214
United States v. Apple is pure nerd rage
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
214 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59379 readers
2532 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Imagine you're a government lawyer working on the US case and you show up to a deposition and pull your iPhone out set it on the table.
What are the chances that your Apple ID and iCloud are mysteriously banned for violations of the terms of service for which Apple can't share the specific reason because of "policy related security reasons" before the week is out?
That’s called “ retaliation” and Apple would have to be pretty fucking stupid to do that to the prosecutors at any point, let alone in the middle of a dep.
Apple would have to pretty fucking stupid to openly retaliate against Epic for criticizing their DMA plan but here we are.
Commiting felonies to antagonize a DOJ lawyer personally would be a whole different level of stupid.
well, it wouldn't be a felony, they don't own their apple id lmao
but it certainly wouldn't impress neither the prosecution, nor the judge
The act of retaliation is the part that's a felony dude, not banning someone's apple id.
NAL, but it would likely be enough for a felony obstruction of justice charge. Add to that, depending on specifics of Apple's legal response (and whether they throw the employee under the bus,) a CPAA charge for exceeding authorized access in a computer system.
So this wasn't exactly retaliation. The first approval epic got this year was from an automated system. Once they got the approval they assumed (very understandably) that apple was okay with them establishing their store within the new guidelines, so they announced their plans publicly. They also continued to diss apple on Twitter of course. Hearing the announcement, Apple execs decided to ban them again because they didn't adhere to the rules last time.
This however completely looked like retaliation from apple's side, so the DMA lawyers started an investigation and Apple had to re-allow epic again.
Wether it's apple's fault for having the shitty automated system or not, doesn't really matter though. I just hope we get proper sideloading by the end of the process.
No, this was exactly retaliation. Phil Schiller explicitly said in emails that they were removing Epic's Switzerland's account because they couldn't trust them because of how critical their recent comments about the DMA plan were.
Epic wasn't prosecuting.
So? That doesn't change how stupid it was to publicly retaliate against them, and explicitly write out that you were punishing them for their criticism. The point is that Apple execs are as dumb as your average person, just greedier.
Yeah it does... Epic doesn't have a big stick like the whole court system to punish Apple.
The prosecutor does.