Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks App Removed From Apple Store

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the dying-of-not-surprise dept.

Censorship 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Stoobalou writes "An 'unofficial' WikiLeaks App which contained published documents from the Cablegate leaks has been withdrawn from the Apple App Store.The $1.99 App created by developer Igor Barinov has been removed from sale without explanation despite the fact that all of the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."

cancel ×

338 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Go Apple! (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627438)

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! (4, Insightful)

LSD-OBS (183415) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627468)

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.

Re:Go Apple! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627526)

Jobs wants Apple to be like AOL. Carry on with these overzealous acts of censorship, all they'll end up with is AOL level users and sheeple that couldn't care less about anything but their own image.

Re:Go Apple! (-1, Troll)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627760)

Give me a break. Apple sells a streamlined user experience to people who want exactly that.

To read these comments, you'd think Apple had everyone chained up in a dungeon with no way to ever escape.

Re:Go Apple! (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627846)

It really is a bit of both...

Re:Go Apple! (3, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627852)

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:Go Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627868)

Jobs wants Apple to be like AOL. Carry on with these overzealous acts of censorship, all they'll end up with is AOL level users and sheeple that couldn't care less about anything but their own image.

Give me a break. Apple sells a streamlined user experience to people who want exactly that.

So did AOL. Until nobody wanted that.

Re:Go Apple! (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627478)

Government? No. Apple is not up to it's ears in debt to foreign powers. But it's a little random about this app's removal. There will be no inquiry into their reasoning, unlike the Google app blocks.

Re:Go Apple! (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627506)

Government? No. Apple is not up to it's ears in debt to foreign powers.

You must have missed the part in my OP where I said "as far as their attitude and exertion of control is concerned." :p

Re:Go Apple! (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627632)

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.

Re:Go Apple! (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627698)

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?

Re:Go Apple! (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627714)

Well...internet porn isn't illegal -_-;; doy.

Re:Go Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34628036)

Well...internet porn isn't illegal -_-;; doy.

Neither is bomb building instructions. I re-iterate: instructions to make bombs are not illegal. It is patently false that it is illegal to know how to make bombs. Any half-wit that makes it to 9th grade AP science class can produce bombs trivially. Fuck my country has turned into a bunch of sissies.

Re:Go Apple! (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34628056)

Tell ya what: leave a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook on your passenger seat, and tell me how the police react next time you get stopped in traffic.

Re:Go Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627724)

Internet porn is illegal, genius?

Re:Go Apple! (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627764)

I admitted my stupidity :p Look at the post right above yours.

Now that we have that out of the way, how about you respond to what I said?

Re:Go Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627946)

Ok, i'll bite. The Guardian's USA outlet is a news source (protected by shield laws in the USA), the UK version is outside of US jurisdiction, and Apple is not a news source (not protected by shield laws). The US government isn't taking the New York Times to court because it would get thrown out instantly.

Finally, the Guardian app isn't violating any terms of agreement that I can find. The mentioned Wikileaks app was (donations).

So, genius. /popcorn.

Re:Go Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627966)

The Guardian app is a news reader. The Wikileaks app goes directly to the documents in question. The Guardian app is no different than a browser in that regard. You select the target sites to gather data from. The Wikileaks app only goes to Wikileaks.

Can you really say you don't see the difference?

Re:Go Apple! (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | more than 2 years ago | (#34628016)

Once again, why is The Guardian's app still in the store then?

The Guardian provides a lot of information, the heavily summarized, filtered and redacted cables being a very small part of that information. So does that mean you also think Apple should remove all web browsing capability because the internet contains classified information?

The difference is that the removed application is specifically designed to provide access to classified information which is in specific violation of the espionage act. News outlets have generally been protected by the First Amendment when challenged with violating espionage law in court. Technically any transfer, possession, aiding in transfer, etc... of classified information is illegal in the US. Public disclosure does not alter the security status of any document. Apple may very well not want to be the test case for a non-news outlet in a high profile espionage court case.

