I don’t get it. iMessage is Apple’s service. Why are they obliged to open it up for everyone to use? Would it be nice? Yes, of course. Should Apple be legally required to open up access to their service?
the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors
Emphasis added. What the government might argue in this case is that Apple has market power in the online message space because it preloads its own messaging app on its smartphones, which I believe enjoy a majority market share in the USA. One remedy the government could seek is requiring Apple to allow third parties to develop clients for its messaging service.
How? It’s not a MitM or anything like that, it’s connecting exactly how an Apple device would connect. Everything is still E2EE, just one of the ends can now be an Android device.
So is having unencrypted messages with all non-iOS devices with no real solution in sight. Security is obviously not their concern here, it’s vendor lock in.
Businesses are naturally anticompetitive. It may or may not violate antitrust law. The two main categories are collusion with competitors to prevent new competition, or if they seek to gain or maintain a monopoly via shady methods (just a monopoly itself isn’t illegal though). I doubt if Apple conspired with Google here and it would be a stretch to say they have a monopoly, so it seems like a pointless case to me.
Reverse engineering it is not, sure. And Beeper could do that and run their own messaging service with their own infrastructure running their reverse engineered version.
That’s not what they’re doing. They’re using Apple’s version for free. They’re also encouring their users to violate their terms of service agreements with Apple en-masse.
Ah, common misconception - hacking an API != creating a compatible program. ( reverse engineering)
Imagine a drill company has a special shape for its bits.
Our law allows someone else to either… make bits that can fit in that shape
OR make their own drill that can accept those bits.
“BUT they copied!” - it doesn’t have to be a copy to be compatible, and they don’t even have to use the ‘special shape’ just be able to work with the special shape. The law does not allow for protections around that. Doing so would be by definition anti-competitive. Our anti competition laws or rather our IP protection laws are not intended in any way to ‘ensure a monopoly’. The IP laws give a person a right to either keep something they do secret OR share that knowledge with the world so we all benefit, in exchange for a very limited monopoly.
Practically speaking, If I got the KFC Colonel to give me list the 11 herbs and spices in a Poker game, and then started making my own delicious poultry that is totally cool. Likewise, If I figured out that all that was inside a Threadr-ripper was blue smoke and started making my own blue smoke chips, the law is ok with that.
In this case roughly, Having a public facing endpoint. And then saying that the public can access that endpoint is cool
Saying that only the public using the code I alone gave them – well… that’s not been litigated a lot, but all signs point to no.
It’s like Bing saying its for Safari only, and suing people who accessed it using Chrome. It is a logical claim, but the law does not provide that kind of protection/enforcement.
tl;dr these concepts are old but being newly applied to fancy technology. The laws in place are clear in most cases. A car maker can not dictate what you put in the tank. FedEX and UPS can’t charge you differently for shipping fiction books or medical journals or self published stories. And they’d probably get anti-trust scrutiny they even told you what brand/style of boxes you had to use.
That counts as unauthorized access in the eyes of the law. It’s a private system and they did not have any agreements permitting them to use it as they wanted.
Quite literally the text of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act. Unauthorized access of computer systems can get you 20-years at club fed. Seems like some of these people need a history lesson.
I don’t know laws in the US but my limited understanding in the case of Beeper is that its users are the ones that grant themselves unauthorized access to the Apple servers. Beeper is a tool that packages pypush to accomplish it. So Apple should sue all the Beeper users?
As an example, there are tons of tools to exploit vulnerable systems in Linux. Metasploit is a penetration testing software and can execute exploits on old unpatched systems. I don’t think anyone is suing Metasploit developers for Computer Fraud and Abuse aCt. The users who use it are responsible for the access of unauthorized services and broken ToS.
If Apple thinks Beeper users are exploiting its servers, they should patch them (which they did).
Beeper did try to monetize it, so i’m not sure how it fairs but Beeper is not forcing anyone to gain unauthorized access. Beeper even welcomed Apple to audit Beeper mini code.
And I’m sure Beeper has a legal team that analyzed these scenarios better than anyone of us. And Apple has sued companies for less. They’d have done it the moment the app landed on appstore. They could have crushed it before gaining any attention.
Again, I have no idea how legal it is. I have both Apple and android devices and never use iMessage. But you gotta hand it to Beeper devs. That’s some old school hacker shit and I’m here for it.
These are separate issues and it’s a very complex set of issues. Reverse engineering is generally “okay” as long as you aren’t directly copying code, because you’ll run afoul of copyright laws. That doesn’t grant them the rights to access anyone else’s computer systems without authorization.
