Amazon Asked Apple To Remove an App That Spots Fake Reviews, and Apple Agreed (cnbc.com) 45
Apple has removed Fakespot, a well-known app for detecting fake product reviews, from its App Store after Amazon complained the app provided misleading information and potential security risks. From a report: Fakespot's app works by analyzing the credibility of an Amazon listing's reviews and gives it a grade of A through F. It then provides shoppers with recommendations for products with high customer satisfaction. Amazon said it reported Fakespot to Apple for investigation after it grew concerned that a redesigned version of the app confused consumers by displaying Amazon's website in the app with Fakespot code and content overlaid on top of it. Amazon said it doesn't allow applications to do this. An Amazon spokesperson claimed, "The app in question provides customers with misleading information about our sellers and their products, harms our sellers' businesses, and creates potential security risks." By Friday afternoon, following a review from Apple, the app was no longer available on the App Store.
That's fine (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)
The precedent had been set a LONG Time ago.
The DMCA is all about companies saying to other companies just take down content we don't want to see. Being that the App in questions shows Amazons site, and then manipulates it, it could possibly fall under some sort of copyright claim.
Also before digital stores, a competing product may have just went to the box retail store and told them, if you want to sell our product you can't that that other product.
Microsoft went to PC makers and told them that they had to put on their Operating System, and not some other compatible version or even a drastic different OS, unless they will not give them OEM pricing. So the likes of DR DOS, OS/2, Geos, GEM... were left in the cold, and never allowed to gain any traction.
"It doesn't allow applications to do this" (Score:1)
Uhhh, Amazon don't get to "not allow applications to do this". They're serving up content, I can overlay whatever I like on top of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Not "...and sell it commercially" you can't, no.
Not through Apple's app store which is why we need to allow iOS users to install apps from other sources.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't selling the content commercially. They're selling the software that modifies the content commercially. The software is injecting the modified content dynamically. Unless something changed fairly recently, this is settled copyright law. Amazon has no legal grounds here. Consumers have a right to modify content that they are authorized to access/view/use, period.
Yes & no - this is a huge fraud vector. (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhhh, Amazon don't get to "not allow applications to do this". They're serving up content, I can overlay whatever I like on top of it.
This is a huge issue. There are many apps out there that do overlays to inject malware or just simply new ads. So yes, you have the technical ability to build your own browser and overlay whatever you want on it. However, it is very reasonable for any vendor to say "no"...we won't honor your order.
This article is phrased misleadingly. The headline implies Apple and Amazon are colluding to prevent people from having access to information about fake reviews. Amazon is just saying...direct Amazon orders through our app, where we can verify your identity more effectively and Apple is complying. Fraud is a MASSIVE issue with Amazon, not just what they sanction against their customers, which we love to rant about...but many other customers trying to fraud Amazon. How many customers do you think submit orders and say they didn't actually order it or it was never delivered, hoping to get free stuff?...buy 1000 ebooks/songs/movies digitally, break DRM, copy them, then say "My account was compromised, I never ordered these"...demand a refund from their CC, etc...it's even worse when people order gift cards. It's very hard to get that money back, even when the fraud was obvious.
I've worked for Amazon competitors and fraud is a huge issue. You need to do all you can to ensure the customer is who they say they are and they're not a bot. One vendor I worked with, a major name brand you've heard of, nearly had their bank account frozen because they couldn't keep up with people redeeming fake gift cards.
I rarely take Amazon's side, but if you're overlying on their site, they're having to scrutinize every release...to ensure you're not injecting ads...to ensure you're not tampering with prices...what if you wrote something that increased the price by 5% and pocketed the difference?....to ensure you're not stealing their identity...or farming fake traffic to other customers (since Amazon does sell ads)...to ensure you're not committing other crimes, big or small, I wouldn't even think of.
While I laud the efforts to catch Amazon sanctioned fraud, which fake reviews are IMHO, that is the most insecure and problematic way I can imagine to do so. Security in commerce sites is just too important to allow someone else to pose as your store and thwart your ability to properly verify your user.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes & no - this is a huge fraud vector. (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhhh, Amazon don't get to "not allow applications to do this". They're serving up content, I can overlay whatever I like on top of it.
This is a huge issue. There are many apps out there that do overlays to inject malware or just simply new ads. So yes, you have the technical ability to build your own browser and overlay whatever you want on it. However, it is very reasonable for any vendor to say "no"...we won't honor your order.
No, it really isn't. Not unless there is reason to believe that fraud occurred.
This article is phrased misleadingly. The headline implies Apple and Amazon are colluding to prevent people from having access to information about fake reviews. Amazon is just saying...direct Amazon orders through our app, where we can verify your identity more effectively and Apple is complying.
