WikiLeaks App Removed From Apple Store 338
Stoobalou writes "An 'unofficial' WikiLeaks App which contained published documents from the Cablegate leaks has been withdrawn from the Apple App Store.The $1.99 App created by developer Igor Barinov has been removed from sale without explanation despite the fact that all of the information contained in it is publicly available."
Go Apple! (Score:2, Insightful)
Go Apple! Fuck yeah! /sarcasm
Anyone else feel like Apple is slowly turning into a government, as far as their attitude and exertion of control is concerned?
Re:Go Apple! (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not "slowly turning" at all. With their walled garden and draconian control over user habits and experience, they're a leading example of what a government might aspire to.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get it. Can't you get to wikileaks through Safari? There's a local radio station that's constantly promoting "Want to listen live on your iPhone? Get our free app at Apple's app store!" Again, I don't get it. Can't you listen to the stream from their web site in Safari?
Sorry if this comment sounds ignorant, because it is; I don't have an iPhone and just don't understand.
Re: (Score:3)
It really is a bit of both...
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Informative)
and if you do end up getting one, and deciding to leave, you are fairly well locked in.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a break. Apple sells a streamlined user experience to people who want exactly that. .
So the 'people' you speak of don't want to see an Android magazine app in the App Store and don't like others using it as well?
Re:Go Apple! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not an Android App. An iPhone app for an Android Magazine.
Similar to if "Maximum Linux" was still around and Apple banned its iPhone version from the app store as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. How long until Apple bans $MAGAZINE for $UNACCEPTABLE_POLITICAL_LEANING?
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and those people are morally wrong and/or ignorant for selling a part of their soul and the future of all our children to a minor demon for shininess, figuratively speaking. Lots of people want and vote for government that is moving to be as controlling and polished as Apple. Doesn't mean that Apple and the government aren't both bastards for controlling shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think people should be made aware of the fact that the Apple "experience" isn't nearly as trouble-free as the fanboys pretend it is; that it's more expensive initially (the most expensive phone on the market), and even more expensive in the long run (you can't take your content and your apps and leave for a cheaper/better option when you need or want to upgrade in a few years; and that Apple demands draconian control of what you're allowed to do with a device you paid an exorbitant amount of money for.
It'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think that was funny. Now I realise how true it really is, and that's just depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Interesting)
Give me a break. Apple sells a streamlined user experience to people who want exactly that.
That's fine. But we should shout a bit every time Apple rejects a significant app, just so that the people buying iPhones/iPads are reminded what it is they've bought.
Then they can make an informed decision next time they're buying a phone/tablet/whatever.
It seems to me that ordinary users are bumping up against the walls of the garden more and more often now.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your pessimism certainly won't.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it that this "point" keeps popping up every single time Apple censors something? Sears doesn't restrict anyone else from selling products to you; Apple does. There's only one app store. Buying from Apple is implicit support for censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government? No. Apple is not up to it's ears in debt to foreign powers.
You must have missed the part in my OP where I said "as far as their attitude and exertion of control is concerned." :p
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Apple need to risk reputation by supply questionable material via the App store? The app in question provided direct access to a site that has now entered into legal limbo. Apple is a private company, meaning they have every right to publish whatever content they like. I suppose from the parent post that Mastercard, PayPal, etc are now 'slowly turning into the government'. They probably made the same decision. It's not worth dealing with the bad public opinion of a cheap app.
As to the information being 'publicly available', so is internet porn, child pornography, instructions to make bomb's, etc. None of which are allowed in the App Store. It's a straw man argument.
Users can always browse to Wikileaks to it if they want to see that information, and Apple will do nothing to prevent that, just as they don't prevent you from browsing porn or whatnot. They simply refuse to peddle it.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would Apple need to risk reputation by supply questionable material via the App store? The app in question provided direct access to a site that has now entered into legal limbo. Apple is a private company, meaning they have every right to publish whatever content they like. I suppose from the parent post that Mastercard, PayPal, etc are now 'slowly turning into the government'. They probably made the same decision. It's not worth dealing with the bad public opinion of a cheap app.
Then why is The Guardian's app still in the app store, genius? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
As to the information being 'publicly available', so is internet porn, child pornography, instructions to make bomb's, etc. None of which are allowed in the App Store. It's a straw man argument.
And all of those things are illegal. I don't see the US government taking The New York Times to court, and they've been one of the news orgs publishing these things, so...
