App which contained published documents from the Cablegate leaks has been withdrawn from the Apple App Store.The $1.99 App created by developer Igor Barinov has been removed from sale without explanation despite the fact that all of the information contained in it is publicly available."
Go Apple! Fuck yeah! /sarcasm
Anyone else feel like Apple is slowly turning into a government, as far as their attitude and exertion of control is concerned?
Living With a Nerd
Well, I'm sure Safari would be pulled next because it makes the same information accessible.
you mean Apple isn't as open as they always envisioned they were? Wait a second, whatever happened to that commercial from 1985? What did they project as their message back then? Oh, yea right, that was when they were on the bottom of the barrel...
The turtle-neck sweater wearing overlord has spoken. Bow to him ye minions! I would love to own an iPad or iPhone, but I like my soul where it is.
i wonder what anonymous will do to apple's app store.
Read radical news here
It is alive in Apple and other big companies that are swayed by whim or shareholders.
Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.
http://images.worldofapple.com/appstoreguidelines_9910.pdf
Donations can only be collected with free apps. That's where this specific app went wrong. Simple. Funny that Apple needed 4 days to find out.
Does apple follow the Amazon model of erasing banned items from customer's Kindles and iPhones?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Apple is pretty entrenched in some very interesting places here in DC so it doesn't surprise me that they would pull the app. As far as it being open source, there's a difference between saerching yourself (and the effort involved) and having someone else collate it in a comprehensive set of classified sources. I hope they sell tickets to this kids execution for treason. Maybe they can get Assange and do double billing and make it pay-per-view with proceeds going to the families of the Intelligence agents and sources who are killed from it's release.
Apparently this was because the app asked for donations.
...that a closed garden sucks. Release the hounds of hell!
Kudos to Apple. They know what's best for us more than we do. Maybe the next iphone will have its internet access filtered through the great firewall of Cupertino as an added feature.
Given their constant "nannying" of their user base, it's no wonder they are based in California.
The app clearly violated Apples policy on donations, which is most likely the case the app was removed, and was clearly admitted to by the apps creator. Boy do people read way too much into things.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Every random / abusive / tyrannical decision by Apple reminds me why I sold my iPhone and swore I would never buy another Apple product. Every time I lean closer to buying an iPad, Apple does something horrible and my credit card breathes a sigh of relief. Thank you Apple.
So, since pretty much every movie, song, and piece of software is "publicly available" if you have the right torrent tracker, it would be an outrage for Apple to pull, say, my new "Havatar" app that let's you play an full copy of the Avatar movie for free right?
Just because the information is "publicly available", some of it is still classified and illegal to posses. I don't blame apple at all for not wanting to host an app that contains these documents on their servers.
Even 3rd graders should understand that concept. I get the source code license for MS Windows from a public site I make an Apple app for it, just because I got it from a location that was publicly available doesn't mean it's unencumbered. I get the internal financial documents for Redhat that someone copied and put onto a public website, I make an Apple app for it, again using data I didn't have rights to. You have to be a complete moron to not understand the legality of content you don't have rights to.
Proof? TFA mentions the author stating that HE gave $1 from each sale to Wikileaks...no where does it say the app was soliciting donations.
Living With a Nerd
How long until Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, etc. "stop carrying Wikileaks information" over their infrastructure?
SIG: HUP
Apple's a business. They haven't made their billions by marketing to transparency-obsessed hippies.
Not that there is anything wrong with transparency-obsessed hippies, I'm just sayin'...
There is zero-value to Jobs distributing any app having anything to do with Mr. Kryptonite, Julian Assange. Risks far outweigh rewards. Open-source ideologues that don't grasp this concept AND have the cash to contemplate an Apple-gadget purchase AND are willing to overlook Google's routine co-opting of personal privacy will, I'm sure, all run out to buy an Android now. But somehow I don't think those numbers will affect the Apple stock price all that much...
Just another Slashdot summary that "creates news" in the same fashion as Foxnews. The strawman argument about the information being publicly has nothing to do with it's removal; it violated the terms on donations.
Just once, just one time I'd like to see real journalism happen.
http://images.worldofapple.com/appstoreguidelines_9910.pdf
See section 21. Donations can only be collected with free apps, and only in certain ways. Most likely since Apple cannot confirm that $1 is being donated like the app submitter is saying, it got pulled. If the person resubmits it with in app donations it will probably pass again. Otherwise we will have an explosion of "pay me $1.99 and I'll donate $1" apps all over the place and no money getting donated. Where as in app donations can be confirmed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
...of charity programs which MUST be free. Charity payments must be done through paypal or an external web site which the app links to.
This app was donating 1$ per sale. But it still violated the rule.
There are tax reasons for this rule.
So, everybody can get off their horsies.