Tools that can be used maliciously are generally allowed because they have legitimate uses, using them to gain access or otherwise harm a computer system or network without authorization is criminal. You keep mentioning “suing” but this is not a civil issue, violating the CFAA is a crime.
Aaron Swartz got supremely fucked for writing a script that downloaded files he legally could access but technically was unauthorized because he accessed them in a way the corporation didn’t like.
I don’t think you see the difference, Aaron was downloading the data off of MIT servers himself, he was not facing charges for writing the scripts.
From your link:
The Justice Department’s press release announcing Aaron’s indictment suggests the true motivation for pursuing the case was that Aaron downloaded academic literature from JSTOR and planned to make it available to the public for free as a political statement about access to knowledge.
.
Tools that can be used maliciously are generally allowed because they have legitimate uses, using them to gain access or otherwise harm a computer system or network without authorization is criminal.
As I said before, Beeper users are gaining unauthorized access, not Beeper. It is E2EE, they’re not the middleman.
Genuinely curious, what’s the law against reverse engineering an API? I can maybe see the argument for charging for the service, but beeper mini is planning to integrate other services as well so I don’t know if that’ll really hold water.
They can reverse engineer it and run it as their own service with their own infrastructure. But that doesn’t mean they can then start accessing Apple’s implementation and using Apple’s resources without permission.
If they function identically to a normal client though what’s the issue? As an example Google indexes pages all over the web without the explicit permission of those websites, that requires them to read the page and make requests to someone else’s infrastructure.
The websites in question getting crawled and indexed are generally open and available for anyone to browse. There are parts of the web that are gated off and require authentication and authorization to access. Imagine now that Google found a way to authenticate as you with your bank’s website and index your online banking portal. (It’s not a perfect analogy to what’s happening with Beeper, but I’m just using the one you laid out.)
In a similar way, iMessage as a service requires authentication and authorization to use. It is not open for anyone to use. Beeper is doing something to spoof or otherwise fool Apple into giving the client access. This is the part that’s illegal. And potentially not just “file a lawsuit” illegal but criminally so.
It doesn’t really matter why Apple doesn’t want Beeper or anyone else to use it. The fact that they simply don’t is all that matters.
What do you think an API is? They have reverse engineered the iMessage API and are using that to connect to the iMessage servers. It is literally impossible to do as you suggest (use entirely their own resources) because iMessage is centralized and cannot federate with any other server, even if one did exist.
and are using that to connect to the iMessage servers.
This is not allowed because Apple doesn’t want to allow it. They own the infrastructure serving the API, they get to determine who is authorized to use it. They can block whoever they want. And technically speaking, using it in an unauthorized manner could even rise to the level of a criminal violation of the CFAA.
It is literally impossible to do as you suggest (use entirely their own resources) because iMessage is centralized and cannot federate with any other server, even if one did exist.
Partially correct. It is not impossible to do as I suggested, because I never suggested that they should have interoperability with iMessage.
Fun fact, a lot of parts are compatible between cars. But really this is like if they were able to stop a machine shop from creating a replacement part.
And when some developer comes at you and shows how they did some work to make a part compatible with your cars, you go “fuck it, redo all existing cars to make all 3rd party incompatible!” instead of “ok do that at your own risk”.
I think the problem is that it’s unnecessarily hardware locked. They shouldn’t have to “open it up” insofar as anyone can access it from whatever app like beeper is doing. But it’s only fair that they support other operating systems. They can still control it or even charge a fee to access it from other OSes.
I wish this kind of thing was more spotlighted when Palm and Windows Phone developers were trying to use Google API’s to make apps for their OS’s and got shut down at every turn, eventually killing off the Palm and WP because of device lock-in on apps.
I still miss what Palm could have been before Google bent them over a barrel with their massively anti-competitive bs.
Palm apps were tiny, took trivial resources, and could provide a lot of what was done with new apps on Android. Dictionaries, calculators, games (I played monopoly on a Treo, it looked great). I watched Mp4 movies on a Treo.
Imagine Android with a Palm Subsystem so all those old Palm apps could run. It would’ve majorly slowed Android app adoption, perhaps even giving enough support to allow PalmOS architecture to develop into a competitor to Android.
Because their practices are anti-competitive. School kids are getting bullied for using Android phones because they’re “green texters” in iMessage. But most importantly iMessage’s connection with SMS causes all interaction to be very low quality images and videos. And when people complain to Tim Apple about the experience, his only response is “Get your grandma an iPhone”. Our only saving grace is that the EU is requiring Apple to support RCS, which should solve these issues, except they’ll probably find some new way to be anti-competitive about it.