Users can always browse to Wikileaks to it if they want to see that information, and Apple will do nothing to prevent that, just as they don't prevent you from browsing porn or whatnot. They simply refuse to peddle it.
Once again, why is The Guardian's app still in the store then?
Re: (Score:2)
Well...internet porn isn't illegal -_-;; doy.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell ya what: leave a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook on your passenger seat, and tell me how the police react next time you get stopped in traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, why is The Guardian's app still in the store then?
The Guardian provides a lot of information, the heavily summarized, filtered and redacted cables being a very small part of that information. So does that mean you also think Apple should remove all web browsing capability because the internet contains classified information?
The difference is that the removed application is specifically designed to provide access to classified information which is in specific violation of the espionage act. News outlets have generally been protected by the First Amendmen
Re: (Score:2)
> Once again, why is The Guardian's app still
> in the store then?
>
Maybe because The Guardian's app wasn't breaking the Apple TOS with regards to donations? Because that is the reason that the Wikileaks app got pulled, not because of it's content.
Re: (Score:2)
I admitted my stupidity :p Look at the post right above yours.
Now that we have that out of the way, how about you respond to what I said?
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, the Guardian app isn't violating any terms of agreement that I can find. The mentioned Wikileaks app was (donations).
True, but you (or whoever posted it) said nothing about a violation of the TOS...they said that Apple had to distance itself from anything dealing with Wikileaks because it would be bad for their business/image if they didn't.
So, genius. /burnt popcorn
Re: (Score:3)
The Guardian app is a news reader. The Wikileaks app goes directly to the documents in question.The Guardian app is no different than a browser in that regard. You select the target sites to gather data from. The Wikileaks app only goes to Wikileaks.
Can you really say you don't see the difference?
Yes, absolutely. The Guardian app will only let you see The Guardian content, just like the Wikileaks app only lets you see the Wikileaks content. Neither is a browser since neither can be used to browse Slashdot or other arbitrary websites. So yes, the Guardian app and the Wikileaks app are no different.
<disclaimer>In keeping with the Slashdot tradition I have of course never used either app</disclaimer>
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Informative)
What legal limbo? It is operating fully within the law here in the EU. Just because a couple of politicians on the other side of the pond have been braying their heads off doesn't create a legal limbo.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks itself is in legal limbo within the United States. The right for the press to publish such documents is clearly stated in the constitution, however, the right for someone to steal such secrets is not. At some point, the decision has to be made whether or not Wikileaks is defined as 'the press', or if it's just some guy who has obtained a large number of classified documents.
That is what I mean by legal limbo.
As to the EU, it's not relevant. Apple is based in the US, and as such, it could come unde
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Informative)
Which is funny, because Julian Assange and Wikileaks didn't steal anything... the documents were given to them by a third party, widely believed to be Bradley Manning. Wikileaks is guilty only of receiving the data and publishing the parts they feel are morally justifiable to make public, not stealing, and not espionage, and certainly not treason (they aren't even eligible to commit that one).
Deep Throat provided stolen, classified documents... nobody calls for the heads of Woodward and Bernstein.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the laws are different over there, but the last I check here, knowingly accepting stolen property is still a crime.
Why do people keep bringing this one up? The data in the stolen cables is not property because the US government can not have copyright to anything, and data is not property if it is not under copyright. Transferring classified materials is usually only a crime if you had clearance to receive the materials in the first place. The exceptions to that rule probably don't apply to Assange.
Do I need to say this on every Wikileaks thread?
The bigger picture is that this is just another step on the road towards fascism, where all the corporations line up to show that they are on the side of the government. In return the corporations hope to get greater influence over government regulations, government policy and the flow of government dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with the Guardian app. Is it an RSS reader or something similar? If so, it's just an aggregator, not a direct app into Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter? It's still capable of displaying the same information in an organized, easily searchable manner (just like the app in question), which is my entire point.
Now, the article says the author is sending $1 to Wikileaks for every copy of the app he sold, which is very different than the app itself explicitly soliciting donations. That little detail changes whether Apple is in the right or the wrong here...if the app does indeed solicit donations, then all the guy has to do is not charge for the
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it matters. Would Google be liable for folks doing searches for illegal content? What about file sharing sites? The courts have already spoken in that regard.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh ok, so all this app should do then is also aggregate information from ESPN, and everything will be wine and roses since it won't be exclusively used for "illegal content"...right? I mean, The Guardian links to sports news IN ADDITION TO the cables, so I guess you can't focus only on the cables. ::eye roll::
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Informative)
Not random at all... the app violates the donation prohibition [thedroidguy.com] in their store. Apps that solicit donations must be free, and this app promises a donation of $1 for each $1.99 purchase.