I don't write Apps on apple platforms.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~Me
How much of that $1.99 is going to wikileaks, and how much of it is the author's profiteering?
I'm as quick as anyone to suspect Apple of inappropriate control, but this smells like something different.
assuming your app doesn't infringe against relevant copyrights.
Can you elaborate on why calling Julian Assange "Mr. Kryptonite"?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
OK, but as I've said, the article (which could be wrong, of course) says the author is donating $1 of HIS OWN MONEY to Wikileaks, rather than explicitely stating in the app that he is doing so. Once it's his money, it's his money.
Again, this is assuming the article is accurate.
Living With a Nerd
"There's no app for that."
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I would, but it doesn't look you've got much candle left and the cave you've been living in seems like it will get pretty darn dark and cold soon...
Read your EULA, it's Apple's money. After all, it's Apple's hardware and software that they are generously loaning to you. That's why Steve Jobs is bucking the trend by personally giving you an "Industry Standard" non-exclusive, royalty free license to use the money earned by apps you submitted to Apple's store for virtually any purpose you'd like.
In other news, Assange is suffering a major sense of humour failure over the Guardian publishing details from the leaked police report into his case.
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/assange-turns-on-the-guardian-over-assault-case-coverage/s2/a542064/
If you're very, very quiet and listen very, very carefully, you might be able to hear the world's tiniest violin playing for Assange. ;-)
This "Apple is a business" argument is stupid. That's like saying, "The mafia is a business". Yes, it's true. But the argument doesn't address the behavior. As a society, we don't allow mafia type businesses with their murder and extortion. We don't have to allow Apple's closed garden. Business so often means "amoral amassing of profit". Where it could, and to my mind should be, an engine for providing the financing to do good works. Why people think that because an organization is a "business" that they should be free from moral constraints, is beyond me.
Maybe I'm just confused but it looks like the Wikileaks App is still there.
It also doubles as the two guys having explicit sex app and the kama sutra app, so I can see why Apple would be loathe to remove it.
See the GP post. If the author promises to donate, this is not the same as accepting donations through an app, and does not violate the rules, which state:
21. Charities and contributions
21.1 Apps that include the ability to make donations to recognized charitable organizations must be
free
21.2 The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS
So no problem here. I'm going to tag the article !readtos
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Your trying to exercise a technicality that doesn't exist. You pay the app author $1.99 minus Apple's cut, and as a result, he donates $1 to Wikileaks. So, $1 of the app's price is a donation to Wikileaks. Pretending to separate them temporally doesn't work.
Likewise, you cannot legally get out of sales tax by helpfully donating some cash to a local business and also, at roughly the same time and as a result of your donation, being given, free of charge, one of their products.
It has been well established that he was soliciting sales by saying he would donate, but how do you know he was donating and not pocketing the money. Apple has built the ability to make a donation inside the app, so that donations are verified. So why can't the developer use these built in abilities?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikileaks didn't steal a thing. Therefore this statement:
"The right for the press to publish such documents is clearly stated in the constitution, however, the right for someone to steal such secrets is not."
Doesn't apply.
Please try again.
So can I have my money back for the iPhone? After all, I can no longer get apps for it, and apart from that ability, all the use of this iPhone is as, well, a phone.
So I'd like my money back so I can buy a phone that doesn't waste my time with pretending to be a smartphone (it can't be: I can't install apps on it, since I'm apparently limited to going elsewhere, I can't do so). I may buy an Android with the money, so I can get a PROPER smartphone, mind.
It is a good thing and here is why:
If this data had not gone to Wikileaks, but instead to Al Queda we would never had known about the security problems in the interagency data sharing network that the government uses and instead a whole lot of lives would have been lost.
People are all up in arms for this becoming public, but had it not become public it could have been far worse.
This has only been pulled in China, right?
Try http://dazzlepod.com/cable/ to browse all released WikiLeaks cables. It's minimal and easy enough to use even on your mobile devices.
How is Apple choosing what to sell in their app store any different than Sears choosing what to sell in their stores? I really wish Sears would sell some things that they don't, should I ask everyone to "shout a bit" to remind the public too? If you don't like Apple, or their products, or their App Store, fine, don't buy from them.
[quote] It seems to me that ordinary users are bumping up against the walls of the garden more and more often now [/quote]
No, ordinary users aren't bumping up against anything. /. users are anything but ordinary users, regardless of the platform in question.
STOP F'ING CALLING EVERY F'ING THING ----GATE! IT'S F'ING ANNOYING!
i will type in all caps until this is resolved. yes it's like yelling but i am yelling. stupid filter.
Thank you for stating what should have been obvious to anyone but apparently was not.
No they don't. Donations are done via Safari or SMS, according to section 21.2 of the appstore guidelines. In fact it's clear that if you have some sort of in app donation functionality you're violating the donation policy.
