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Stoobalou writes "An 'unofficial' WikiLeaks App which contained published documents from the Cablegate leaks has been withdrawn from the Apple App Store.The $1.99 App created by developer Igor Barinov has been removed from sale without explanation despite the fact that all of the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.
i wonder what anonymous will do to apple's app store.
Read radical news here
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.
Wait a second, whatever happened to that commercial from 1985?
The one with businessmen as lemmings?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.
Actually it's fortunate it doesn't apply, because if you think about it, what you're asking for would mean that government would literally have the mandate to *force* private individuals to carry a message they may not want to. Having a right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that other private individuals should be required by law to carry and spread anyone else's message (even at their own cost). Apple consists of private individuals, if governments could force Apple to carry anyone's speech, they could force you and me to carry speech too. If a kid scrawled graffiti on your wall, hey, that's "speech", government should force you to leave it up. Thankfully that's not how things work.
That said, dammit Apple, you keep disappointing me on a regular basis with the closedness and the draconian control over what is and isn't allowed in your 'app store'.
Fortunately there is competition, and competing app stores and platforms are popping up like mushrooms. So I'm not too worried, app stores will be forced to remain quite open thanks to competition. Apple's attitude is already reflecting in their market growth vs the growth of others like Android, and they'll have to ease up a little or they'll keep losing share.
Apparently this was because the app asked for donations.
...that a closed garden sucks. Release the hounds of hell!
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."
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?
Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.
Why? No private entity should be obligated to have their private property used as a platform for speech that they don't like. If you find this unfortunate, then you don't mind using your private property as platforms for their speech, right? If I come to your house and start putting campaign signs in your yard you're just going to leave them there and not remove them and censor me, right? You're just going to allow anyone and everyone to use your private property for their speech platform in any shape or form they choose, right?
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.
How long until Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, etc. "stop carrying Wikileaks information" over their infrastructure?
SIG: HUP
How can information be made publicly available and illegal to posses? Can you give me an example or an analogy? This sounds like a catch 22 to me...
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
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...
Umm... I own an iPod.
But then again, I own the iPod... so...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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 $1" apps all over the place and no money getting donated. Where as in app donations can be confirmed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
That's what u think. Have you read Apple's EULA? It says ..."Apple can and will decide what you can and will use on anything you buy from Apple. And oh yeah BTW, Jailbreaking is NOT legal or cool. The Black Turtlenecked Lord of the Underworld has spoken .... So let it be written, so let it be done"
...of charity programs which MUST be free. Charity payments must be done through paypal or an external web site which the app links to.
This app was donating 1$ 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.
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
Very true. There is, hoever the related concept of freedom of speech. This is not is much abnout legal obligations as it is about a moral belief that all opions should be heard even if some people find it offensive.
Applying these sorts of arbitrary limitations on who might use a platform is generally considered pretty reprehesible behaviour.
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...
If the Turtleneck got too tight and cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, that's the turtle's problem.
I own my iPod. Whether St. Steve likes it or not. And, oh yeah, btw, my law actually doesn't bar me from owning it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're confusing your front yard with an online marketplace used by millions of people with unlimited preferences.
Yes there should be limits and they should be balanced between the rights of the users, the companies, and the laws of where you reside.
Right now whatever Apple approves is gospel. (Conditions may apply, approval may and will change whenever we feel like it and we owe no-one an explanation)
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. ;-)
I should have fleshed my point out better.
What I meant to say is that it should be more open and the process more transparent. Sure, there should be limits and they should be balanced between the rights of the users, the companies, and the laws of where you reside.
Right now whatever Apple says goes. (Conditions may apply, approval may and will change whenever we feel like it and we owe no-one an explanation)
So you either jailbroke it, or it's one of those old iPods that only plays music.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
This is not is much abnout legal obligations as it is about a moral belief that all opions should be heard even if some people find it offensive.
Applying these sorts of arbitrary limitations on who might use a platform is generally considered pretty reprehesible behaviour.
Well here's Apple's stance on this moral belief: They are pro-censorship, anti-free-speech, end of story, have a nice day.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yes, I'm all for placing public pressure on companies to promote and behave according to such ideals ... but not by using the force of the state, just by voting with our wallets, complaining loudly, etc.
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.
You're confusing your front yard with an online marketplace used by millions of people with unlimited preferences.
No, actually I'm not. Both are private property. Both are subject to the rules set out by the owner.
Yes there should be limits and they should be balanced between the rights of the users, the companies, and the laws of where you reside.
Why should there be limits? Just because you say so?
Right now whatever Apple approves is gospel. (Conditions may apply, approval may and will change whenever we feel like it and we owe no-one an explanation)
Duh? It's their service. They make the rules. You don't like the rules, you go elsewhere.
This is not is much abnout legal obligations as it is about a moral belief that all opions should be heard even if some people find it offensive.
You can still be heard. Just not on their private property.
i was under the impression the app retrieved the data from the wikileaks server, else with every new leak, an app update would be needed for it to stay relevant.
So no, the app installation file on the apple servers does not (have to) contain any classified/illegal documents
People, what a bunch of bastards
Right now whatever Apple says goes.
Well it is their store, so I agree with that in principle (just as it's my right to not purchase from or develop for their app store in disgust, and to complain about it loudly), because Apple's rights are your and my rights* too (for anything we might create someday). Users already have rights, sure, e.g. they may not be defrauded by Apple (for example, if Apple blocked an app after a customer has paid for it, that would be fraudulent) but I don't think that's what's happening; rather, it seems the app developer violated some of Apple's draconian and controlling rules.