Now, that prohibition might be a different reason to hate Apple, but they aren't necessarily going after Wikileaks.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Where in TFA does it mention the app soliciting donations? From what I read, it looks like the author is donating the money, rather than soliciting for it. As in, once he's paid, it's his money to use however he wants to.
Besides, why did Apple approve it in the first place, if your post is accurate?
Re: (Score:3)
Where in TFA does it mention the app soliciting donations?
First, let me just say that I am obviously speculating - so my opinion is as good as yours... that is, probably worthless :)
But my understanding is that if the author wants to take his earnings and donate them, that is his business - unless he makes it part of the price... which is what he did. I think they are trying to avoid fraud. It would be impossible to follow up on every single author who makes such a claim to make sure that they donate as promised.
Of course, Apple could just have a way to support do
Cry Havok & Release the Drama Queens of War (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's a business. They haven't made their billions by marketing to transparency-obsessed hippies.
Not that there is anything wrong with transparency-obsessed hippies, I'm just sayin'...
There is zero-value to Jobs distributing any app having anything to do with Mr. Kryptonite, Julian Assange. Risks far outweigh rewards. Open-source ideologues that don't grasp this concept AND have the cash to contemplate an Apple-gadget purchase AND are willing to overlook Google's routine co-opting of personal privacy will, I'm sure, all run out to buy an Android now. But somehow I don't think those numbers will affect the Apple stock price all that much...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As I've said numerous other times in this discussion, following your line of thinking, why is The Guardian's app still in the app store? It too provides easily accessible access to the leaked cables, and is even one of the news agencies that has the complete file containing all of the cables.
Re:Cry Havok & Release the Drama Queens of War (Score:5, Insightful)
Because pulling a newspaper app that happens to be running a troublesome story is different from pulling an app whose raison d'etre is that troublesome story.
Re: (Score:3)
You're being a pedantic nerd -- and I use that term with affection.
Apple -- it should come as no surprise -- concerns itself mightily with appearances. An app called "The Guardian Newspaper" in their app store does not scream "WikiLeaks" like an app that's called, well, "WikiLeaks." It's not about which app is more functional, better coded, or whatever. It's about appearance and marketing, what someone sees as they browse the Apple's virtual store aisles.
As many have pointed out, if Apple really wanted t
Re:Mr. Kryptonite ? (Score:2)
Can you elaborate on why calling Julian Assange "Mr. Kryptonite"?
Re: (Score:2)
I would, but it doesn't look you've got much candle left and the cave you've been living in seems like it will get pretty darn dark and cold soon...
Apple is a business, behaving badly (Score:2)
It violated the license rules... (Score:2)
...of charity programs which MUST be free. Charity payments must be done through paypal or an external web site which the app links to.
This app was donating 1$ per sale. But it still violated the rule.
There are tax reasons for this rule.
So, everybody can get off their horsies.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank god for conveniences.
Otherwise Apple's bias would be obvious even to you.
Re:It violated the license rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
What about YOUR bias?
The rules are clearly laid out in the license and they violated one (or more). Thus it got pulled out.
If the app gets corrected AND it's resubmission gets refused, THEN we will have reason to cry foul.
Until then, I don't see why everyone is getting all worked up given Apple wants to play fair with others who might have gotten the axe for the same rule violation.
Re:It violated the license rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except again, the app was not asking for donations, the money for donations was not coming from any links in the app itself, nor was the author mentionning it in his litterature. What the author chooses to do with the money he receives is not up to Apple at all. Whether it be buying a Porsche, a house, a night on the Vegas strip or simply donating it to a cause of his choosing. The rules don't apply unless you have a DONATE button somewhere or mention that X$ amount of each purchases goes X cause in your submission text.
So people, stop playing the "donation" card, you're all wrong unless you have proof that he was actually breaking the rule. Giving away his own hard earned money is not breaking the rule.
Safari (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure Safari would be pulled next because it makes the same information accessible.
Actually, Safari is the way that Apple sanctions donations, along with special SMS messages. You can't solicit donations from inside an app. I suspect this app would not have been pulled if it were free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Duck, lest it might hit you over the head when flying past.
Then again, light blows to the back of the head allegedly increase the mental capacity, so... keep your head up high!
