Slashdot Mirror
App Auto-Tweets False Piracy Accusations
An anonymous reader writes "Certain iPhone and iPad applications from a Japanese company have broken software piracy detection mechanisms that are sending out tweets on the user's own Twitter account, saying, 'How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession.' The trouble is, it's sending these out on accounts of users who actually paid up to $50 or more for the software and who are legally using it. The app is asking for access to users' Twitter accounts, but does not give the reason why it is asking, so the author of the article concluded (rightly) that things were being done deliberately. Would you want your legally purchased software to send out messages to all of your contacts on Twitter or on other social networks saying that you were a software pirate? Would you excuse the writers of the software if it was just an error in their piracy detection measures?"
no
Oh yeah.. the same people who pay $$$$ for Apple's overpriced junk.
Generally if I have an app asking for Twitter/Facebook credentials and it appears completely unrelated to the app I just remove it and move on.
This is character assassination.
You know that old joke about crying "FIRE" in a crowded theater? The bottom line is that you must be damn sure the place is really catching fire before doing that.
The software owner should be legally charged.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Regardless of whether piracy is right or wrong, people will always do it. It's an economic problem. Many people will stop if the price is low enough; for others, "free" in both senses is the only price low enough. This is reality, and it will never change. Creators and their associated industries need to get over it. There will never be a way to stop everyone, there will never be a way to catch everyone.
That said, it may also be good economics to implement DRM in some cases; you have to weigh the benefits against the costs. (This does not appear to be one of those instances; this company is fucked.)
I would sue the app author for libel because thats exactly what it is.
...till you get a phone that for whatever reason refuses to post tweets. Go ahead apps; try to post a tweet to my account....I can't even tweet from my phone.
The author of the article admits to using Installous, which is a program for installing pirated iOS applications.
Maybe he was just pissed that he was busted!
The author of the article admits to using Installous, which is a program for installing pirated iOS applications.
Maybe he was just pissed that he was busted!
So it is either pirated or he pirated other apps in the past and he is running them on a jailbroken device. This probably would not affect anyone who had was running it on a non-jailbroken device.
It is possible that the detection mechanism checks to see if the device still has BSD jails enabled and assumes that if it is running on a jailbroken device then it is probably pirated.
I don't have too much sympathy for this person given than they were stupid enough to jailbreak their device leaving it wide open to exploitation and had installous installed.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Don't expect to have software support if you are going to remove all safe guards in your OS.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Fuck you
There's a simple solution: never install programs from an untrusted source, such as an app store. A source that's trustworthy has the sources you can download and read -- and if any such a logic bomb is found, it can be removed immediately -- not that code with such a bomb should be really allowed back without a thorough review. This possibility makes such sabotage virtually absent in free software.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
...Of whether or not the user has pirated the software, this kind of name-and-shame digital vigilantism on the part of the software author is just playing with fire. Especially (but not only) when it's shoddily coded and hitting false positives.
I can imagine them sitting around their dev table brainstorming "Ok guys, what's the best possible way we can open the company up to libel and defamation lawsuits? Hey, I know... Let's even give people who use and rely on Twitter as a business tool an opportunity to claim commercial losses against us as a result of an automated piracy accusation going out to their X-million followers!"
Sometimes things just aren't thought through very well...
The app is posting a tweet purporting to come form the user, whereas it actually comes form the app's author. As the app's message is implying that the user is violating copyrights, a crime, this is defamatory, so the author of the app is libelling the user. The user isn't a public figure, so doesn't have to prove malice on the part of the app's author. As I see it, the only defence for the app's author would be to prove that the user did illegally copy software.
Seriously, would it be so hard to include that in the article?
The company you want to avoid from now on is called "Enfor", and they deserve to have this bullshit rubbed in their face. If you want to sock 'em in the gut, email Apple and explain to them what happened after you legitimately purchased the app, and ask for a refund. I'm sure this is breaking one of their SDK rules somewhere, but even if it isn't- they have a walled garden to protect legitimate users from this kind of crap. When stuff like this gets past them, it makes Apple look bad as well as the company who wrote it.