You can turn off iMessage in settings and disable the phone number from messages. Then use whatever messaging service you want with the phone number.
Still not sure how it’s anti competitive to not allow others to use your own proprietary software when there are alternatives available, and they are not being restricted.
School kids are getting bullied for using Android phones
That’s a people problem, not a market-share problem. From experience, kids will always find something to bully others about — if it’s not the colour of the bubbles, it’s something else: the brand of shoes they wear, the suburb they live in, the sport they play (or don’t play). Bullies will do what they do.
Apple should 100 percent support RCS and Tim’s “buy your grandma an iphone” response was stupid and does show that they don’t give a shit. However the Beeper situation is something different entirely, if the reports I’ve read are too be believed it was a security vulnerability or a blatant disregard of apples terms. Also the kids being bullied thing is very overblown, and almost certainly a regional thing. I live in buttfuck no where and I not one kid gives a shit they just want to talk to their friends. My kid has an android and his friend group is like 50/50 on iPhones. Its weird adults and parents who inadvertently say things or give their children the idea that green bubbles are bed. Kids don’t give a fuck unless they’ve learned it somewhere.
I don’t get it. iMessage is Apple’s service. Why are they obliged to open it up for everyone to use? Would it be nice? Yes, of course. Should Apple be legally required to open up access to their service?
The US Federal Trade Commission puts it this way:
It further explains that “market power” means:
Emphasis added. What the government might argue in this case is that Apple has market power in the online message space because it preloads its own messaging app on its smartphones, which I believe enjoy a majority market share in the USA. One remedy the government could seek is requiring Apple to allow third parties to develop clients for its messaging service.
They didn’t, someone made an App to interface with it. Trying to shut that down is anti-competitive.
It’s also a huge security hole
How? It’s not a MitM or anything like that, it’s connecting exactly how an Apple device would connect. Everything is still E2EE, just one of the ends can now be an Android device.
So is having unencrypted messages with all non-iOS devices with no real solution in sight. Security is obviously not their concern here, it’s vendor lock in.
Businesses are naturally anticompetitive. It may or may not violate antitrust law. The two main categories are collusion with competitors to prevent new competition, or if they seek to gain or maintain a monopoly via shady methods (just a monopoly itself isn’t illegal though). I doubt if Apple conspired with Google here and it would be a stretch to say they have a monopoly, so it seems like a pointless case to me.
It’s not a public API. Hacking someone’s private API is already against law - charging $$ for it moreso.
Reverse engineering an API is not illegal
Reverse engineering it is not, sure. And Beeper could do that and run their own messaging service with their own infrastructure running their reverse engineered version.
And that’s what they’re doing.
That’s not what they’re doing. They’re using Apple’s version for free. They’re also encouring their users to violate their terms of service agreements with Apple en-masse.
Ah, common misconception - hacking an API != creating a compatible program. ( reverse engineering)
Imagine a drill company has a special shape for its bits. Our law allows someone else to either… make bits that can fit in that shape OR make their own drill that can accept those bits.
“BUT they copied!” - it doesn’t have to be a copy to be compatible, and they don’t even have to use the ‘special shape’ just be able to work with the special shape. The law does not allow for protections around that. Doing so would be by definition anti-competitive. Our anti competition laws or rather our IP protection laws are not intended in any way to ‘ensure a monopoly’. The IP laws give a person a right to either keep something they do secret OR share that knowledge with the world so we all benefit, in exchange for a very limited monopoly.
Practically speaking, If I got the KFC Colonel to give me list the 11 herbs and spices in a Poker game, and then started making my own delicious poultry that is totally cool. Likewise, If I figured out that all that was inside a Threadr-ripper was blue smoke and started making my own blue smoke chips, the law is ok with that.
In this case roughly, Having a public facing endpoint. And then saying that the public can access that endpoint is cool Saying that only the public using the code I alone gave them – well… that’s not been litigated a lot, but all signs point to no.
It’s like Bing saying its for Safari only, and suing people who accessed it using Chrome. It is a logical claim, but the law does not provide that kind of protection/enforcement.
tl;dr these concepts are old but being newly applied to fancy technology. The laws in place are clear in most cases. A car maker can not dictate what you put in the tank. FedEX and UPS can’t charge you differently for shipping fiction books or medical journals or self published stories. And they’d probably get anti-trust scrutiny they even told you what brand/style of boxes you had to use.