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, it's fer yer intertainment
Anonymous retaliation in 3,2,1 .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anonymous retaliation in 3,2,1 .... (Score:5, Insightful)
i wonder what anonymous will do to apple's app store.
Probably the same thing they did to Amazon.com
Re:Anonymous retaliation in 3,2,1 .... (Score:4, Funny)
now if only you used that doz.me URL shortener for that, it might have had some effect
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody check and make sure it's still up!
Red the TOS - Number 21 (Score:5, Informative)
http://images.worldofapple.com/appstoreguidelines_9910.pdf
Donations can only be collected with free apps. That's where this specific app went wrong. Simple. Funny that Apple needed 4 days to find out.
Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (Score:4, Informative)
Totally valid, like their rules about fart apps, set by the sole vendor of fart apps for iShinies:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/apple-fart-apps/2/ [wired.com]
Nothing about the way they run their app store is valid, just a bunch of bullshit and shady dealings with an official company policy backing it up.
Re: (Score:3)
(AppStore Guidelines Chapter 21. Charities and contributions):
21.1 Apps that include the ability to make donations to recognized charitable organizations must be free 21.2 The collection of donations must be done via a wweb site in Safari or an SMS
The App included no ability to make donations. The author was personally donating out of his App Store revenue, which is a completely different thing. And I don't think WikiLeaks is a 'recognized charitable organization'.
Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (Score:5, Funny)
Where did you read that the application was collecting donations?
TFA only mentions that the author donates $1 to wikileaks for every sale.
Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm speechless, You manage to state one thing and it's complete opposite in just 2 sentences...
Are you a professional comedian on TV or just a politician ?
Re: (Score:3)
El Muerte's point is that the artile makes it sound like the author is collecting his money for the application, then choosing to donate his money to Wikileaks...very different than actively soliciting a donation.
Once it's his money, he's free to do whatever the hell he wants with it. Or are you advocating otherwise?
Re: (Score:3)
If you advertise that $1 from each sale will be donated, then you are using the donation as a selling point, and therefore putting the decision to donate on the buyer. It's a sneaky way to profit off of another's desire to donate, and also to get the tax incentive from what is effectively someone else's donation.
If you make no mention of donation at sale time, then at the end of the day decide to donate the equivalent of $1 from each sale, then the decision to donate is entirely your own.
This article doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:2)
Goes to show... (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:instead of flipping out, did anyone figure out (Score:5, Interesting)
See section 21. Donations can only be collected with free apps, and only in certain ways. Most likely since Apple cannot confirm that $1 is being donated like the app submitter is saying, it got pulled. If the person resubmits it with in app donations it will probably pass again. Otherwise we will have an explosion of "pay me $1.99 and I'll donate $1" apps all over the place and no money getting donated. Where as in app donations can be confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but as I've said, the article (which could be wrong, of course) says the author is donating $1 of HIS OWN MONEY to Wikileaks, rather than explicitely stating in the app that he is doing so. Once it's his money, it's his money.
Again, this is assuming the article is accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
Your trying to exercise a technicality that doesn't exist. You pay the app author $1.99 minus Apple's cut, and as a result, he donates $1 to Wikileaks. So, $1 of the app's price is a donation to Wikileaks. Pretending to separate them temporally doesn't work.
Likewise, you cannot legally get out of sales tax by helpfully donating some cash to a local business and also, at roughly the same time and as a result of your donation, being given, free of charge, one of their products.
"Publicly" available (Score:2, Insightful)
So, since pretty much every movie, song, and piece of software is "publicly available" if you have the right torrent tracker, it would be an outrage for Apple to pull, say, my new "Havatar" app that let's you play an full copy of the Avatar movie for free right?
Re:"Publicly" available (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it hilarious that you don't know the difference between publicly available & copyright infringement.
p.s. the cables aren't under copyright either.
Publicly Available != Public Domain (Score:2, Offtopic)
Even 3rd graders should understand that concept. I get the source code license for MS Windows from a public site I make an Apple app for it, just because I got it from a location that was publicly available doesn't mean it's unencumbered. I get the internal financial documents for Redhat that someone copied and put onto a public website, I make an Apple app for it, again using data I didn't have rights to. You have to be a complete moron to not understand the legality of content you don't have rights to.
So... (Score:2)
How long until Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, etc. "stop carrying Wikileaks information" over their infrastructure?
And this is why... (Score:2)
Wikileaks... (Score:2)
Assange upset at police report leak (Score:5, Interesting)
In other news, Assange is suffering a major sense of humour failure over the Guardian publishing details from the leaked police report into his case.