No, they really aren't. They want to prevent a service that is designed specifically to combat review fraud, because Amazon profits massively from review fraud by selling products that, had people known they were really low quality products propped up by fake reviews, they would not have purchased, many of which people don't bother to return.
I rarely take Amazon's side, but if you're overlying on their site, they're having to scrutinize every release...to ensure you're not injecting ads...to ensure you're not tampering with prices...what if you wrote something that increased the price by 5% and pocketed the difference?....to ensure you're not stealing their identity...or farming fake traffic to other customers (since Amazon does sell ads)...to ensure you're not committing other crimes, big or small, I wouldn't even think of.
This service doesn't make it possible for arbitrary parties to overlay arbitrary content. This service analyzes a product's reviews and overlays information about whether the product is likely to be a scam. The fact that someone could use the same approach to do something nefarious is moot. By that exact same standard, someone could create an application that allows viewing of pirated movies transmitted over the internet, so we should ban Amazon Prime Video.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to point out that a major feature of Fakespot isn't just review checking, but seller checking. Amazon heavily protects and obfuscates the reputations of its third party sellers. Fakespot has warnings for new and sketchy sellers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and this is where Amazon IMO crosses the line into "aiding and abetting" territory.
Re: (Score:2)
People are freely choosing to run the app, it's none of Amazon's business. The app has no ability to process orders outside of Amazon's own system. It does not obfuscate the source of the order (how could it, if you give the wrong address, you don't get your goodies).
If I choose to walk in to a store wearing funny glasses that make everything look like a cartoon, it's none of the store's business and it's no skin off their nose.
The actual reason Amazon was worried is that the app would pull the curtain back
It most definitley is their business...literally!! (Score:2)
People are freely choosing to run the app, it's none of Amazon's business. The app has no ability to process orders outside of Amazon's own system. It does not obfuscate the source of the order (how could it, if you give the wrong address, you don't get your goodies).
If I choose to walk in to a store wearing funny glasses that make everything look like a cartoon, it's none of the store's business and it's no skin off their nose.
The actual reason Amazon was worried is that the app would pull the curtain back on fake reviews and they don't want that. The shoppers were doing the equivalent of walking in to the big box store with a copy of "Consumer Reports" in hand. What Amazon did was the equivalent of demanding that consumer reports shouldn't be in a format that's convenient to carry with you while browsing.
You could not be more wrong...it very much is their business...both literally because we're talking about their business, but also identity verification and fraud prevention are huge issues. Allowing middle-men, makes it much more difficult to collect information to confirm you are who you say you are. A simple password doesn't cut it these days.
If I buy $1000 of gift cards, spend them, then claim my account was compromised, they have a lot of mechanisms to verify if the purchase was an anomaly. As a
Re: (Score:2)
You may think you have the right to alter the Amazon.com experience, but they...and the law...disagree.
The First Amendment have something to tell you, as in if someone pulls up an Amazon seller and I say that seller is shite - do you really believe Amazon can sue me for "altering" the experience and thus trampling my 1A rights?
DON'T INVOKE THE 1ST AMMENDMENT! (Score:2)
You may think you have the right to alter the Amazon.com experience, but they...and the law...disagree.
The First Amendment have something to tell you, as in if someone pulls up an Amazon seller and I say that seller is shite - do you really believe Amazon can sue me for "altering" the experience and thus trampling my 1A rights?
Your signature is ironic. The first ammendment doesn't care about your opinions on what it should be. Also, you really really don't understand the law. Talk to any 1st year law student..the first thing they'll tell you is "anyone can sue anyone for any reason." Can you win?...no...not unless you're actually right, but yes, I could theoretically sue you for any frivolous reason. Amazon can sue you for anything they want...if they want to actually win, they need to have the law on their side, though.
A
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying Amazon will reject my order if I order it on my cellphone while I'm at Starbucks rather than at my computer at home? Or if I happen to still be connecting through a VPN? OH NOES, I installed the cloud2butt plugin, now I can't order from Amazon because of my totally altered browser!
Meanwhile, I see no evidence that fakespot actually in any way obfuscates your ID, it's a browser plugin, so your browser from your IP is still talking to Amazon, they're just doing some pre-processing before your
take it up with Amazon (Score:2)
So you're saying Amazon will reject my order if I order it on my cellphone while I'm at Starbucks rather than at my computer at home? Or if I happen to still be connecting through a VPN? OH NOES, I installed the cloud2butt plugin, now I can't order from Amazon because of my totally altered browser!
Meanwhile, I see no evidence that fakespot actually in any way obfuscates your ID, it's a browser plugin, so your browser from your IP is still talking to Amazon, they're just doing some pre-processing before your browser displays the page.