The government is powerful and embarrassed - a combination that generally doesn't allow for forgiveness without blood.

I would suggest that is why the Guardian Application is still in the store but this nugget of espionage isn't. (Plus the Guardian has the resources to hire lawyers and also to make a PR nightmare for Apple (at least in Europe) - possibly inflaming anti-trust cries in the (sometimes) more stringent Europe.

I don't agree with most of Apple's business ethics, but that doesn't mean I don't understand that to them, the biggest crime is scuffing the fruit before putting it on the teacher's desk for public display.

Re:Go Apple! (5, Informative)

lxs (131946) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627722)

What legal limbo? It is operating fully within the law here in the EU. Just because a couple of politicians on the other side of the pond have been braying their heads off doesn't create a legal limbo.

Re:Go Apple! (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627894)

Wikileaks itself is in legal limbo within the United States. The right for the press to publish such documents is clearly stated in the constitution, however, the right for someone to steal such secrets is not. At some point, the decision has to be made whether or not Wikileaks is defined as 'the press', or if it's just some guy who has obtained a large number of classified documents.

That is what I mean by legal limbo.

As to the EU, it's not relevant. Apple is based in the US, and as such, it could come under fire for providing access to such documents. Given the simple choice of removing the app in question, or dealing with potential costly and ugly legal issues, they took the proper path as far as their stockholders are concerned. A $2 app is simply not worth it.

Everyone simply assumes this is some evil corporation looking to dominate the world, when a simple glance at the situation from a business perspective yields a much more likely scenario. It was imply a bad business risk to leave it in the app store.

Re:Go Apple! (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627916)

Everyone simply assumes this is some evil corporation looking to dominate the world, when a simple glance at the situation from a business perspective yields a much more likely scenario. It was imply a bad business risk to leave it in the app store.

You have yet to respond to me further up in the discussion.

Why is The Guardian's app still in the app store? 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.

Re:Go Apple! (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627974)

I'm not familiar with the Guardian app. Is it an RSS reader or something similar? If so, it's just an aggregator, not a direct app into Wikileaks.

Re:Go Apple! (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627774)

Not random at all... the app violates the donation prohibition [thedroidguy.com] in their store. Apps that solicit donations must be free, and this app promises a donation of $1 for each $1.99 purchase.

Now, that prohibition might be a different reason to hate Apple, but they aren't necessarily going after Wikileaks.

Re:Go Apple! (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627828)

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! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627614)

Slowly turning? Where have you been for the last couple of years?

Cry Havok & Release the Drama Queens of War (3, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627786)

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...

Re:Cry Havok & Release the Drama Queens of War (1, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627856)

As I've said numerous other times in this discussion, following your line of thinking, why is The Guardian's app still in the app store? 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.

Re:Cry Havok & Release the Drama Queens of War (4, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627964)

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:Mr. Kryptonite ? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627940)

Can you elaborate on why calling Julian Assange "Mr. Kryptonite"?

Re:Mr. Kryptonite ? (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627986)

I would, but it doesn't look you've got much candle left and the cave you've been living in seems like it will get pretty darn dark and cold soon...

It violated the license rules... (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627890)

...of charity programs which MUST be free. Charity payments must be done through paypal or an external web site which the app links to.

This app was donating 1$ per sale. But it still violated the rule.

There are tax reasons for this rule.

So, everybody can get off their horsies.

Re:It violated the license rules... (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627962)

Thank god for conveniences.

Otherwise Apple's bias would be obvious even to you.

Safari (5, Funny)

linumax (910946) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627460)

Well, I'm sure Safari would be pulled next because it makes the same information accessible.

Re:Safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627476)

FYI, Safari is part of the base application set.

Re:Safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627520)

FYI, sarcasm is when people say abviously absurd statements.

FYI, Safari is part of the base application set.

Re:Safari (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627566)

FYI, it's spelled "obviously".

Re:Safari (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627734)

FYI, it's fer yer intertainment

Re:Safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627524)

FYI, Safari is part of the base application set.

...

