Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts • Hacker News Board

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#111

Post by Argorak » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 9:16 PM UTC

Schemes like this do seem to pop up from time to time. Garrys Mod was the last very well known offender in this:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2447485 (I won't copy over my full complaint, read it there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection#Notable_payload... (for a very comprehensive list, but without comments about false positives)

They are all similar: they are dangerous when gone wrong, damage your brand, expose paying customers as if they were sad idiots and - at worst - ensure that they are ridiculed on support boards even when they have an actual problem.

Implementing such a system shows that either the programmer or the project owner in question is a smartass that thinks of himself as more infallible and better than all the others that programmed such systems that subsequently went haywire. Sorry for the harsh words, but after being bitten multiple times by such schemes, I have no nicer ones.

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#112

Post by Firehed » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 9:19 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #91

pdonis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where he gave permission for the app to post Tweets for him. He gave it access to his Twitter account, but that's not the same thing. To continue your analogy, the stranger was invited into his home, gave him a form to sign that said he could inventory the items there, got it signed, and then proceeded to publish the information in a way that wasn't mentioned on the form.

But isn't it written, when you give access to Twitter account, that it could be used to post things for you?

Not really. The Twitter API allows both read-only and read/write access. iOS, as a system-wide grant, has read/write permissions - but apparently does not allow users to specify per-app permissions to be that granular.

Moreover, the app was apparently locking out paid users from any access at all unless permissions were granted, which in itself shouldn't have made it through Apple's vetting process in the first place (exception: twitter clients). The majority of apps will only need access to the "share sheet" for posting to twitter, which AFAIK doesn't require explicit permissions (similar to sending an email; the user must hit send)

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#113

Post by davorak » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 9:26 PM UTC

__david__ wrote: post #92

pdonis wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see where he gave permission for the app to post Tweets for him. He gave it access to his Twitter account, but that's not the same thing. To continue your analogy, the stranger was invited into his home, gave him a form to sign that said he could inventory the items there, got it signed, and then proceeded to publish the information in a way that wasn't mentioned on the form.

> I don't see where he gave permission for the app to post Tweets for him. He gave it access to his Twitter account, but that's not the same thing. It is exactly the same thing. If you give something access to your twitter account, you are giving it the ability to post, and therefore, tacit permission to post.

Ability and permission are not often link like this in real life.

If I walk up and stand two feet infront of someone I have given them the ability to try to punch me in the face, I have not given them permission to do so.

If I utilize a computer repair service and I grant them remote access to a computer at their request I have likely given them the ability to run the equivalent to rm -rf /, but I have not given them permission to.

I can grant a friend access to my house by giving them a key that does not mean I give them the permission to do what ever they want in my house.

In the above three cases there are legal consequences for a party when overstepping their permissions.

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#114

Post by mnicole » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 9:58 PM UTC

MrJagil wrote: post #96

ajross wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a repulsive reaction. This is how babies are made (albeit not with the "stomach", sigh...). Your mother looked like that too, and might very well have a few shots like this in a flip book somewhere waiting to horrify you. And what's wrong with "staging" a photo? Pregnancy is a pretty big deal, some people feel it's worth celebrating. I don't see anything wrong there at all. Good job. I came to this thread ready…

Oy, I should have known better :) I know how pregnancy works, and I'm not repulsed by that in and of itself at all. My younger brother was born at home so I have experienced it quite closely. Further, I hope to have several children myself one day, being present at their birth and all that follows. The biggest fear in my life, and i mean that with every cell in my body, is that this wont be realized for one reason or…

> Further, it fits with a recent fad, by "helping" you making that old-school-biological-baggage of yours fit with your fast paced modern lifestyle, a subject I really do not appreciate as the articles regarding it are, as the piece in question examplifies, usually just fluff for pageviews. "How to cook excellently in 3 min", "How to raise a family and be a CEO" etc...

We live in a day and age where in order to make ends meet, both parents need to work. Not only that, but some women actually have aspirations outside of just being a mother and they have every right to do so. If women need to make blog posts about shortcuts they've found in order to streamline their lifestyles, so be it. This woman's blog is also probably how she connects with family and friends, not a place for some random passerby to make a judgment on her life.

Moreover, pregnancy is a huge ordeal mentally, physically and emotionally. In the grand scheme of time, it's also relatively recently that we've been able to ensure you won't die from it. Some people find giving birth to be the very purpose of life, so she has every right to "glorify" it.

