Scala compiler engineer for embedded HDLs by profession.

I also trickjump in Quake III Arena as a hobby.

  • 0 Posts
  • 3 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 13th, 2023
  • jard@sopuli.xyztoApple@lemmy.world•Apple criticized for blocking Beeper Mini iMessage on Android app - 9to5Mac
    1·
    10 months ago

    Has Beeper actually charged money for it?

    https://help.beeper.com/en_US/beeper-mini/beeper-mini-getting-started-guide-site

    Beeper Mini subscription (7-day free trial or an additional month of use if referred by an iPhone user):

    *Beeper Mini Subscription Update: Though Beeper Mini is a subscription-based app, it will be available free of charge temporarily. (Note: This was an update to Apple patching the iMessage security exploit on Friday) *

    What you get:

    • Send iMessages using your Android device.
    • Join iMessage-only group chats seamlessly.
    • Full-resolution images and videos, plus replies and reactions.
    • Secured with end-to-end encryption.
    • Cancel anytime.

    They also got two hundred thousand monthly subscriptions in the few days that it was available. Simply inexcusable.

    You quote directly from the same source I was using (Cornell law) and your quote directly suggests that reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability (in this case with iMessage and it’s use on iPhones and the interoperability with android phones) appear to both be covered.

    Please refer to the following excerpt, because you didn’t bother reading anything I wrote:

    “In all 3 cases, Beeper developed and marketed an app specifically as “iMessage for Android”, and charged money for it. This goes far beyond “establishing interoperability,” as they were using this reverse engineered information to bolster their brand and profit off of it. I highlighted each salient point of the clauses specifically because these actions infringe on Apple’s copyright.”

    I actually couldn’t care less about apple or beeper.

    Then why are you even here? This is a community for Apple enthusiasts, to discuss Apple things.

    Are beeper required to agree to Apple’s EULA? If so, why? Please explain that.

    It’s directly stated in the acronym of EULA - End User License Agreement. If you use any Apple service, you become an end user and thus automatically agree to the terms by definition. To opt out or “disagree” with Apple’s EULA, don’t use Apple services or products like iMessage.

    The app had to be developed through the usage/exploitation of the iMessage API and Apple’s servers. This makes Mr. JJTech0130 and Beeper’s developers ‘end users’. Android users who enrolled their phone numbers in iMessage (which was necessary to use Beeper Mini) makes them ‘end users’.

    Are you taking out your frustrations with other people on me? Because it does seem like it.

    Yes, I’m annoyed that Android users continue to come in here again and again, completely misinformed about the situation, and write complete nonsense. Especially if it’s nonsense that’ll get you laughed out of a courtroom, and a lifetime of contractual payments to Apple.

  • jard@sopuli.xyztoApple@lemmy.world•Apple criticized for blocking Beeper Mini iMessage on Android app - 9to5Mac
    1·
    10 months ago

    Abjectly false according to established case law. There are exemptions to the protections for reverse engineering with both DMCA and EU directives; Please go learn how the system works before you endanger others who would be foolish to follow your words:

    In the US

    17 U.S. Code § 1201, article f (Reverse engineering) permits the use of reverse engineering to circumvent technological measures:

    • (1) … for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs … to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
    • (2) a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure … for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
    • (3) in acts described by (1), and means described by (2), reverse engineering is done solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

    In all 3 cases, Beeper developed and marketed an app specifically as “iMessage for Android”, and charged money for it. This goes far beyond “establishing interoperability,” as they were using this reverse engineered information to bolster their brand and profit off of it. I highlighted each salient point of the clauses specifically because these actions infringe on Apple’s copyright.

    You misunderstand what the purpose of the DMCA is: it’s supposed to protect corporations like Apple, not the hacker underdogs that you’re rooting for. In its literal first article it forbids all general forms of technological circumvention unless they can be shown to fall into a very specific category of “non-infringing” exceptions. If you actually read it, the DMCA limits reverse engineering, not protects it.

    Additionally, Beeper’s actions already violate Apple’s EULA, which is a legally binding contract, so what they’ve done (and actually, anyone who used Beeper Mini) is illegal under contract law as well.

    In the EU

    Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament, article 6 (Decompilation) states that the protections of information obtained through reverse engineering or decompilation of a computer program do not apply if that information is:

    • (a) to be used for goals other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created computer program;
    • (b) to be given to others, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created computer program;
    • (c) to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright.

    Beeper charged money for a subscription in order to achieve interoperability. This is a goal of profitmaking, not achieving interoperability. (a) disqualifies them for protection.

    Beeper, additionally, delivered access to their reverse engineered exploit to others in an unnecessary manner by charging money. (b) disqualifies them for protection.

    Beeper developed a computer program that is substantially similar to (Apple) Messages’ expression (it literally was a messaging app that was advertised as “iMessage for Android.”). This infringes on Apple’s copyright. (c) disqualifies them for protection.

    Beeper quite literally fails in all 3 cases that would protect them from litigation in the EU.

    The fact of the matter is simple: You are defending criminal behavior that is illegal in both the US and EU.

    There is no reason other than being cordial to request “permission”.

    This is also blatantly false. Reverse engineering intrinsically entails violating the copyrights or intellectual property of another party, thus entitling them to damages if pursued. DMCA provides a means for the “infringing party” to be protected from litigation in certain circumstances, but even better than the DMCA is the means of obtaining direct permission, which establishes a legally binding contract between the copyright holder and the infringing party. This is what white hat hackers and pentesters need to do all the time, because their actions would otherwise be completely illegal under any jurisdiction.

  • jard@sopuli.xyztoApple@lemmy.world•Beeper’s iMessage app for Android is back — but it’s a downgrade
    1·
    10 months ago

    How can Beeper reasonably claim that it’s trying to “pressure Apple to achieve interoperability through RCS,” when Beeper Mini’s debut trick was to employ a Hackintosh-esque spoofing of a fake Apple device?

    Apple can transform anything Beeper Mini tries to achieve into a public statement about how they patched yet another security flaw for their users. Because that’s literally what it is, and that strategy’s already been field tested now. You can’t claim anti-competitive behavior when your business model relies on reverse engineering a proprietary messaging protocol and authentication scheme for the purpose of profit (this makes it illegal in both the EU and the US, FYI.) That’s why I’m bringing up the dubiousness of the whole operation in the first place.

    I don’t think Beeper even cares about making money

    Then not charging anything is what they should’ve done right away. Charging a subscription for an exploit is the kind of thing black hat hackers do, and it immediately gives the wrong message to those who care. Also, the price was exorbitant for what it was – WhatsApp charged far less annually to access their own servers before they were acquired by Meta; Beeper is completely piggybacking off a trillion dollar company’s servers and using exploits and workarounds to trick these servers. This is not the kind of thing you want to charge a subscription fee for on day one.