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/assange-turns-on-the-guardian-over-assault-case-coverage/s2/a542064/ [journalism.co.uk]
If you're very, very quiet and listen very, very carefully, you might be able to hear the world's tiniest violin playing for Assange. ;-)
Which app was that? (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just confused but it looks like the Wikileaks App is still there [apple.com].
It also doubles as the two guys having explicit sex app [wired.com] and the kama sutra app [wired.com], so I can see why Apple would be loathe to remove it.
"Publicly available" does not mean "unclassified" (Score:3)
Classified documents leaked to the public are still classified. Apple is subject to US laws, so it's likely they're protecting themselves from possible legal action. Making money off an app used to distribute classified US government documents probably wouldn't sound good in court, if it ever came to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo...does that mean they would remove The Guardian's app from the store? Cause uh...they've got it pretty well organized too.
Re: (Score:2)
You are afraid of information?
Please unplug your internets immediately.
You b
Re: (Score:3)
...proceeds going to the families of the Intelligence agents and sources who are killed from it's release.
You're making shit up. Please stop. [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a second, whatever happened to that commercial from 1985?
The one with businessmen as lemmings? [youtube.com]
Re:Censorship is alive and well (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.
Actually it's fortunate it doesn't apply, because if you think about it, what you're asking for would mean that government would literally have the mandate to *force* private individuals to carry a message they may not want to. Having a right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that other private individuals should be required by law to carry and spread anyone else's message (even at their own cost). Apple consists of private individuals, if governments could force Apple to carry anyone's speech, they could force you and me to carry speech too. If a kid scrawled graffiti on your wall, hey, that's "speech", government should force you to leave it up. Thankfully that's not how things work.
That said, dammit Apple, you keep disappointing me on a regular basis with the closedness and the draconian control over what is and isn't allowed in your 'app store'.
Fortunately there is competition, and competing app stores and platforms are popping up like mushrooms. So I'm not too worried, app stores will be forced to remain quite open thanks to competition. Apple's attitude is already reflecting in their market growth vs the growth of others like Android, and they'll have to ease up a little or they'll keep losing share.
Re: (Score:2)
Applying these sorts of arbitrary limitations on who might use a platform is generally considered pretty reprehesible behaviour.
Re:Censorship is alive and well (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not is much abnout legal obligations as it is about a moral belief that all opions should be heard even if some people find it offensive.
Applying these sorts of arbitrary limitations on who might use a platform is generally considered pretty reprehesible behaviour.
Well here's Apple's stance on this moral belief: They are pro-censorship, anti-free-speech, end of story, have a nice day.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'm all for placing public pressure on companies to promote and behave according to such ideals ... but not by using the force of the state, just by voting with our wallets, complaining loudly, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not is much abnout legal obligations as it is about a moral belief that all opions should be heard even if some people find it offensive.
You can still be heard. Just not on their private property.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.
Why? No private entity should be obligated to have their private property used as a platform for speech that they don't like. If you find this unfortunate, then you don't mind using your private property as platforms for their speech, right? If I come to your house and start putting campaign signs in your yard you're just going to leave them there and not remove them and censor me, right? You're just going to allow anyone and everyone to use your private property for their speech platform in any shape o
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing your front yard with an online marketplace used by millions of people with unlimited preferences.
No, actually I'm not. Both are private property. Both are subject to the rules set out by the owner.
Yes there should be limits and they should be balanced between the rights of the users, the companies, and the laws of where you reside.
Why should there be limits? Just because you say so?
Right now whatever Apple approves is gospel. (Conditions may apply, approval may and will change whenever we feel like it and we owe no-one an explanation)
Duh? It's their service. They make the rules. You don't like the rules, you go elsewhere.
Re:Erased from iPhones too? (Score:5, Informative)
no, that's the nice thing about iTunes. the file is on your computer as a .app file and you can use it on your iphone as long as you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... I own an iPod.
But then again, I own the iPod... so...
Re: (Score:2)
If the Turtleneck got too tight and cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, that's the turtle's problem.
I own my iPod. Whether St. Steve likes it or not. And, oh yeah, btw, my law actually doesn't bar me from owning it.
Re: (Score:2)
So you either jailbroke it, or it's one of those old iPods that only plays music.
Re: (Score:2)
i was under the impression the app retrieved the data from the wikileaks server, else with every new leak, an app update would be needed for it to stay relevant.
So no, the app installation file on the apple servers does not (have to) contain any classified/illegal documents