The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS
Apps that include the ability to make donations to recognized charitable organizations must be free
That's all apple has to say on the matter, and just from this text there are several ways to interpret it. Obviously the app includes no ability to make donations; it's by the way of buying the app that $1 is donated to wikileaks. Further, wikileaks isn't a "recognized charitable organization." How is saying "I will give $1 of my profits to wikileaks" different from saying "I will use $1 of my profits to buy a new car," and why should apple care either way?
Classified documents leaked to the public are still classified. Apple is subject to US laws, so it's likely they're protecting themselves from possible legal action. Making money off an app used to distribute classified US government documents probably wouldn't sound good in court, if it ever came to that.
Not to buy any Crapple products. No iPuds, no iPhonies, no Macintrash. Looks like I have been right about Crapple all along.
Please explain how you reached this most amuzing conclussion....
Why do Apple consider it their job to police this kind of behaviour? Noone is stopping a PC software developer from making this kind of statement, but by the looks of it the sky has not yet fallen.
"It seems to me that ordinary users are bumping up against the walls of the garden more and more often now."
I know a lot of people with iPhones. While anecdotal evidence is one step away from worthless, I can tell you nobody I know bitches about their iPhone. If I want to find people droning on and on about walled gardens and app approval standards, I have to come here. Most ordinary users are content. Those that aren't jailbreak them and move on with their lives.
Interesting to note that my more technical friends who bought Android phones (Galaxy S mostly), well - their experience has been less serene.
"But we should shout a bit every time Apple rejects a significant app, just so that the people buying iPhones/iPads are reminded what it is they've bought."
What was that? Can't hear you. Rocking out on my guitar using Amplitube on my 3gs.
This is where you see how blinding Apple's ambition to control all that is app running on their phone, because you can just as easily pop open safari, and go to the wikileaks website from the browser that comes with apple...unless they have banned the url from their phones too???
I'm not really familiar with the exact details of Apple's policies for removal, but it seems likely that they could have pulled this for the same reason that Amazon pulled WikiLeak's hosting. The app obviously allows access to content that WikiLeaks doesn't actually own, so there's probably some copyright clause that applies.
Besides, I lost count a long time ago when it comes to all of the ridiculous things Apple will pull an app for. It shouldn't be any surprise that when something legitimately controversial shows up it gets pulled.
RE my sig: RIAA & MPAA: Building towards a new dark age and profits for buggywhip makers.
you damned buggy, I'll have to whip you. (So that's what they're for!)
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
I just hope that all those good old Americans who go around the world preaching freedom of speech will now sort out their own back yards first.
Apple has a policy of not allowing apps in the app store to contain or distribute illegal content. Just because information is widely distributed that doesn't make it legal.
If you refuse to abide by the terms of a distributor or retailer, you don't get to sell through them.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
'nuff said?
Currently hooked on AMP
Additionally, or perhaps instead of, the app violates Apple's policy on one trick ponies that offer no additional functionality such as internet radios that only receive from one source. In this case, the app allows the user to access information that the user may access using Safari and Twitter. That makes it redundant, and therefore Apple's policy is to remove it. There is nothing to see here folks, please move along.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
It's not about reputation. It's just about money. Having good relations with the government might help next time the legislators consider something which might interfere with business.
> Psssst, don't spoil the fun of mindless Apple bashing by providing a totally valid reason for the app removal !
They make the rules. Acting as if they can't be criticized for merely following the rules is absurd.
They're not powerless to change them. "Oh, but we have to follow the rules!" doesn't mean much when you have sole authority to make the rules.
>Classified documents leaked to the public are still classified.
IANAL but I do hold a clearance.
Only recently because of a new executive order -- something which is not law, in any sense, for people who are not in the armed/civil forces and who have not signed an NDA.
Apple, being a corporation, one who seems to spurn large business, does not seem the type to be a defense vendor; and thus has almost certainly not signed any form of NDA.
It is entirely legal for someone who is not under force of NDA or in the armed/civil forces to publish, republish, discuss, analyze, or otherwise make available classified documents they come into possession of as long as they were not the person(s) who stole the data in the first place.
See also: New York Times v US
There's also another reason: if the US government DOES file charges against Julian Assange based on the Espionage Act, Apple could potentially be held liable as an accessory to committing a Federal felony if they allowed this app so stay on the App Store. Rightly or wrongly, Apple does have a reputation to hold up, and the last thing Apple wants is to get embroiled in the WikiLeaks controversy for all the wrong reasons.
Yea how do you like your "Walled Garden" now. Doesn't anyone see that if you are locked in a "Walled Garden" no matter how pretty it is inside if you can't get out it is still called a Prison!