Re:Safari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627528)

Thank you, Sherlock.

Re:Safari (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627932)

Sherlock was removed a few iterations ago.

HTH.

Re:Safari (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627720)

WHOOOOOSSSH!

Re:Safari (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627766)

Duck, lest it might hit you over the head when flying past.

Then again, light blows to the back of the head allegedly increase the mental capacity, so... keep your head up high!

Re:Safari (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627504)

Of course not! There might be some compatibility issues with sites containing the info though.
As your IMEI data and your location is monitored by dozends of iphone apps anyway, there might even be a nice way to identify all those law defying, criminal readers of secret documents.

Re:Safari (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | more than 2 years ago | (#34628052)

If you didn't sign a contract with the owner of these documents, reading them is not illegal. Neither is distributing them. It's only illegal for those, who have signed NDAs and provided access to the documents in the first place.

Re:Safari (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627812)

Well, I'm sure Safari would be pulled next because it makes the same information accessible.

Actually, Safari is the way that Apple sanctions donations, along with special SMS messages. You can't solicit donations from inside an app. I suspect this app would not have been pulled if it were free.

apple is open? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627474)

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:apple is open? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627580)

Wait a second, whatever happened to that commercial from 1985?

The one with businessmen as lemmings? [youtube.com]

Cue the shock and amazed expression (0)

The-Blue-Clown (1261404) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627484)

The turtle-neck sweater wearing overlord has spoken. Bow to him ye minions! I would love to own an iPad or iPhone, but I like my soul where it is.

Re:Cue the shock and amazed expression (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627802)

Umm... I own an iPod.

But then again, I own the iPod... so...

Re:Cue the shock and amazed expression (1)

The-Blue-Clown (1261404) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627886)

That's what u think. Have you read Apple's EULA? It says ..."Apple can and will decide what you can and will use on anything you buy from Apple. And oh yeah BTW, Jailbreaking is NOT legal or cool. The Black Turtlenecked Lord of the Underworld has spoken .... So let it be written, so let it be done"

Re:Cue the shock and amazed expression (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#34628068)

If the Turtleneck got too tight and cut off the oxygen supply to the brain, that's the turtle's problem.

I own my iPod. Whether St. Steve likes it or not. And, oh yeah, btw, my law actually doesn't bar me from owning it.

Anonymous retaliation in 3,2,1 .... (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627494)

i wonder what anonymous will do to apple's app store.

Re:Anonymous retaliation in 3,2,1 .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627656)

Anonymous will post a link in Slashdot. Here you go:

http://www.apple.com/ [apple.com]

~Anonymous Coward

Re:Anonymous retaliation in 3,2,1 .... (1)

gilbert644 (1515625) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627944)

Probably shoot themselves in the foot somehow.

Re:Anonymous retaliation in 3,2,1 .... (5, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#34628004)

i wonder what anonymous will do to apple's app store.

Probably the same thing they did to Amazon.com

Censorship is alive and well (0)

tacktick (1866274) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627500)

It is alive in Apple and other big companies that are swayed by whim or shareholders.

Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.

Re:Censorship is alive and well (4, Informative)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627602)

Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.

Actually it's fortunate it doesn't apply, because if you think about it, what you're asking for would mean that government would literally have the mandate to *force* private individuals to carry a message they may not want to. Having a right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that other private individuals should be required by law to carry and spread anyone else's message (even at their own cost). Apple consists of private individuals, if governments could force Apple to carry anyone's speech, they could force you and me to carry speech too. If a kid scrawled graffiti on your wall, hey, that's "speech", government should force you to leave it up. Thankfully that's not how things work.

That said, dammit Apple, you keep disappointing me on a regular basis with the closedness and the draconian control over what is and isn't allowed in your 'app store'.

Fortunately there is competition, and competing app stores and platforms are popping up like mushrooms. So I'm not too worried, app stores will be forced to remain quite open thanks to competition. Apple's attitude is already reflecting in their market growth vs the growth of others like Android, and they'll have to ease up a little or they'll keep losing share.

