Dear Dash Users – A message to all Dash users from the Kapeli Blog

Post by 0xmohit » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #77

Arnt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're equating "paying for" and "responsible for".

Which is reasonable. If you pay for something, you generally are at least slightly responsible for it. Just because you don't want to be responsible for it doesn't mean you aren't. For example, if I buy a car, hand the keys to a friend, and they go out and commit a crime with the car, I'm going to bet that I'm legally culpable in some fashion.

Post by gshulegaard » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 8:11 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #87

gshulegaard wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, I don't get this: * Kapeli shared financial information and test devices with this other account, whether it was a relative or not. The assumption here is that for some reason a credit card number and device identifiers (unclear where they come from...but maybe mac address?) are enough for Apple to "link" accounts. I contest this for the same reason I think someone knowing my birthday and social security n…

Seems to me that everything up to (and including) the initial ban was relatively sensible. You don't need absolute proof that the two accounts really are linked, it's reasonable enough to see something that indicates they likely are and then take action based on that. Where it fell apart was failing to account for the possibility that they got it wrong. They should have notified both accounts and explained why both w…

Post by RotsiserMho » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 9:02 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #71

spacehunt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, then you release your recorded call AFTER they defect Isn't this essentially what happened (at least according to Kapeli)? He wrote the blog post, sent Apple a draft, then Apple went to the press.

Not at all. Apple released a PR statement about what led up to the termination. And nothing they said in there was incorrect, and nothing they said in there would have contradicted his blog post. The PR statement explained that the fraud was detected across 2 linked accounts and from the way it was written it was obvious that Apple was treating both accounts as being a single developer. The blog post would have expla…

Post by st3v3r » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

Arnt wrote: post #59

st3v3r wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to put your credit card in, then you are responsible for the account. If fraud happens on one account you are responsible for, it's not a stretch to believe that fraud could happen on other accounts you are responsible for.

You're equating "paying for" and "responsible for".

Post by TheCowboy » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 9:23 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #69

TheCowboy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a fact that had he written a blog post admitting guilt that his account would have been reinstated. That's just a carrot dangled by Apple, without a hard contractual obligation to follow through. If anything, actually writing that something wrong happened would make it easier for them to justify their decision. It could be a trick representatives sometimes use when they assume the party they are dealing with…

That's nonsense. Even if Apple was trying to trick him (which they definitely were not), his blog post didn't have to admit any wrongdoing . Nothing he needed to say in there would have been admitting to fraud. It merely would have admitted that his account was linked to one with fraud (which nobody is disputing) and that he's working with Apple to unlink it and restore his account.