What's next, will they sue me if I "damage" my shopping experience by telling my browser to use comic-sans as the font when I browse Amazon? Whatever will they do when visually impaired people totally alter the Amazon experience by using a text to speech plugin? Will they refuse to sell Star Trek stuff to really (perhaps overly) serious Trekkies that install a plugin to display the page in Klingonese
If they're that jealous of the "user experience", they will have to switch to a proprietary protocol and distribute special not -a-browser Amazon apps (then watch as sales fall). Otherwise, they get to control what their server sends and I get to choose how my browser renders it.
The law has nothing to do with this, Apple is not a law enforcement agency. I hope Fakespot figures out an end run where the user loads javascript from their site then goes to Amazon in a wrapper.
You see no evidence that Fakespot does this, but are you certain? Apple and Amazon want no part in any rebranding app. What if they are doing something nefarious?...or more likely, what if they accidentally introduce a vulnerability?...All companies are conservative when their revenue, insurance rates, and liability on their line. If you've studied computer security in the last 20 years, you know man in the middle and cross site scripting are common attack vectors. It's hard enough ensuring your site is
Re: (Score:2)
Since Fakespot makes no changes to Amazon's server, it creates no liability for Amazon, just like if I use a bug riddled OS to run a bug riddled browser to access Amazon, it isn't Amazon's liability. Otherwise they'll have to ban Windows users :P. They would also need to block any access from a public WiFi due to the added risk of shoulder surfers.
Notably when one speaks of a man in the middle attack, it is understood that the man in the middle is covert, not invited. Or at least that the invited man in the
Re: (Score:3)
Uhhh, Amazon don't get to "not allow applications to do this". They're serving up content, I can overlay whatever I like on top of it.
I haven't seem the app in use, but I think Amazon is concerned that the app is displaying actual Amazon information along with app-generated information without or minimally distinguishing the two sets, perhaps misleading users to think the app information is from Amazon. This may also alter the way the Amazon info is presented. I imagine that Amazon has a right to control how it's information is used and/or displayed.
That said, if a third-party app can provide additional information on the veracity of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I imagine that Amazon has a right to control how it's information is used and/or displayed.
It is not a legally protected right. If a buy 10 copies of a book made by publisher X; I can add my own notes to the copies, even redline out anything in the original book, and sell all 10 of my books with annotations added to someone else.. Publisher X does not have anything protected by the law to prevent me from adding my own notes in the margins or injecting other content into my legal copy of their work. L
Re: (Score:2)
If, however, you got those books for free in exchange for agreeing not to do exactly what you describe they could, in fact, come after you and exercise various legal remedies. Just because you can download something from the internet doesn't mean that it's in the public domain - otherwise you could also just reprint copyrighted books you downloaded from the Kindle site and sell them, which you absolutely cannot (legally) do, even if you add annotations to them.
Re: (Score:2)
If, however, you got those books for free in exchange for agreeing not to do exactly what you describe they could, in fact, come after you
What you are describing is a Post-Sales restraint: A seller creating a contract to impose restrictions upon a buyer's use of goods after the buyer purchases the goods and the transactions contracted are completed. These are illegal. Companies have tried to use that before as a way of restricting resale of goods, and such agreements that restrict what the buyer can do
Re:"It doesn't allow applications to do this" (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhhh, Amazon don't get to "not allow applications to do this". They're serving up content, I can overlay whatever I like on top of it.
Not if you want your app on Apple's store you don't.
That aside, pretty sure most jurisdictions would disagree with your original claim too. Wrapping work of others into something is a tricky subject often looked down on in courts.
Was the app using API access? (Score:1)
Uhhh, Amazon don't get to "not allow applications to do this"
I thought that phrasing was curious also - to me it implied the app used the Amazon API to get product details, then overlaid some stuff on time of the product web page.
But if the app used the Amazon API Amazon could have just shut down access.
The other way is just as you said, if the app is just using the open Amazon web pages Amazon really has no say over that... so the phrase doesn't make much sense any way you slice it.
They may be rivals (Score:4, Interesting)
but some things are unacceptable among the giant corporation community, like giving customers the power to make informed purchase decisions.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:They may be rivals (Score:5, Informative)
50 years ago, my Granny used to say (sarcastically) "The adverts speak very highly of it dear" meaning "only someone who was paid to do so would say anything good about it".
[fast forward 50 years]
How do you know the review is fake?
Modern granny: its on Amazon, you dumb fuck!
Simply trademark infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this describing Amazon App?!!! (Score:1)
Same can be said for Amazon App
"The app in question provides customers with misleading information about our sellers and their products, harms our sellers' businesses, and creates potential security risks."
