YouTuber leaked iOS secrets via friend spying on dev's phone, Apple lawsuit claims Apple has sued tech YouTuber Jon Prosser for allegedly leaking iOS 26 information to the public ahead of its reveal at WWDC in June. Apple sued Prosser and another individual, Michael Ramacciotti, in Northern California District Court yesterday, accusing [PDF] them of misappropriating trade secrets and a violation of the …
Apple just likes secrecy, because they like being able to do the "big reveal". You might think that's silly but it is their prerogative to protect their intellectual property even if the reason is frivolous.
If the facts are as Apple alleges then it seems like Prosser is in some real trouble. That he merely got a look at Apple's new UI in advance of when they wanted to show it rather than getting to see some fabulously wild new advance that would put everyone else behind by years is irrelevant. It would be a crime to conspire in the way he's alleged to have done either way. Especially since he would have done it for personal gain - so that he could publish with it with the end goal that he gets more followers / "clout" and makes more money.
Since he is (presumably) not an Apple employee, it's hard to see what obligation he has to not do what the hell he likes to Apples secrets he comes across.
Of course Apple is no doubt claiming that he has an iPhone, and so has entered into a contract with Apple that covers everything, everywhere and for all time.
At worst he has betrayed a friend, which is a moral crime akin to adultery, that is only a legal offence in a minority of right-thinking places, and not where Apple is.
A dangerous concept unless you are dead keen on ayatollahs.
Morality and criminality while not entirely disjoint are two quite different concepts.
Not all criminal acts are immoral, most are amoral, some <span class='mordant-sarcasm'>even in US jurisdictions</span> moral.
Equally most immoral acts are too trivial and personal for even the ayatollahs to consider offences.
What constitutes immorality and criminality changes enormously with both time and place. Just consider the where and when of homosexuality, or more accurately homosexual acts, as an example.
The one bible story that rang true as a child in our weekly religious education was "let him first cast a stone at her.†"
I still believe that has the authenticity of the voice of the historical Christ from that I think it is pretty clear what he thought of the idea of "moral crime."
† John 8:7 KJV
>The one bible story that rang true as a child in our weekly religious education was "let him first cast a stone at her.†"
That was then, and this is now. The 21st Century Newspeak Bible verse is " Let he who is absolutely raddled with sins multitudinous, hurl as many stones and dung, while shouting Look Squirrel"
He knowingly acquired trade secrets and copyrighted information, including breaking into someone else's "computer system" (a smartphone qualifies as such under the computer misuse act in the US) by illicitly acquiring the password.
How is that any different than if you were for example the sysadmin for one of your employer's servers containing their product plans for next year. Then I paid some guy to somehow weasel the password out of you, then when you were away at lunch he logs in, copies those product plans to give to me, and then I publish them for all to see? Do you think the only one at fault is you for your role in that? The middleman who actually logged in and copies the data has no blame? Me who paid for that to happen and personally profited from it has no blame?
Well the difference between seduction and rape is much the same as the difference between weaseling and stealing.
Weasling and seduction are both quite legal. He's allowed to weasel. He was legally in the home. He's not an Apple employee. What's illegal here?
Of course Apple will be claiming that something which is going to be duplicated and handed out without restriction half a billion times in a few weeks is a "trade secret".
But you know. They are trade secrets, well today. No really.
You have to be drinking their cool aid to believe that Apple asserting that because they assert it's a super duper secret, we should agree. Ah - no. We can see that you would like to keep in secret, and if you had kept it on premises it might have stayed that way. You didn't. You sent it home with developers, because you like to have them field tested e.g in home randos visit and in public places where bugger all is secret.
He's legally in the home but he got ahold of his roommate's password (we aren't told exactly how) and used to access a device that was not his and took pictures from what he knew was a restricted device (Apple devices running pre-public releases are clearly marked) on the instructions of someone who was paying him.
Just because I'm in your home legally doesn't give me the right to dig through the filing cabinet in your office (after I finagled the key from you) and copy your tax returns and medical records to hand over to someone else to publish who is paying me to do it.
Your argument about owning an iPhone is nonsense. Stealing trade secrets just is criminal.
And Possner paid somebody to get these trade secrets so is guilty. Paying someone is the same as stealing trade secrets himself. The next guy cheated on his idiot “friend” and used him to get access to trade secrets, making him guilty as well. The former friend was just stupid which doesn’t make him guilty, but lost him his job.
And Possners obligations are like my obligations not to steal from a store that doesn’t employ me. It has nothing to do with employment.
even if the reason is frivolous
Once upon a time, the protection of intellectual property would have been a matter of civil IP law, the principle of which is the remediation of actual damage.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes breaking into the device (discovering and using the passcode) potentially the most serious part of the complaint. IANAL, but as I understand it the value of the information obtained is then largely irrelevant as long as the access was unauthorised.
We may have reached the point at which large corporations do indeed have the "prerogative" of protecting the specific mysteries of their iconic corner radii with laws that were originally intended to protect critical military and financial systems, but should the legal system be inherently disproportionate?
Actually, you could. The problem is that what the US somewhat sardonically refers to as 'justice' depends a great deal on who has the most money to pay lawyers so you may have to give up halfway through because they (well, the lawyers) financially drained you. As far as I can tell that's definitely not by accident.
“ We may have reached the point at which large corporations do indeed have the "prerogative" of protecting the specific mysteries of their iconic corner radii with laws that were originally intended to protect critical military and financial systems, but should the legal system be inherently disproportionate?”
The iPhone layout was protected by design patents. Funny enough, Samsung who got sued had legitimate design patents for differently shaped rounded corners, but they preferred Apple’s design. And patents were never intended to protect “military or financial systems”. They are there to promote science do someone else can be inspired by s patent and create something better.
"between him and his tailor."
And which side sir "dresses" on.† :)
Bit puzzled. Not so much the cui bono but what the bono actually was for the defendants.
† for sartorial perfection allowance must be made, apparently. As in everything, the bigger the man the greater the allowance expected.
"Guess IT skills don't translate into street skills."
Defenestration is impractical from the sidewalk, according to Simon.
You should always first have the PFY invite the party to admire the cityscape (temporarily) from the roof.
