Apple The Latest To Convict Wikileaks Despite No Charges Or Trial; Kills Wikileaks App For Violating Unnamed Laws
from the say-what-now? dept
There's been a lot of attention paid this morning to the fact that Apple, in its typically arbitrary manner, has pulled a Wikileaks app from its iTunes store just days after it was approved. While there was a variety of speculation as to why it did so -- from the claim that it was useless to the claim that it allowed users to donate money, Apple released a statement giving similar reasons as Visa, MasterCard and Paypal did before, falsely claiming that Wikileaks obviously violated the law:"We removed the WikiLeaks app from the App Store because it violated our developer guidelines. Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way."The thing is, Wikileaks hasn't even been charged with a crime yet, let alone found guilty of one, so it's not clear why all these companies claim that the app does not comply with he law. Also, while we're still waiting for evidence of anyone actually put in "harm's way" due to Wikileaks, that reasoning doesn't make any sense either. The information found on Wikileaks is being written about in all sorts of major news publications -- so if a Wikileaks app is putting people in harm's way, then so is the Safari browser on the iPhone that can be used to access all the same information. And, before anyone says it, yes, Apple is absolutely free to do whatever it wants with the iTunes store, including blocking apps if it doesn't like them. I'm just pointing out that it's stated reason for doing so doesn't make much sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: app store, blocks, iphone, wikileaks
Companies: apple, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How many times in the comments here have we seen bets and challenges relating to "the outcome of the charges" or "the judge's decision" by those who insist that convictions are inevitable, even though there are no charges and there is no judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It isn't always charges first and investigation after.
More importantly, Apple isn't a court, and cannot convict anyone of anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if they have evidence to prove they have to file for a warrant to do the investigative work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Random Selection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So they seized a domain name ... hmmm ... let me see what evidence we can gather from the evidence "Torrent-Finder.com"
It has 3 r's, 2 t's, 2 o's, 2 e's, 2 n's, one of each of the following letters i, d, c, and m. oops forgot the "-". Its a dot "com" domain name. It contains the words torrent and finder.
I wonder how long this kid at ICE-Homesec will puzzle over that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not even sure how you can say they are the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The proper term is "probable cause", not "probably cause".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ugh. That isn't the point. The use of the word "convicted" is obviously tongue in cheek in response to Apple referencing the breaking of local law by the Wikileaks app when that has yet to be either proven or even officially alleged.
C'mon, people, this ain't that tough....
Also, this is nothing more than a corporate citizen's response to all the government warmongering over Wikileaks. So silly and so petty. It's a wonder that the American people can't see this for what it is: a false flag of danger in order for the government to do something it wants (internet regulation)....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I thought higher of you than to fall for this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have you forgotten that some words have multiple related meanings?
convict
v.tr.
1. Law To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court: The jury convicted the defendant of manslaughter.
2. To show or declare to be blameworthy; condemn: His remarks convicted him of a lack of sensitivity.
3. To make aware of one's sinfulness or guilt.
Guess which definition covers the use of the word in the title. Hint: it's not #1 as you claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...that they feel is breaking the law or may cause them legal trouble"
that = "convicting" someone. No, not in the courtroom sense, but in the general usage sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the Apple press release:
"We removed the WikiLeaks app from the App Store because it violated our developer guidelines. Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way."
Point 1: it violated Apple's developer guidelines. Could very well be a valid reason, I don't know their guidelines, but it was approved initially, so it appears a bit doubtful.
Point 2: Apps must comply with all local laws. No proof has been brought forward that the app and WikiLeaks in question are actually against the law in the USA. In fact many people have pointed out that the site is in fact well within the boundaries of the law. So that one's debunked.
Point 3: [apps] may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way. Sure we hear politicians tout this reason for opposing WikiLeaks. But WikiLeaks doesn't publish cables until after they have been scanned, parsed and redacted by news outlets such as The Guardian and El Pais. As of today no-one has offered us proof of the lives that are in danger because of WikiLeaks. So that too is a BS reason.
"Apple didn't convict anyone of anything, they choose not to do business with a group / organization that they feel is breaking the law or may cause them legal trouble."
That makes Apple seem rather spineless. And I doubt that the US government would stoop to such a low standard as to blame Apple for any alleged wrongdoing on the part of WikiLeaks.
That they FEEL is breaking the law?
Sir, I feel that you are breaking laws, by opposing me, can I have you arrested now? No, of course not, that's why we have due course.