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#115

Post by drivebyacct2 » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 10:36 PM UTC

whamill wrote: post #6

Sloppy effort on behalf of the developers. Andreas (author of the blog post) was right to deny it permission to use his Twitter account the first few times but gave in eventually because of the nagging. If there was a way to see expanded permissions before allowing a program to update perhaps he would have not updated at all?

>If there was a way to see expanded permissions before allowing a program to update perhaps he would have not updated at all?

You really can't do that on the App Store?

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#116

Post by confluence » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 10:49 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #19

Most likely, their "piracy detector" was nothing more than checking for "MobileSubstrate" (a library present in all jailbroken phones) under the silly assumption that jailbroken = pirated. Booby trapped software is NEVER a good idea. No matter how clever you think you are, you're not clever enough.

Well he didn't disable the app and he also didn't say something that wasn't technically true.

> How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession

If you have a jailbroken iPhone, odds are that you did so to pirate "iOS apps" and are hence a "software pirate". That sentence looks like it was carefully crafted to be correct and generalizable.

This is probably not good for the dev's PR though, because accusing customers of being criminals doesn't go down too well (Music/Film) - unless of course you are a lawyer (MPAA/RIAA) - then you make fat stacks.

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#117

Post by btilly » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 10:50 PM UTC

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #12

yock wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something we see discussed on occasion is a call for app developers to explain in detail why they request certain permissions. If this developer were required to explain (and the user required to acknowledge) the requested permission, it may have prevented the whole episode.

No it wouldn't have. The app required permission, or he couldn't use the thing he paid $50 for. The is a (stunning) app store review failure. A dictionary app that requires permission to post to your twitter should be rejected, period.

Not that surprising a failure to me. You'd only see the behavior on a phone that tripped their check for piracy. As long as the Apple reviewer didn't use such a phone, no obnoxious behavior.

I am sure that Apple has a standard checklist, and am not surprised that this is not on it.

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#118

Post by JonnieCache » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 11:19 PM UTC

biot wrote: post #89

mikeash wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what I was trying to imply. Apple and Apple fans are constantly telling us that the walled garden is four our own good. If Apple doesn't take severe action here, then they'll be all but admitting that our protection has nothing to do with it.

A walled garden may do a perfect job of keeping rabbits from eating crops. Yet despite completely fulfilling its purpose, it still can't prevent vegetables from rotting.

I always thought it was to stop the children playing in the fields.

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#119

Post by kstenerud » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 11:21 PM UTC

confluence wrote: post #116

kstenerud wrote: post #19

Most likely, their "piracy detector" was nothing more than checking for "MobileSubstrate" (a library present in all jailbroken phones) under the silly assumption that jailbroken = pirated. Booby trapped software is NEVER a good idea. No matter how clever you think you are, you're not clever enough.

Well he didn't disable the app and he also didn't say something that wasn't technically true. > How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession If you have a jailbroken iPhone, odds are that you did so to pirate "iOS apps" and are hence a "software pirate". That sentence looks like it was carefully crafted to be correct and generalizable. This is probably not…

I have a jailbroken phone and I don't use it to pirate. Cydia is an alternate app store for apps that Apple rejected. Jailbreaking is also a step to unlocking, which allows me to use my phone with my Softbank account when I travel to Japan. For those that fit these categories and use this dictionary app, the author has stepped right into the legal minefield of libel.

Collateral damage is not a justification for this.

Re: Dictionary app auto-posts piracy accusations on users’ Twitter accounts

#120

Post by joe_the_user » Tue, Nov 13, 2012, 11:51 PM UTC

__david__ wrote: post #73

cs702 wrote: post #24

It would be obviously wrong and illegal for a stranger to come into your home, secretly inventory all physical items in your possession, and then impersonate you on, say, a global TV broadcast in which you're wrongly accused of stealing things. It should also be obviously wrong and illegal for any app secretly to inventory everything in your phone and then impersonate you on a Twitter broadcast in which you're wrongl…

Well, to continue the tortured analogy, the stranger was invited into the home, they didn't break in. Then they presented a release form to the homeowner saying they could impersonate him on TV, which the homeowner signed . Only then did they go on TV and "impersonate" him, saying things he didn't expect. I don't think it's so cut-and-dry as you are making it out. It's definitely shady, but I dare say there's nothing…

I would claim that you are mistaken here. Ianala but I'm fairly sure there is actionable bad behavior going on.

You may find it surprising but it is actually illegal to trick someone into agreeing to something that harms them. You can't just say "Can I do this to you" if the person you're doing something to can't reasonably be expected to know the implication of "this". That's why we use phrases like "informed consent".