Amazon App provides misleading information? Yep.
Amazon App harms sellers? Yep.
Amazon App creates potential security risks? Yep.
So shouldn't Amazon App also be pulled?
Isn't advertising all about providing customers with misleading information?
"potential security risks" is content free (Score:3)
Nothing in the article explains how the app poses "potential security risks".
Amazon doesn't like the spotlight on their flawed review system. Their answer isn't to fix the system but to stifle those that point it out.
The real security risk is believing anything but 1 and 2 star reviews.
Manipulative Article (Score:5, Informative)
From the start of the article [cnbc.com]:
Apple has removed Fakespot, a well-known app for detecting fake product reviews, from its App Store after Amazon complained the app provided misleading information and potential security risks.
[...]
Amazon said it reported Fakespot to Apple for investigation [...]
By Friday afternoon, following a review from Apple, the app was no longer available on the App Store.
A typical reader might be drawn to conclude that the the time from complaint to removal was quite short, perhaps even less than 24 hours (otherwise why state "By Friday afternoon"?).
Of course, once one gets all the way down to paragraph 7 the actual timeline becomes apparent:
Apple said in a statement that Amazon on June 8 initiated a dispute with the Fakespot app over intellectual property rights. Apple said it provided Fakespot with steps to keep their app on the store and gave them "ample time" to resolve the issue. It then reached out to Fakespot on June 29, weeks before their app was removed from the App Store.
Now I don't know if Apple was right to remove the app, but I do know that CNBC's article was misleading and manipulative.
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously it is only "misleading and manipulative" if you don't read the whole thing. You actually admit that the article clarifies the timeline if you read it in full so obviously they aren't very good at misleading or manipulating people.
Re:Manipulative Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously it is only "misleading and manipulative" if you don't read the whole thing. You actually admit that the article clarifies the timeline if you read it in full so obviously they aren't very good at misleading or manipulating people.
I don't think you actually understand how being misleading and manipulative actually works.
The idea is that you want readers to believe X, even though Y is true, so you write as if you believe X, mention Y being true as an aside, but write as it you believe X and the reader will believe X as well.
Here, the author wrote as if the banning was a rapid decision by Apple based on Amazon's desire to stop users from realizing reviews were fake.
Thus they started talking about time frames as if they were on the order of hours "By Friday afternoon", and then they started focusing on the problem on fake reviews as a signal that fake reviews were also Amazon's focus in the dispute.
Of course, information to the contrary was buried deep in the article to defend from charges of dishonesty. But every article writer knows most people will either not reach that far or simply glaze over. The thing you were meant to believe was written in the first few paragraphs.
Re: Manipulative Article (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The important part you seem to have missed is that the article was posted on Friday.
Published Fri, Jul 16 2021 7:53 PM EDT | Updated Fri, Jul 16 2021 10:21 PM EDT
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/1... [cnbc.com]
So of course the writer is going to say "By Friday afternoon, following a review from Apple, the app was no longer available on the App Store" since this is most likely the time that she checked the App Store to see if the app was still there. There is no other mention of time in the article up to this point so there is no way to say if this is a rushed review or not. If you make an assumpti
Do a webpage in Tonga (Score:2)
Just to see what they do.
Amazon Reviews are Mostly Fake (Score:2)
95% of the reviews on Amazon are fakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy from local merchants if you can (Score:2)
Because they're all fake. (Score:1)
The app's imperfect algorithms gave the illusion that real reviews are the normal case. That is an actively harmful distortion of reality. Even if well-intended (by a blackeyed developer).
If you want a real review, you need to ask somebody you actually know personally. Or at least know somebody who knows somebody. Everything else is just self-delusion. (Yes, including professional reviewers with a reputation, like for movies/games. They always get lists on what not to mention and what to mention.)
But for Am
That was unexpected. (Score:2)
Amazon just quietly admitted theyâ(TM)re in the fake review business. As a value added service sellers can purchase perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here is that the browser on iOS is so locked down that Fakespot can't offer a plugin or similar like they do for PC browsers. This means that their app is effectively a wrapper that passes through Amazon content while manipulating it. I have no reason to believe they are abusing this, but it is clearly abusable so I can see why Apple
Chrome plugin available (Score:2)
Ok Apple has removed it from their app store but there is a chrome plugin and I like it.
It doesn't just work on product pages but also on your purchase history page and it seems fairly accurate on the rating. It also has a feature which rates the product reviews and it analysed some of mine. I'm pleased to say at least one was rated as most authentic.
This is a useful tool, but what do they gain from it? Do they get affiliate links when you buy?