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Stoobalou writes "An 'unofficial' WikiLeaks App which contained published documents from the Cablegate leaks has been withdrawn from the Apple App Store.The $1.99 App created by developer Igor Barinov has been removed from sale without explanation despite the fact that all of the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.
apple is open? (Score:0, Insightful)
you mean Apple isn't as open as they always envisioned they were? Wait a second, whatever happened to that commercial from 1985? What did they project as their message back then? Oh, yea right, that was when they were on the bottom of the barrel...
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.
"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:Red the TOS - Number 21 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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...
Cancer. (Score:0, Insightful)
Just another Slashdot summary that "creates news" in the same fashion as Foxnews. The strawman argument about the information being publicly has nothing to do with it's removal; it violated the terms on donations.
Just once, just one time I'd like to see real journalism happen.
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: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: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:"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.
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: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: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: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: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:Go Apple! (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: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.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't see previews of PS3 games in the WiiWare shop either, and I'm not complaining.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your pessimism certainly won't.
Re:Go Apple! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like you can't pull up the documents on your web browser either. If they start restricting content there, then there's something to worry about!
Why is the line there? It's their hardware, OS, and platform. If they decide that you will no longer be allowed to access Wikileaks, bittorrent, porn, etc. through Safari to make the iStuff a more streamlined user experience what is to stop them?
Re:Go Apple! (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's just a more fashionable gadget for more "fashion-conscious" i.e. marketing-unconscious people.
Simplifies? I've seen far too many people asking for help when iTunes just nuked their mp3 collection. Apple's vaunted simplicity is a myth.
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.