They didn’t hack it, they spoofed a device, they just tricked the systems around the api
That counts as unauthorized access in the eyes of the law. It’s a private system and they did not have any agreements permitting them to use it as they wanted.
Quite literally the text of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act. Unauthorized access of computer systems can get you 20-years at club fed. Seems like some of these people need a history lesson.
Apple reverse-engineered Office to release iWork. So Apple isn’t new to reverse-engineering others proprietary shit when it benefits them. something, something, history lesson, hmm…
I don’t know laws in the US but my limited understanding in the case of Beeper is that its users are the ones that grant themselves unauthorized access to the Apple servers. Beeper is a tool that packages pypush to accomplish it. So Apple should sue all the Beeper users?
As an example, there are tons of tools to exploit vulnerable systems in Linux. Metasploit is a penetration testing software and can execute exploits on old unpatched systems. I don’t think anyone is suing Metasploit developers for Computer Fraud and Abuse aCt. The users who use it are responsible for the access of unauthorized services and broken ToS.
If Apple thinks Beeper users are exploiting its servers, they should patch them (which they did).
Beeper did try to monetize it, so i’m not sure how it fairs but Beeper is not forcing anyone to gain unauthorized access. Beeper even welcomed Apple to audit Beeper mini code.
And I’m sure Beeper has a legal team that analyzed these scenarios better than anyone of us. And Apple has sued companies for less. They’d have done it the moment the app landed on appstore. They could have crushed it before gaining any attention.
Again, I have no idea how legal it is. I have both Apple and android devices and never use iMessage. But you gotta hand it to Beeper devs. That’s some old school hacker shit and I’m here for it.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
These are separate issues and it’s a very complex set of issues. Reverse engineering is generally “okay” as long as you aren’t directly copying code, because you’ll run afoul of copyright laws. That doesn’t grant them the rights to access anyone else’s computer systems without authorization.
Tools that can be used maliciously are generally allowed because they have legitimate uses, using them to gain access or otherwise harm a computer system or network without authorization is criminal. You keep mentioning “suing” but this is not a civil issue, violating the CFAA is a crime.
Aaron Swartz got supremely fucked for writing a script that downloaded files he legally could access but technically was unauthorized because he accessed them in a way the corporation didn’t like.
I don’t think you see the difference, Aaron was downloading the data off of MIT servers himself, he was not facing charges for writing the scripts.
From your link:
.
As I said before, Beeper users are gaining unauthorized access, not Beeper. It is E2EE, they’re not the middleman.
What this guy said https://lemmy.world/comment/6119756
Genuinely curious, what’s the law against reverse engineering an API? I can maybe see the argument for charging for the service, but beeper mini is planning to integrate other services as well so I don’t know if that’ll really hold water.
They can reverse engineer it and run it as their own service with their own infrastructure. But that doesn’t mean they can then start accessing Apple’s implementation and using Apple’s resources without permission.
If they function identically to a normal client though what’s the issue? As an example Google indexes pages all over the web without the explicit permission of those websites, that requires them to read the page and make requests to someone else’s infrastructure.
What part exactly here is illegal?
The websites in question getting crawled and indexed are generally open and available for anyone to browse. There are parts of the web that are gated off and require authentication and authorization to access. Imagine now that Google found a way to authenticate as you with your bank’s website and index your online banking portal. (It’s not a perfect analogy to what’s happening with Beeper, but I’m just using the one you laid out.)
In a similar way, iMessage as a service requires authentication and authorization to use. It is not open for anyone to use. Beeper is doing something to spoof or otherwise fool Apple into giving the client access. This is the part that’s illegal. And potentially not just “file a lawsuit” illegal but criminally so.
It doesn’t really matter why Apple doesn’t want Beeper or anyone else to use it. The fact that they simply don’t is all that matters.
What do you think an API is? They have reverse engineered the iMessage API and are using that to connect to the iMessage servers. It is literally impossible to do as you suggest (use entirely their own resources) because iMessage is centralized and cannot federate with any other server, even if one did exist.
They are saying they could run their own competing iMessage.
Of course that’s not Beeper’s goal. But in this conversation, that was the point being made.
Yes, this part is legal and fine.
This is not allowed because Apple doesn’t want to allow it. They own the infrastructure serving the API, they get to determine who is authorized to use it. They can block whoever they want. And technically speaking, using it in an unauthorized manner could even rise to the level of a criminal violation of the CFAA.
