Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Sues Apple Over FaceTime Eavesdrop Bug, Says It Let Someone Record a Sworn Testimony (cnbc.com)
A lawyer in Houston has filed a lawsuit against Apple over a security vulnerability that let people eavesdrop on iPhones using FaceTime. "His lawsuit, filed Monday in Harris County, Texas, alleges that Apple 'failed to exercise reasonable care' and that Apple 'knew, or should have known, that its Product would cause unsolicited privacy breaches and eavesdropping,'" reports CNBC. "It alleged Apple did not adequately test its software and that Apple was 'aware there was a high probability at least some consumers would suffer harm.'" From the report: The suit says that Williams was "undergoing a private deposition with a client when this defective product breached allowed for the recording" of the conversation. Williams claimed this caused "sustained permanent and continuous injuries, pain and suffering and emotional trauma that will continue into the future" and that Williams "lost ability to earn a living and will continued to be so in the future." The lawsuit also says that iOS 12.1, the latest major release of the iPhone operating system, was defective and "unreasonable dangerous" and that Apple "failed to provide adequate warnings to avoid the substantial danger" posed by the security flaw. Williams is seeking compensatory and punitive damages as a result of the exploit.
People like him (acting like dicks) are one of the reasons lots of people can't have nice things (like dinner, for example)
C*ntish suing like where it is extremely probably someone is purely out for the money should have criminal penalties
Lawyers are the scum of the earth. Another episode that confirms this truism.
It is how due to how the US legal system was written. A lot of US regulation depends on DIY justice. Rather than reporting a violation and having the state investigate and enforce, private citizens have to pony up the time and money to take each other to court. So it is less that people love lawsuits and more that is how one actually triggers the legal and regulatory process in many cases.
Unless his client got physical upon finding out or something, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work
It sounds like the loss claimed will be fanciful and theoretical, not actual and certain.
At most he loses Facetime as a tool for recording these types of depositions in the future, but Apple never marketed Facetime as software secure for sensitive business use, and besides which, there are numerous warranty disclaimers you agree to in the Apple click-through EULA you agree to before using the software, so if you find the software doesn't do what you need, you are not so much as entitled to a refund: Which an attorney using the software for professional purposes has a higher burden than the general public to read and understand --- That is, someone who is an Attorney or legal firm cannot get out of a contract or EULA by claiming the contract was confusing, or they were ignorant, etc.
You are making my point for me. The lawyer's own negligence in this case is partly what endangered his clients privacy. The privacy risks around dumb phones was know 20 years go. People did pull the batteries before going to secure locations (where they did not want tracked) or going to private meetings or (gasp) you left it at your desk and closed the door to meeting room.
For some reason dumb people now carry smart phones everywhere they go no matter what and you can't remove the battery. I suggest powering it off is sufficient in 99% of cases unless you have specific reason to think you are being targeted in some way. It is a network attached listening device and location beacon though at the end of the day and you should treat it that way. When privacy is a major concern leave it at home / locked in your desk drawer and come get it when your are done or turn the damn thing off.
Ditto for smart speakers and TVs, should they violate your privacy - no - could they - most certainly, so treat them as such. Maybe put it in the den, but not the bedroom or your home office. I don't know consider the risks and rewards for each situation and make your choices.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Except for the fact that a judge would toss any zero-party consent recording that didn't also have a court order for electronic surveillance applied to it, previous to the recording being made as an illegal search.
This is no different than what would happen with the recording from an illegal wiretap, or illegal audio bug planted in the room. It would get tossed during evidence discovery, long before any jury would be able to see / hear the recording. And then there would be sanctions for any prosecutor trying to use such evidence.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.