So email Apple and tell them how you feel about this betrayal of trust. Tell them the app has publicly humiliated/embarrassed you, that you want a refund, and that this whole situation has shaken your confidence in Apple's walled garden. If enough people do this, Apple will turn around and tear a strip off Enfor- either by freely issuing refunds to anyone who asks for it, or by taking down the offending apps (goodbye sales!), or by banning the developer.
Same way Apple should brick stolen phones.. But AFAIK, doesn't.
and everyone that knows me knows I pirate software, music, movies, whatever. In fact, I'm the go to guy.
See, I tell people I pirate software, so no, the app wouldn't bother me.
But it goes to show, the only people that buy dvd/bluray's are the ones who get hit with DRM and warnings about copyright, because I sure as fuck don't get those when I download pirated versions.
You buy goods because you like the abuse. I pirate the goods because I don't like to be abused.
Be seeing you...
I would "do the right thing" and sue the shit out of the app developer for libel as well as Apple for allowing such trash inside their "walled garden".
Except that he explained the reasoning for having Installous on a jailbroken phone, and others have rung in saying that Installous isn't what's flagging it, or the only reason.
/me is a lame software pirate
The user of the app should sue the developer for Libel.
I'd sue them for personal defamation and, If I operated in any business capacity, damages to my corporate/professional image.
Except that he explained the reasoning for having Installous on a jailbroken phone, and others have rung in saying that Installous isn't what's flagging it, or the only reason.
There is no rational for having installous on a jailbroken phone other that to install pirated apps. You can have a jailbroken phone without installing installous.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Well, he gave a rationale so you're apparently wrong. And nobody suggested that Installous was required for jailbreaking, so why mention that?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
For all the high-and-mighty talk Apple bandies about regarding how carefully they analyze every app before approving it to be posted in the App Store, there sure are a lot of iOS Apps that do shady stuff like this.
I'm finding more frequently the reason people use a pirated version is to avoid this type of stuff. I'd be willing to bet only 25% of their customer base knows that. I'd also be willing to bet future customers are going to think twice about paying.
Why did Enfour do it? "Only 25% of our apps in use are legitimate copies. Piracy is threatening the survival of all independent devs," she wrote.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
There that's who they are! so claims the article.Don't buy their products and send them alot of pissed off customer emails. Let em know how ya feel.
Jack of all trades,master of none
...There is no rational...
It's rationale, moron
...for having installous on a jailbroken phone other that to install pirated apps...../
If you'd bothered to rtfa before flapping your gums:
Besides, the guy claims that he needed Installus for a legitimate purpose: " you can use it to go back to an older version of an app you legally own. This is otherwise impossible in iOS."
Who's the bitch, loser?
The author of the article admits to using Installous, which is a program for installing pirated iOS applications.
And a hammer can be used to crack skulls as well as for any problem that looks like a nail. Should we shame the hammer users?
(my point: don't blame a tool, because a tool is a tool)
When Scanner Pro, which I also legally own, introduced a bug in the app that made the app stop working completely on my device. Installous lets you browse a list of available pirated versions of the app, which also means you can use it to go back to an older version of an app you legally own.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Except that he explained the reasoning for having Installous on a jailbroken phone, and others have rung in saying that Installous isn't what's flagging it, or the only reason.
There is no rational for having installous on a jailbroken phone other that to install pirated apps.
TFA:
When Scanner Pro, which I also legally own, introduced a bug in the app that made the app stop working completely on my device. Installous lets you browse a list of available pirated versions of the app, which also means you can use it to go back to an older version of an app you legally own.
Does the above says something about your rational abilities? Naaahh... a simpler explanation exists: who the hell bother to actually RTFA?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Doing crap like that should be illegal.
The 'author' should be taken out back and flogged for it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
<advocate client="devil">
Note that he does not "legally own" Scanner Pro as he claims, rather he holds a license which permits him to use it under certain conditions. I rather doubt those conditions include "download old versions from piracy apps", so he surely is using it precisely to violate copyright, or in the common parlance, "to install pirated apps", despite the apps not having been taken by force on the high seas.</advocate>
Copyright law: it's hilariously busted, but let's fix or eliminate it rather than making excuses for violating it.