Partially correct. It is not impossible to do as I suggested, because I never suggested that they should have interoperability with iMessage.
deleted by creator
Yes, they should be legally required to open up access to their service. No more walled gardens that hold a large number of users hostage.
So by this thinking all cars should have compatible parts.
The world just ain’t that way bruh
Fun fact, a lot of parts are compatible between cars. But really this is like if they were able to stop a machine shop from creating a replacement part.
That would be awesome, wouldn’t it be?
Do you think we live in the best possible of worlds where nothing can be improved anymore?
And when some developer comes at you and shows how they did some work to make a part compatible with your cars, you go “fuck it, redo all existing cars to make all 3rd party incompatible!” instead of “ok do that at your own risk”.
Bad analogy. It’s more like, Apple has its own roads that are exclusively for their cars.
Like someone’s private property that they can kind of do what they want with? Makes sense.
Damn, the Apple dick sucker’s are bad at analogies…
Your analogy, not mine.
Sorry it obviously also applies to understanding analogies.
I’d be more inclined to believe you if you weren’t throwing ad hominems around in what seems to be an amateurish effort to save face for some reason…
You can argue that they’re unfairly using monopoly power. Same reason why MS was forced to allow windows to switch browsers.
Monopoly on what?
How would you argue that? There’s plenty of other options and iMessage falls back to MMS, which all phones are capable of.
I think the problem is that it’s unnecessarily hardware locked. They shouldn’t have to “open it up” insofar as anyone can access it from whatever app like beeper is doing. But it’s only fair that they support other operating systems. They can still control it or even charge a fee to access it from other OSes.
I wish this kind of thing was more spotlighted when Palm and Windows Phone developers were trying to use Google API’s to make apps for their OS’s and got shut down at every turn, eventually killing off the Palm and WP because of device lock-in on apps.
I still miss what Palm could have been before Google bent them over a barrel with their massively anti-competitive bs.
Palm terrified them.
Palm apps were tiny, took trivial resources, and could provide a lot of what was done with new apps on Android. Dictionaries, calculators, games (I played monopoly on a Treo, it looked great). I watched Mp4 movies on a Treo.
Imagine Android with a Palm Subsystem so all those old Palm apps could run. It would’ve majorly slowed Android app adoption, perhaps even giving enough support to allow PalmOS architecture to develop into a competitor to Android.
When imessage was announced they planned to bring it to other platforms. That died when they realized how much of a lock in it was
If they’re going to default message service to it then yes.
Because their practices are anti-competitive. School kids are getting bullied for using Android phones because they’re “green texters” in iMessage. But most importantly iMessage’s connection with SMS causes all interaction to be very low quality images and videos. And when people complain to Tim Apple about the experience, his only response is “Get your grandma an iPhone”. Our only saving grace is that the EU is requiring Apple to support RCS, which should solve these issues, except they’ll probably find some new way to be anti-competitive about it.
How is creating a proprietary service anti competitive? There are many other methods of messaging and Apple is not stoping anyone from using them.
Kids being bullied in school has nothing to do with being anti competitive.
You can’t change your default messenger on iOS, so they’re not making it easy to stop using iMessage completely.
You can turn off iMessage in settings and disable the phone number from messages. Then use whatever messaging service you want with the phone number.
Still not sure how it’s anti competitive to not allow others to use your own proprietary software when there are alternatives available, and they are not being restricted.
TIL, I did not think it was possible to use SMS with another app on iOS.
I don’t think you can use a different app for SMS on iOS. Messages only.
But u can disable iMessage functionality (iMessage is the network-based instant messenger component).
That’s a people problem, not a market-share problem. From experience, kids will always find something to bully others about — if it’s not the colour of the bubbles, it’s something else: the brand of shoes they wear, the suburb they live in, the sport they play (or don’t play). Bullies will do what they do.
Apple should 100 percent support RCS and Tim’s “buy your grandma an iphone” response was stupid and does show that they don’t give a shit. However the Beeper situation is something different entirely, if the reports I’ve read are too be believed it was a security vulnerability or a blatant disregard of apples terms. Also the kids being bullied thing is very overblown, and almost certainly a regional thing. I live in buttfuck no where and I not one kid gives a shit they just want to talk to their friends. My kid has an android and his friend group is like 50/50 on iPhones. Its weird adults and parents who inadvertently say things or give their children the idea that green bubbles are bed. Kids don’t give a fuck unless they’ve learned it somewhere.
Kids don’t use imessage, they’re on fucking discord