* When demanding regulation (e.g. what you call "balance") people always make the mistake of thinking they're voting away "someone else's rights". In their minds, it's always "someone else" that they don't perceive could ever be them - a big company, the rich, whatever --- what people seldom seem to realize is that you cannot vote away someone else's rights without voting away your own rights too. Steve Jobs' rights to be draconian in his store, are your rights. You want to vote away Steve's rights, you cannot do it without voting away your own rights, and your children (born or unborn), and your brothers and sisters, and your parents and grandparents, and your friends rights, etc. etc., and when you or anyone you know wants to start a business and open a store, oops, you find they have run into the same crushing regulations that people asked for to curtail control freaks like Steve.
Let the market sort it out. Android is growing so incredibly quickly that they will have more apps than Apple within a year. And within five years, everyone and their dog will have app stores and it'll be a huge, free bonanza (unless someone decides they should be over-regulated).
Quite. So that's an arbitrary limitation on freedom of speech. One that they have every legal right to apply but still indicates that Apple do not actively endorse freedom of speech as a virtue.
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-----
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.
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.
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.
You're correct. The 1st amendment doesn't apply here. The documents are still classified even though they've been leaked to the public. Illegal distribution of classified material is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. I don't think Apple wanted to be in a position where they were profiting off an app that aided the distribution of classified material.
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.
Your point being?
Jailbreaking is not illegal, at least where I am. It is a technicality and a loophole in our copyright, but legally, it is not prohibited.
I may not use the Apple store (probably, never bothered to try, actually), which is permissible since Apple may dictate the terms on which to use their store, and if that includes being allowed to use it only with an un-broken iPod, that's their prerogative.
The same applies to cellphones locked to certain providers, btw.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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???
My point is that you don't "own" any of the modern Apple iShinies out of the box.
You can buy unlocked cell phones however.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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
There is not such thing as "illegal to posess iformation". Once it's leaked, it's leaked, there is no way to take it back or make information "illegal". It can only be illegal to take classified information and release it to the public.
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.
I have freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech also means that you have the freedom to ignore me. I have no wish to have to parrot Rush Limburger just to protect HIS freedom of speech.
Free Martian Whores!
'nuff said?
Currently hooked on AMP
Of course it would, who do you think owns companies - robots?
Quite. So that's an arbitrary limitation on freedom of speech.
No, because "freedom of speech" was never applicable to private parties and their private property.
One that they have every legal right to apply but still indicates that Apple do not actively endorse freedom of speech as a virtue.
Unless you allow anyone and everyone to use your private property as their personal speech platform then you are no better and thus have no reason to complain.
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.
No, because "freedom of speech" was never applicable to private parties and their private property.
Yes it is! That being my whole point. If I have a platform, I can grant you or deny you freedom of speech. That is my legal right. It's still about freedom of speech. In what way does this not apply to private parties and private property?
Unless you allow anyone and everyone to use your private property as their personal speech platform then you are no better and thus have no reason to complain.
I don't own a platform for people to speak from. Should I acquire one, I would not make arbitrary decisions as to who may and may not use it.
you mean Apple isn't as open as they always envisioned they were?
I'd be interested to know of how many major companies you can name that own, maintain, or are very active in as many open source projects as Apple is. While you're at it, could you name the major software maker tends to support open file and interface standards as much as Apple does.
That's what u think. Have you read Apple's EULA? It says ..."Apple can and will decide what you can and will use on anything you buy from Apple. And oh yeah BTW, Jailbreaking is NOT legal or cool. The Black Turtlenecked Lord of the Underworld has spoken .... So let it be written, so let it be done"
Um, no. It doesn't. And I don't mean "in those words", I mean, it doesn't say those things at all, regardless of phrasing.
Yes. I agree. And in a larger frame, I can choose to ignore any newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, and I do. But you are a private individual with your own political opinions. And we expect a newspaper to have a political slant.
A mobile phone app store is a little different. Most people, when they purchased their iPhone, and locked themselves in, only thought they were locking themselves into a technology platform. Now it seems the rules have been changed, and they've also been locked into a political platform. If you're marketing yourself as a technology platform, and the technology can provide information, I feel it's unethical not to provide freedom of speech.
And for what it's worth, I rate a newspaper much more highly if it promotes all sides of an argument equally. I consider this a much better moral stance.
Free speech includes the right for private entities to not speak a message they do not agree with. All opinions should be heard, but that doesn't mean any individual should be forced to express all those opinions.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I'm not talking about forcing anyone. I'm saying I think they have a moral obligation. A bit like the moral obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and the moral obligation to be polite and considerate. I'd hate it if anyone was forced to do those things either but I really think they should.
Don't hold your breath.
That's not why anyone comes here, so they have no reason to change.
They have no more moral obligation to carry WikiLeaks as they do apps which contain hate speech, pornography, spam, religious or political views, etc.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
No, they thought they were buying a tool to do things they wanted
they didn't get that either. Not if they wanted a wikileaks app.
Uh... yeah. Right. You're being really obtuse. Smartphone apps are only one possible information channel. They aren't even an especially great channel for this kind of thing; are they any better at delivering Wikileaks than a website? I say no. And Apple has never so much as hinted that they plan to censor Safari.
I'm not sure how that matters. It's still a limitation on freedom of speech no matter how poor the channel.
I rate a newspaper much more highly if it does its level best to actually uncover the truth, and say it clearly. Some arguments are terrible...
Fair point. I guess newspapers aren't there to provide freedom of speech. Simply to take advantage of it. Still, I do prefer it if a newspaper provides a right to reply. they are not legally obliged to do so of course.
They also have a obligation not to cause offence. This may or may not be of grerater importance than their obligation to support freedom of speech. Wikileaks does not cause significant offence.
Apple's attitude is already reflecting in their market growth vs the growth of others like Android, and they'll have to ease up a little or they'll keep losing share.
Are you sure this statistic is based on their app store?