I've been rather surprised at the porousness of Apple's walled garden. My iPad is 100% stock (not jailbroken, etc), and all of the apps came directly from the app store. A couple weeks ago I noticed some odd files in my dropbox root folder. There were two executables - one for Windows (Xbox 360 MSP Generator.exe.), one for OSX (IGenerate 6.7) - both for generating "free" XBox points. Fortunately Dropbox allows you to (via their web interface only) view the versions and history of files. Both those files came from my iPad. Then last week it happened again with just a windows executable (iLividSetup.exe), also from my iPad.
So some iOS app is interacting with the Dropbox app in some way (either via API or just throwing files into a folder that Dropbox must have all permissions open on). I have yet to determine which app it is. I only use 6 or 7 apps regularly, so I'm pretty sure it's not any of those, and I have yet to do a more systematic check on the other dozens of odd lesser used apps. The moral of the story is that these app stores are not foolproof by any means, and malware is still being approved, even if the attack vector is novel, dependent on a 3rd party app (dropbox) and is cross-platform.
Anyone else see this behavior in their Dropbox files?
Better known as 318230.
<advocate client="devil"> Note that he does not "legally own" Scanner Pro as he claims, rather he holds a license which permits him to use it under certain conditions. I rather doubt those conditions include "download old versions from piracy apps", so he surely is using it precisely to violate copyright, or in the common parlance, "to install pirated apps", despite the apps not having been taken by force on the high seas.</advocate>
Copyright law: it's hilariously busted, but let's fix or eliminate it rather than making excuses for violating it.
<advocate client="devil"> I wouldn't be that sure he's using it precisely in the sense of copyright violation, his description of the problem admits a situation in which he actually has a license for a version that, upon upgrade, failed to work.
If indeed this is his situation, he has a license to use the application (perhaps even in its newer version, otherwise why try to upgrade?), but the application fails to be usable in his conditions. In which case, what he is doing is not illegal and maybe more pragmatical (than suing the provider for the lack of use).</advocate>
Maybe it pays to first look at (/get to know) the specifics of a situation before spitting blood in a fight with windmills.
Granted, addressing the sickness at the source is the actual solution (anything else being palliative) - even though the big but is if you can afford it.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
between piracy and this kind of behavior.... i gotta choose piracy. Because this kind of douchebaggery is fairly high on the scale.
That'll teach you to pay for apps huh. lol
I'd forgive them if they were to compensate me financially for libel, defamation of character, and unauthorized access to a computer device or service.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I would be fine with this. It would at least save me the trouble of announcing all the pirated software I'm using as I usually do. All apps should have this.
Pirate and Proud.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
That claim, isn't a joke, it's a phrase used to justify the ending of freedom of speech.
As if *shouting* fire is the same as speaking it.
As if shouting fire would actually cause everyone to believe there is a fire, even as they can see there is no evidence of a fire and that you have no special knowledge or insight, and anyway the fire alarm bell isn't ringing.
As if shouting (or crying as you put it) isn't the real problem there, you could shout "bananas" and it would be equally a nuisance that would get you thrown out.
Yet its used to suppress free speech.
Feel free to speak 'fire' to your girlfriend in the cinema, but not too loudly or you'll disturb other people watching the movie. You do after all have free speech, whatever that bitch Jacqui Smith might think.
The common thread you see in many cases of software or content which are heavy on the anti-piracy (advocacy, DRM, etc) is that they (er, the organisation responsible) have no integrity, no shame, and are mostly hypocrites.
Not absolutely every one of them, but near enough that to say otherwise is nothing more than legal nit-picking.
Seriously folks, when will Big Business (and even some small ones) stop thinking that ALL their customers are a bunch of ratbags, when will they stop thinking that THE UNIVERSE owes them a GUARANTEED profit FOR EVER?
Maybe I'm just not young anymore, but I remember a time when a product gave value-for-money, customers paid gladly, and businesses were pleasant about the whole experience.
Nowadays, when I go to The Cinema (yeah, I still do occasionally) I spend 30 minutes watching advertisements (seriously!) and his is only a 90 minute movie. AND there'll be AT LEAST 2 advertisements telling me I should be ashamed of myself for being such a filthy pirate (seriously, format-shifting is illegal, time-shifting is illegal, and FOR FUXAKE what d'you mean I LITERALLY cannot buy that content in this country - and NOT for legal-reasons, just because YOUR'E A RETARDED MONKEY).
Really RIAA/MPAA (and friends) you deliberately go out of your way to make it legally impossible for me to purchase the content, yet you also want to whine about people who violate your copyright?
