Worthless iPhone 'Wikileaks App' removed from Apple Store An iOS app designed to provide access to Wikileaks has been removed from the Apple App Store. "Wikileaks App" was a paid app ($1.99) which did nothing more than present the Wikileaks Twitter feed and website – both of which can of course still be seen by iDevice users with sufficient energy to activate their browser and/or …
Eh?
Whatever your view on the rights or wrongs of AssangeGate, it seems perfectly reasonable of Apple to remove an app that simply took money from gullible souls to direct them to a public URL that they could already reach via Safari.
How do you see that as a "relentless assault etc, etc"?
So it's reasonable to remove apps that simply takes money from gullible souls. That doesn't explain why Apple hasn't removed 99.99% of all apps.
You can find the real reason in the NYT btw:
Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way
It is questionable whether this app doesn't comply with local laws, there aren't any formal accusations yet, and Apple should refrain from a value judgement about 'putting an individual or group in harm's way'.
This is nothing but big business protecting big business with the Merikan government as waterboy, in other words: muzzling.
And no, I don't think disclosing these cables was a very good idea, by the way, but we have legal systems in place for what Apple is doing here.
Why is it every time that there is an investigation of anything, The American press and their single-source-news-morons attach a 'Gate" to it?
The original Watergate I can see, after all it started at the Watergate Hotel in DC, but evidently anyone in journalism class to taught to label gov investigations a 'gate'.
Why?
Pedantic BS, but damn.
Look, there is certainly a role for a whistleblowing site and so on but it seems to me that there is not, a priori, something pious or beneficial about releasing any and all information. If someone put about your credit card details and PIN, would you applaud the transparency, for example?
Everything I've read from the dump of diplomatic cables might be titilating but I've seen nothing that would fall under what I would call whistleblowing and much of it is clearly damaging in some way or another.
In the wider sense, diplomacy is clearly best conducted with tact, delicacy and the frank exchange of information between diplomats on site and their bosses back at home. In the narrower sense, from what I understand certain sources in very unsympathetic countries have basically been outed by this information. This puts them at risk of personal reprisals and surely reduces the likelihood that people will provide information to the US in the future. Does this strike you as a good thing?
It seems to me that the only major indictment of the US that has come out of these cables is that they could be so widely accessed and so easily leaked in the first place. That does not justify publication.
It may be entertaining to read this stuff and, if you have a reflexive dislike of America, it may be fun to see their diplomats squirm, but really, what good has been done with the release? This isn't empty, childish rhetoric. This is real world, grown-up consideration of the value in what wikileaks has done. Fun != justification for releasing information. We might all like to know what is going on behind the scenes but any mature individual knows that some things are keep secret for a reason.
People need to separate Wikileaks from the Assange Cult of Personality. Charging Assange with rape under Sweden's wacky laws is not the same as denigrating Wikileaks. Wikileaks has brought a great deal to light that should be out in the light. Assange is merely an egomaniac.
I cannot agree with this, Wikileaks and Assange have acted in an entirely irresponsible way. Information has been dumped on the Internet without serious thought either to the consequences, or indeed value as 'whistle blowing' material.
It may be true that the recent dump of US diplomatic material has brought things to light that should be highlighted, but I cannot see what they might be? It is far easier to point to the material and find examples which represent information that could be used against NATO countries interests and citizens.
I really cannot see where the distinction between Wikileaks and Assange starts and finishes, to me they are all but one and the same. Ego, dogma and self promotion at any price!
Although the latest tranche does seem to be blatant self-promotion, Wikileaks have done some good in the past. For example, they received an award for highlighting humanitarian abuses elsewhere in the world.
Assange on the other hand, from what I can tell he's an egomanical self-serving cock.
I'd say though, the harm Wikileaks are doing outweighs the good
Dare I suggest that the original poster has been systematically voting down everyone who disagrees with him? Downvoting my post (for example) I can understand because I disagree with his central premise. But downvoting your pointing out the fact that this article was actually about an app is pretty lame.
Just read any of these Wikileaks articles. Anyone who says anything that could remotely be interpreted in the slightest possible way as not completely glowing with praise for Wikileaks and Assange eventually gets at least four thumbs down. Forget that many insightful posts backed by actual evidence are posted here asking tough questions that the Assange = hero crowd refuse to answer....no, anyone speaking ill of Assange must be downvoted.
There are apparently some real fanatics amidst El Reg's readership. Frankly, it scares me. That people can be so blinded by hero worship they can't understand that /everyone/ is human, /everyone/ makes mistakes and /everyone has skeletons in their closet...well, actually ‘scary’ doesn’t cut it.
I also find it interesting how some people can’t seem to separate criticism of Assange himself from criticism of Wikileaks and/or criticism of the concept of whistleblowing. Seriously, what is it about the Assange that causes some people to disengage their critical thinking organs? More importantly, what the heck are they doing on El Reg, of all places? El Reg and her readership are notoriously critical of everything and everyone!
*sigh*
Maybe I’m just getting old. I never did get this “web 2.0 hivemind” stuff. I need to myface some twitter while I meta-tag my wikis and mix post my pictures and personal information all of my geo-located frappuchino app on my superphone. Can someone please teach me to stop thinking for myself?
Speaking of which, I've almost finished my iDevice solar panel app, simply run the app (which shows a picture of a solar panel), put the device in the sun and now you can smugly tell everyone around you that you're charging your unit using free energy.
It's not actually for iDevice owners, it's laughing therapy tool for everyone else.
So all those apps that go to forums, radio stations, read RSS feeds, display pictures on your homescreen (maybe not in the Apple market) are all worthless? What about the fart apps or the hundreds that replicate the functions already available in the phone settings for wifi, bluetooth or data connections?
All these apps should be deleted because they take money from lazy and/or gullible fools?
"A foole and his money be soone at debate: which after with sorow repents him too late" - T. Tusser
"Parted soon; a fool and his money are" - Yoda
So Apple/Jobs gunning for more US Gov supply contracts for it's kit, pulls app that might just be seen as too much for the Feds to stomach, well blow me down!
I couldn't give a monkey's about any of them really, I just find it amusing watching all the ego-maniacs fighting over this Wikileaks business. I'm surprised you can't hear half of those involved squeaking loudly as they drag their massive swollen egos through normal sized the doorways!
I don't think I need say anymore. You planks are doing a fantastic job of exposing this "discussion" for what it is - here, and on all the other wikileaks articles where you guys seem to pop up.
Perhaps you need some "assistants" from the UK, where employees haven't been through a laughable US education and can therefore debate without using clumsy ad-hominem and straw man attacks.
I tend to agree.
It seems eminiently sensible that Apple would remove an App that just duplicates something that Safari can do. It doesn't seem to add value. I'm aware that not all value-less apps in the store have been removed, I don't think anyone has disagreed that the policy is applied inconsistently. I just doubt there is any other motivation for the removal.
which I agree was indeed superfluous - differ from similar apps which provide access to say, newspapers and which, it is claimed, will be the saviours of print media ? Can't most of these journals be accessed with null marginal cost via the web ? Is it really too suspicious to conclude that it was something other Apple's putative concern for end users that motivated the app being removed ?...
Henri
They all use data that is also available via a web browser. Some are indeed useless, some are not. I thought this was up to personal judgement. This app is obviously removed for other reasons.
Censorship and hypocrisy are a lethal combination, whatever your opinion on Assange.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