Sure, Apple is well within its rights to ban an app from their store, as Mike has said in the article, but please be honest and come forth with statements such as "We don't like what WikiLeaks is doing and we want no part in it whatsoever." instead of using weasel words such as "we feel that they are breaking laws" when in fact no proof has been offered that they are in fact breaking laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me explain.
A point that comes up here again and again is the right of businesses to refuse customers. Even Mike refers to it in his post. But think about it: does a hospital have the right to refuse Assange? Can he be barred from public transport?
I'm sure they all have a clause for denying service to disruptive, violent, ... customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, all Apple needs is a lawyers opinion that there might be an issue, or there might be some liability (however small) for Apple, and they can exit. One lawyer says "distributing confidential government documents may be illegal", and they are done. No more issue.
Remember, this is the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Companies don't operate on that level. They operate on risk and possibilities. All you need is a possibility, and most companies will run for the hills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a stupid argument, quit using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: during investigations, items are often seized and held as evidence.
b) There is no such “investigation” currently in progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are not finding Wikileaks guilty of anything. They are only limiting and mitigating their own legal risks.
I know, it sound so much better to use charged up phrases like "Apple Convicts Wikileaks", but that just isn't the case. Otherwise, you could have to assume that Apple "convicted" the porn industry by not allowing apps that include nudity.
Another truly misleading post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're right, you can't. This is a downside to Apple's dictatorial method of app approval.
An Android app for Wikileaks doesn't require Android market approval to run on Android devices.
Yet Steve Jobs will say that Android is a closed system and the iOS platform enhances the freedom of its users...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"We removed the WikiLeaks app from the App Store because it violated our developer guidelines. Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or targeted group in harm's way."
When an app has to comply with all local laws, that would include the local laws that Apple has to live in. Helping to finance Wikileaks is something that could come back to haunt them legally. It may put some people at risk. They have no reason to be involved. Their lawyers figure that it is likely they are breaking the law, so they take no risk.
As for porn, they use the same logic. They don't want to take the legal risk that they may distribute porn to minors, so they pull the plug. That is their right as a company to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point here is simple: Apple made a corporate decision. You seem to get that.
But they aren't owning up to that, or taking responsibility for it. Instead they strongly imply that their hands are tied, and that Wikileaks is breaking the law, in order to deflect scrutiny from the fact that they freely made this decision.
Yes, they carefully worded it to avoid directly calling Wikileaks guilty, but the implication is strong and apparent. Nobody's saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that, we are just calling them on their misleading PR statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You keep trying to make it sound like this is business-as-usual, but I've never seen anything like it happen before. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not and this is indeed a first or near-first, then it seems like you are rationalizing it for no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marcus, your rebuttal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At Apple...
He believes absolute control and power of the user experience delivers the best user experience.
Sadly, that is true with stupid users. With intelligent users, the opposite is true. That is why Windows PC's won the PC war over apple. The PC was open, the Apple was closed.
Sure, Apple always had hardcore fanboi's but in the end, it's the freedom to do what you want on your device that wins out.
At least, it did when there were fewer sheople (sheep people who blindly follow). Now that the government is breeding the sheoples, who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At Apple...
And Apple losing was the best thing to ever happen to them. Once they realized they weren't going to beat Microsoft, they stopped trying to be Microsoft. No more licensing of the OS (Oh wait, I thought they were "closed". But yes, there were legal Mac clones in the 90s). Instead they went back to what they were best at. Marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At Apple...
The PC won, not because the "users" were somehow more intelligent than Apple users, but yes, the PC won because it was a more open technical design. The open design allowed for just about anyone to develop clone h/w to the IBM PC. The increased product breadth on the market created competition and drove prices down so that the mainstream population could easily get them.
In a similar vein, the Apple learned from this experience and iPod won the MP3 war because it too was open such that just about anyone could develop a slew of supporting products where competitors just could not keep up. Of course, the iTunes store also helped.
As for Apples overall proprietary strategy to the market, right, wrong or indifferent, no one is forcing you to use their products. You don't like their policies, don't buy their products.
As someone that has military personell in the family, I do think Wikileaks has endangered our service personell by posting some of this confidential information. Of course the fault lies most with the person that released the confidential info in the first place and that could be grounds for treason.
Now, had the military exercised more caution over what they were doing and things being communicated, some of this could have been avoided all together.