Re:Censorship is alive and well (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627972)

Very true. There is, hoever the related concept of freedom of speech. 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.

Re:Censorship is alive and well (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627682)

Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.

Why? No private entity should be obligated to have their private property used as a platform for speech that they don't like. If you find this unfortunate, then you don't mind using your private property as platforms for their speech, right? If I come to your house and start putting campaign signs in your yard you're just going to leave them there and not remove them and censor me, right? You're just going to allow anyone and everyone to use your private property for their speech platform in any shape or form they choose, right?

Red the TOS - Number 21 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627508)

http://images.worldofapple.com/appstoreguidelines_9910.pdf

Donations can only be collected with free apps. That's where this specific app went wrong. Simple. Funny that Apple needed 4 days to find out.

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (5, Insightful)

DarkDust (239124) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627672)

Psssst, don't spoil the fun of mindless Apple bashing by providing a totally valid reason for the app removal ! Or at least provide another possible victim to direct the nerd rage at.

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34628038)

There are no valid reasons for app removal when you have a monopoly on the apps accepted.

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34628088)

Apple has lots of totally valid but completely arbitrary reasons to deny apps. Hence, the crackdown on fart apps, simply because Apple is too uptight to laugh at flatulence jokes. Perfectly valid though.

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (4, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627700)

Where did you read that the application was collecting donations?
TFA only mentions that the author donates $1 to wikileaks for every sale.

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (4, Insightful)

mad flyer (589291) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627816)

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:Red the TOS - Number 21 (2)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627900)

El Muerte's point is that the artile makes it sound like the author is collecting his money for the application, then choosing to donate his money to Wikileaks...very different than actively soliciting a donation.

Once it's his money, he's free to do whatever the hell he wants with it. Or are you advocating otherwise?

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627822)

See section 21. Donations can only be collected with free apps, and only by certain ways. Most likely since Apple can not confirm that $1 is being donated correctly so it pulled the app. If the person resubmits it with in app donations within the application it might be approved again.

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627706)

And if it wasn't that, they'd find another applicable rule. That's the point of ToSs, to cram so much stuff into them that you have something to arbitrarily kick anybody out and still have a "legal" excuse.

Re:Red the TOS - Number 21 (2)

novenator (1953574) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627772)

Well, if that is the case the app should be corrected in no time.

Erased from iPhones too? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627516)

Does apple follow the Amazon model of erasing banned items from customer's Kindles and iPhones?

Re:Erased from iPhones too? (4, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627668)

no, that's the nice thing about iTunes. the file is on your computer as a .app file and you can use it on your iphone as long as you want.

It's business (1)

docwatson223 (986360) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627518)

Apple is pretty entrenched in some very interesting places here in DC so it doesn't surprise me that they would pull the app. As far as it being open source, there's a difference between saerching yourself (and the effort involved) and having someone else collate it in a comprehensive set of classified sources. I hope they sell tickets to this kids execution for treason. Maybe they can get Assange and do double billing and make it pay-per-view with proceeds going to the families of the Intelligence agents and sources who are killed from it's release.

Re:It's business (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627546)

Sooo...does that mean they would remove The Guardian's app from the store? Cause uh...they've got it pretty well organized too.

Re:It's business (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627618)

You are afraid of information?

Please unplug your internets immediately.

You b

Re:It's business (1)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627694)

with proceeds going to the families of the Intelligence agents and sources who are killed from it's release.

I'm not really pro-everyoneshouldknoweverything but is there a source for all these agents being killed because of the info releases? Perhaps governments should first acknowledge (and then pay) any and all spies that are killed in action?

Re:It's business (2)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627844)

...proceeds going to the families of the Intelligence agents and sources who are killed from it's release.

You're making shit up. Please stop. [npr.org]

Wait... (2)

antido (1825442) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627604)

Apparently this was because the app asked for donations.

Goes to show... (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627616)

...that a closed garden sucks. Release the hounds of hell!

yay (0)

choko (44196) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627628)

Kudos to Apple. They know what's best for us more than we do. Maybe the next iphone will have its internet access filtered through the great firewall of Cupertino as an added feature.