I'm NOT going to say such obvious things as "can't have your cake and eat it too" but rather SHADDUP AND TAKE MY MONEY ALREADY.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
<advocate client="devil">
Note that he does not "legally own" Scanner Pro as he claims, rather he holds a license which permits him to use it under certain conditions. I rather doubt those conditions include "download old versions from piracy apps", so he surely is using it precisely to violate copyright, or in the common parlance, "to install pirated apps", despite the apps not having been taken by force on the high seas.</advocate>
Copyright law: it's hilariously busted, but let's fix or eliminate it rather than making excuses for violating it.
<advocate client="devil"> I wouldn't be that sure he's using it precisely in the sense of copyright violation, his description of the problem admits a situation in which he actually has a license for a version that, upon upgrade, failed to work.
If indeed this is his situation, he has a license to use the application (perhaps even in its newer version, otherwise why try to upgrade?), but the application fails to be usable in his conditions. In which case, what he is doing is not illegal and maybe more pragmatical (than suing the provider for the lack of use).
Sorry, no. Not legal, unless the license specifically permits it -- despite how obviously it should be legal. Copying is bad unless authorized by the rightsholder, and they won't authorize you to get replacements anywhere but the app store. Hell, they use the licensed-not-owned bit for CDs or DVDs and it's illegal to copy your buddy's disk because yours is scratched and unreadable -- why would it be different here, where you haven't even lost access to the app (no, never mind that the newer! better! version is fucked on your device -- I guarantee they didn't take that into account writing the license.)
He's in a situation where:
He has the legal right to use the new version, and a legal way to get it (should he wipe his device, it'll be redownloaded from the app store), but no technical capability for it to work on that device.
He probably (this could be limited by the license, but it typically isn't) has the legal right to use the old version, and definitely the technical capability, but no legal way to obtain it.
It's a Catch-22, and you're mistaken in thinking the legal system does anything to prevent you from ending up in such a fix, either in general or in this particular situation.
As I said, it's hilariously fucked, but it's the law.
There will be a license. It's that wall-o-text that no-one reads. You can't be sure of the legal situation regarding downgrades wthout reading that - but it's something rarely enough done that I doubt the license even addresses the issue.
Isn't the tweet costing you? You now have recourse to the app creator (and Apple) for costing you money by their bug. Financial value is being taken from you.
Even more obviously than any piracy claim does.
Android is more popular than iOS, hence more malware for it.
And that's all that's needed.
Just like removing encryption or DRM, all you need is ONE person looking to remove it and it's gone for EVERYONE.
It's not like an actual bug sitting in your house eating your stuff where you are the only one who could see it. It's going to be all versions of the code has the bug.
I realise that you hate the idea of being able to audit your own code (for no reason whatsoever), but suck on it, dickhead.
The users should really have known this software was malicious when it pulled the phishing attack on their Twitter accounts.
From the person who has a license (but see later) whose right to use has been removed, their property HAS BEEN STOLEN by the app provider.
THEFT. ACTUAL THEFT.
However, your assertion is complete and utter bollocks. YOU HAVE NOT BOUGHT A LICENSE YOU BOUGHT A GOOD.
You do NOT need a license to use a copyrighted product you purchased. Copyright only controls certain aspects of copying and a copy required for use of the product (i.e. installation) is NOT a copy controlled by copyright.
Your assertion is hilariously fucked, because IT IS NOT THE LAW.
You just agreed with the absolutely false allegation of the party who wants to sell something without selling it to someone.
Next time READ THE FUCKING LAW.
For all the high-and-mighty talk Apple bandies about regarding how carefully they analyze every app before approving it to be posted in the App Store, there sure are a lot of iOS Apps that do shady stuff like this.
This app doesn't do anything bad apparently unless it is installed on a jailbroken device. In that case, all odds are off. It may even be that the app is sandboxed and cannot do what it does on a non-jailbroken device.
This is a serious problem for both Android and iOS apps, and it's something that Blackberry had figured out from the very beginning. On the Blackberry, the user has a CHOICE as to whether to allow the apps access or not. You don't just get a screen saying "the app needs access to these things" and you have the options of exactly "take it or leave it." You get little checkboxes to say "No, the app can't access my personal contacts" and the app will still install, run, and work without access to your personal contacts.