If we all don't say, do or behave in any manor that would embarrass ourselves or our parents and all would be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: At Apple...
Do you think that because you've seen actual evidence that anybody has been harmed or genuinely endangered, or because that's what the grandstanding, self-serving politicians keep saying in the media?
I've seen plenty of the latter, but none of the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At Apple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Job's getting personal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Job's getting personal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Job's getting personal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
Just to be clear, I hold no favoritism toward Apple. I treat them with a healthy dollop of apathy. I just try to call it like I see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
Consumers except for your kids...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different App Still Available
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Want a casualty from the Wikileaks fiasco?
I'm in the market for a smart phone and after doing my homework for several months I was down to two choices:
iPhone 4 from Apple or an HTC EVO 4G
I understand Apple has the right to do business with whomever they choose based on the reasons they see fit (that are not race/color/religion/creed/aged based) and this is the result.
You have KILLED me as a possible customer for kowtowing to whatever external forces may be present and for siding with those who believe suppression of the truth by the US government, whose actions obviously need to be questioned based on the content released, is a good idea.
Congratulations Apple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah Blah Blah
What I find interesting is that this particular language falls under "Personal Attacks" in their "App Store Review Guidelines". Here is the language:
"14. Personal attacks
Any app that is defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited, or likely to place the targeted individual or
group in harms way will be rejected."
Who is the targeted group? The public? Why does this app place me in "harm's way"?
As far as complying with "local" laws, apparently "Apps must comply with all legal requirements in any location where they are made available"....wouldn't that mean the world? Pretty vague language.
Wikileaks hasn't even been charged with a crime yet, let alone found guilty of one, so it's not clear why all these companies claim that the app does not comply with he law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blah Blah Blah
I think it's more that they are toeing the mostly-debunked line of "the leaks endanger government personnel and operations overseas"
apparently "Apps must comply with all legal requirements in any location where they are made available"....wouldn't that mean the world? Pretty vague language.
I'm guessing developers can geo-restrict their apps so they don't need to appease every country's laws, but you are right - jurisdictional issues online are pretty complex from what I understand. The language is vague because it's not at all clear (even in the U.S. courts, let alone all the courts in the world) which laws digital content has to obey in relation to where it is created and where it is made available. Throw in an international intermediary like Apple and I'm guessing it's a legal mess.
Of course in a situation like this, one would still think there would need to be specific allegations at the very least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blah Blah Blah
Good point - here in Australia, Federal Police have established that Wikileaks haven't broken any local laws. Does this mean that we are still able to download the app here in Aus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can companies be charged with crimes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can companies be charged with crimes?
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/documents/reports/1999/charging-corps.PDF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then they better remove their "App of the Year"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then they better remove their "App of the Year"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
convenience
Fricken hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple is right, I side with them on this one
The Wikileaks app does violate Chinese, North Korean and Iranian laws. It also does violate laws soon-to-be-adopted in the US, based on those wonderful countries which are a wonderful example of how to deal with "people who endanger national security". So Apple is right, the Wikileaks app does not "comply with all local laws"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THERE YOU HAVE IT.
I am proud, to be a PC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'mass insanity'
Sceptical?
Watch this, just released. And then tell us what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=768F3DA0D12B82A4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's an app for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MUST HAVE @)!2010
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NO FLASH
I would bet that this level of control on the part of Jobs is ruining the company. Really, I was very disapointed when it sunk in that youtube was like a partner to Apple and google is a partner to youtube. WHERE IS FREEDOM TO BE FOUND> How much control must these people have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Apps must comply with all local laws"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apps must comply with all local laws
No matter which side of the wiki leaks issue you are on, Apple gets to decide what apps they allow; if you think you disagree, go start a company or get appointed Chief Justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple is free to do as they please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple is free to do as they please?
So, refusing to serve blacks (or Jews, or similar moves against women), even by PRIVATE companies - not allowed in most places.
Here, add restraint of trade.
Sad state of affairs. When I was doing civil litigation, many years ago, I would have found a way to get rich off Apple for such conduct - and I wouldn't have done it for the money!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless...
As a result, it would be a move in self-defense, as the existance in the Apple marketplace of a Wikileaks app would be a threat to APPLE by opening it up to litigation, thereby enabling it to legally shut down the app without violating developer guidelines.
In a side note - anyone interested in filing an amici brief to contest these attempts to shut down a legal, independant company?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
More info:
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
John Barremore
Houston, TX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]