Given their constant "nannying" of their user base, it's no wonder they are based in California.

instead of flipping out, did anyone figure out why (4, Informative)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627634)

The app clearly violated Apples policy on donations, which is most likely the case the app was removed, and was clearly admitted to by the apps creator. Boy do people read way too much into things.

Re:instead of flipping out, did anyone figure out (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627738)

Proof? TFA mentions the author stating that HE gave $1 from each sale to Wikileaks...no where does it say the app was soliciting donations.

Re:instead of flipping out, did anyone figure out (5, Interesting)

varmittang (849469) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627860)

http://images.worldofapple.com/appstoreguidelines_9910.pdf [worldofapple.com]

See section 21. Donations can only be collected with free apps, and only in certain ways. Most likely since Apple cannot confirm that $1 is being donated like the app submitter is saying, it got pulled. If the person resubmits it with in app donations it will probably pass again. Otherwise we will have an explosion of "pay me $1.99 and I'll donate $1" apps all over the place and no money getting donated. Where as in app donations can be confirmed.

Re:instead of flipping out, did anyone figure out (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627942)

OK, but as I've said, the article (which could be wrong, of course) says the author is donating $1 of HIS OWN MONEY to Wikileaks, rather than explicitely stating in the app that he is doing so. Once it's his money, it's his money.

Again, this is assuming the article is accurate.

Re:instead of flipping out, did anyone figure out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34628078)

Read your EULA, it's Apple's money. After all, it's Apple's hardware and software that they are generously loaning to you. That's why Steve Jobs is bucking the trend by personally giving you an "Industry Standard" non-exclusive, royalty free license to use the money earned by apps you submitted to Apple's store for virtually any purpose you'd like.

Keep 'em coming (0)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627640)

Every random / abusive / tyrannical decision by Apple reminds me why I sold my iPhone and swore I would never buy another Apple product. Every time I lean closer to buying an iPad, Apple does something horrible and my credit card breathes a sigh of relief. Thank you Apple.

Re:Keep 'em coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627704)

If you can live without a product, it's probably best to reconsider any time you reach for the plastic to pay for it.

"Publicly" available (1, Insightful)

syates21 (78378) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627648)

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:"Publicly" available (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627872)

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.

Yes, it would be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627924)

assuming your app doesn't infringe against relevant copyrights.

just because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627688)

Just because the information is "publicly available", some of it is still classified and illegal to posses. I don't blame apple at all for not wanting to host an app that contains these documents on their servers.

Re:just because (1)

thbigr (514105) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627784)

How can information be made publicly available and illegal to posses? Can you give me an example or an analogy? This sounds like a catch 22 to me...

Publicly Available != Public Domain (1, Offtopic)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627716)

Even 3rd graders should understand that concept. I get the source code license for MS Windows from a public site I make an Apple app for it, just because I got it from a location that was publicly available doesn't mean it's unencumbered. I get the internal financial documents for Redhat that someone copied and put onto a public website, I make an Apple app for it, again using data I didn't have rights to. You have to be a complete moron to not understand the legality of content you don't have rights to.

Re:Publicly Available != Public Domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627818)

Actually, any document created by the US government is public domain by law.

Re:Publicly Available != Public Domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627922)

Mod this all the way up to the point where it becomes the story and the story becomes buried at -5.

So... (1)

autocracy (192714) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627758)

How long until Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, etc. "stop carrying Wikileaks information" over their infrastructure?

Cancer. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#34627808)

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.

And this is why... (2)

CryptoJones (565561) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627904)

I don't write Apps on apple platforms.

Maybe it's because the author is charging for it? (1)

fortfive (1582005) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627918)

How much of that $1.99 is going to wikileaks, and how much of it is the author's profiteering?

I'm as quick as anyone to suspect Apple of inappropriate control, but this smells like something different.

Wikileaks... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 2 years ago | (#34627956)

"There's no app for that."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?