Maybe I'm ok with an app having course location information, but not fine, and I'm willing to accept that the app may not be as useful that way. Maybe I don't want Facebook rummaging around in my personal contacts. Maybe I'm not comfortable with TV.com having the ability to record audio from my handset's microphone.
There's a flashlight app for Blackberry that wants access to the personal data on my phone. I say "nay nay", and the app works just fine.
So how about it, Android and iOS? Give the users REAL choices.
If I am unsure of the spelling of a word or not entirely sure of the meaning I just type it into the Chrome URL box and I end up with a Google search with corrected spelling and links to the definition by default.
Probably not as easy on an iPad of course ... but $50 for any iPad app seems exorbitant. Unless I am missing something, if the point of the app is to be a dictionary, you really don't need an app (rig up a web service or something?). Ok this app has sound bytes for pronunciation, but Dictionary.com app is $4.99 (does the same as well as voice recognition of words) and this Oxford Deluxe is $50? I am probably missing something ...
Also any app that asks for my credentials to any other app or account would not get installed to begin with. Seriously, who would give a dictionary app access to their twitter account? Who says I even have a twitter account?
I would sue.
For some people quitting piracy is just as hard as quitting the fap. Oddly there seems to be a direct correlation between the two activities.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Many many years ago, the Amiga IRC client "AmIRC" used to do a similar thing if you had a known pirated key. Everything sent to the IRC channel would come out as "/me is a lame software pirate", however would appear normal to the user themselves (so they were usually unaware until someone told them).
It was actually fairly well accepted as a clever and cute anti-piracy mechanism; but unlike the app in TFA, it never screwed up (as far as I heard about).
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
There are more Android phones in the wild yes, but not by that much.
http://bgr.com/2012/07/02/android-market-share-us-smartphone-iphone/
In the US it's 50% VS. 31%.
But Android still has 1000%+ more malware. It's not a 'popularity' issue, it's a basic OS security one.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
How well does dictionary.com's mobile site work with 0 bars, such as on a laptop or tablet while riding a bus? A $50 dictionary is cheaper than a $500 per year mobile broadband plan.
To me "charged" implies "charged with a crime"
Solve for X in the following analogy: charged is to crime as X to tort.
A compiler, not the.
Further, the compiler should yield the same result when compiling itself independent on which compiler the self-compiling compiler has been compiled with.
In other words, the "trusting trust" attack is defeated with several independently developed compiler toolchains.
Thus if you have another third party compiler you can bust this behaviour.
And there's the rub. I was under the impression that Apple had a monopoly on at least one part of the toolchain targeting iOS.
Really RIAA/MPAA (and friends) you deliberately go out of your way to make it legally impossible for me to purchase the content
Unreasonably difficult, yes; impossible, no. Can't you hop on a plane, buy a copy, and fly back?
If I am unsure of the spelling of a word or not entirely sure of the meaning I just type it into the Chrome URL box and I end up with
...a "Cannot find server" error because you are offline.
Probably not as easy on an iPad of course
Especially if your iPad is a Wi-Fi model, not a cellular model, and either you're riding the bus (hence no AP) or the APs in range are for employees only.
Unless I am missing something, if the point of the app is to be a dictionary, you really don't need an app (rig up a web service or something?).
Paid Wikipedia applications tend to have a large subset of articles available offline, where web services cannot reach. I imagine that paid dictionary applications are the same way.
Also any app that asks for my credentials to any other app or account would not get installed to begin with.
So how do FarmVille and Spotify get away with requiring all users to be members of Facebook?
Google Translate. It's free.
Only if you've already signed up for a long-term cellular data plan in the country that you happen to be visiting.
The software engineers that developed the app should be slapped with a trout in the face for unethical software development practice. Dingbats.
Depending on the country, you may be able to sue the app makers for libel. Many countries have much stronger libel laws than the US, and the app is definitely 'damaging your reputation'. Bonus payout if your occupation is actually dependent on your customers' sense of your probity - eg lawyer.. :)
I'm not a user of their software, or apple products for that matter, but if I were affected by this bug I would def
"...up to $50 or more..."
This makes no sense at all.
Please put a little bit more effort into editing submitted stories.
http://www.stolk.org/tlctc