Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wetcoaster

BC Woman Sues Apple Alleging Privacy and Security Rights Violations of Owners of iPhone, iPad and iPod

39 posts in this topic

We shouldn't speak ill of Apple!

They're probably watching us right now... :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the CarrierIQ fiasco with Android and iOS phones, this doesn't surprise me in the least bit.

To me the most damning information comes from Eric Smith between pages 18 and 27.

In there it shows embedded into the Apple software is unique MAC address tracking software that in very short intervals uploads MAC and geolocation information to an apple server, which can easily be used, with the graphs, to quickly personally identify someone, which connection they are using, then track their most travelled to location, determining their "most frequently" travelled location, in turn finding out where they live, where they work -- whatever uses this information can have is unlimited but most worrisome is using that for criminal purposes (especially both that information and data relay getting into the wrong hands). Funny that they automatically bypass security functions on the phone itself to whitelist Apple on this type of data relay, something a person that doesn't know how to root a phone and analyse the data would be in the slightest bit aware of. What's also interesting is the complicit nature of cell companies in that data relayed as proven there doesn't show up on bills.

There may be some okay or indifferent with this, but this is not what I want on my phone, so I hope as much as possible is revealed so that once the uproar is finished more privacy measures can be placed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the CarrierIQ fiasco with Android and iOS phones, this doesn't surprise me in the least bit.

To me the most damning information comes from Eric Smith between pages 18 and 27.

In there it shows embedded into the Apple software is unique MAC address tracking software that in very short intervals uploads MAC and geolocation information to an apple server, which can easily be used, with the graphs, to quickly personally identify someone, which connection they are using, then track their most travelled to location, determining their "most frequently" travelled location, in turn finding out where they live, where they work -- whatever uses this information can have is unlimited but most worrisome is using that for criminal purposes (especially both that information and data relay getting into the wrong hands). Funny that they automatically bypass security functions on the phone itself to whitelist Apple on this type of data relay, something a person that doesn't know how to root a phone and analyse the data would be in the slightest bit aware of. What's also interesting is the complicit nature of cell companies in that data relayed as proven there doesn't show up on bills.

There may be some okay or indifferent with this, but this is not what I want on my phone, so I hope as much as possible is revealed so that once the uproar is finished more privacy measures can be placed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol...the only people that win class action lawsuits are lawyers.....the most she can recover is her cost of her apple products, which is not worth the hassle of actually pursuing this lawsuit..

...why are people sooo stupid????

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is exactly is she suing for? What does she want out of this? Cause if feels shes in danger, she can just not use the iphone, or.... she can use a phone that is pre 2006.

Apple Lawyers.

"Ms Ladas. If you were so concerned about your safety, did you make any attempt to contact apple? As I am aware we have XXX stores in your area. Also why didn't you just simply "stop" using the phone. We have just a little under 200 million iphone users across the planet, and we have yet to be sued for something like this.."

Apple can also use.

"Out of the 180 million iphone owners across the planet,we have 0 complaints about their phone or information being stolen."

Amada Ladas is in for a huge surprise, when Apple embarrases her.

Apple probably has like at least 50 counter arguements. It's kinda sad the lawyers posted the doucements too. It just gives apple time to prepare everything.

"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As George Carlin pointed out we don't have rights. We have privileges.

http://en.wikipedia....dian_internment

How can we have rights when they can just be taken away?

The Canadian Government just passed laws saying you can't wear masks in a riot. Well what is a riot?

If a crowd of people get together and protest wearing Guy Fawkes masks can you be arrested?

I think we have bigger concerns in regards to our freedoms.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rials-vote.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol...the only people that win class action lawsuits are lawyers.....the most she can recover is her cost of her apple products, which is not worth the hassle of actually pursuing this lawsuit..

...why are people sooo stupid????

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully she wins and then I'll claim something just because I have an iPhone lol

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is exactly is she suing for? What does she want out of this? Cause if feels shes in danger, she can just not use the iphone, or.... she can use a phone that is pre 2006.

Apple Lawyers.

"Ms Ladas. If you were so concerned about your safety, did you make any attempt to contact apple? As I am aware we have XXX stores in your area. Also why didn't you just simply "stop" using the phone. We have just a little under 200 million iphone users across the planet, and we have yet to be sued for something like this.."

Apple can also use.

"Out of the 180 million iphone owners across the planet,we have 0 complaints about their phone or information being stolen."

Amada Ladas is in for a huge surprise, when Apple embarrases her.

Apple probably has like at least 50 counter arguements. It's kinda sad the lawyers posted the doucements too. It just gives apple time to prepare everything.

"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The possibility of Apple receiving a black eye from this and customers losing faith in their products, especially the iPhone, is far more damaging to them than the actual payout of any class action suit. Apple is the worlds largest company ( by market cap) because of the perception of their products being superior to the lower priced competition. But perception can be swayed and competition is only getting fiercer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems unlikely.

Like virtually all product liability suits, this case will almost certainly be done on a contingency basis by legal counsel. If the case does not succeed then counsel does not get paid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to reports she is suing on the basis that Apple has “engaged in deceptive acts or practices” ( I would assume under BC consumer protection law - (BCPC) -The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act) that entitle her and anyone who joins the suit “to aggravated, punitive and/or exemplary damages.”

The statutory definition in the BCPC seems applicable as pleaded:

"deceptive act or practice" means, in relation to a consumer transaction,

(a) an oral, written, visual, descriptive or other representation by a supplier, or

(
B)
any conduct by a supplier

that has the capability, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading a consumer or guarantor;

...

(2) A deceptive act or practice by a supplier may occur before, during or after the consumer transaction.

Also in BC we have the Privacy Act and we were the first Commonwealth jurisdiction to enact such protection and we have been followed by a number of others. Remember this is not the US of A and our courts take privacy violations seriously as mandated by law.

1 (1)
It is a tort,
actionable without proof of damage
, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another.

(2) The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.

(3) In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties.

(4)
Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.

This would be in the category of a statutory tort.

Also we have another wide ranging piece of legislation that applies to privacy of information as it applies to private organizations, including corporations doing business in BC - the PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT. Note this foundation principle that pushes aside technical defences:

4 (1) In meeting its responsibilities under this Act, an organization must consider what a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

And as far as the a purported defence of consent by a consumer that is also significantly limited by law:

7 (1) An individual has not given consent under this Act to an organization unless

(a) the organization has provided the individual with the information required under section 10 (1), and

(
B)
the individual's consent is provided in accordance with this Act.

(2) An organization must not, as a condition of supplying a product or service, require an individual to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service.

(3) If an organization attempts to obtain consent for collecting, using or disclosing personal information by

(a) providing false or misleading information respecting the collection, use or disclosure of the information, or

(
B)
using deceptive or misleading practices

any consent provided in those circumstances is not validly given.

...

10 (1) On or before collecting personal information about an individual from the individual, an organization must disclose to the individual verbally or in writing

(a) the purposes for the collection of the information, and

(
B)
on request by the individual, the position name or title and the contact information for an officer or employee of the organization who is able to answer the individual's questions about the collection.

(2) On or before collecting personal information about an individual from another organization without the consent of the individual, an organization must provide the other organization with sufficient information regarding the purpose of the collection to allow that other organization to determine whether the disclosure would be in accordance with this Act.

(3) This section does not apply to a collection described in section 8 (1) or (2).

11 Subject to this Act, an organization may collect personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances and that

(a) fulfill the purposes that the organization discloses under section 10 (1), or

(
B)
are otherwise permitted under this Act.

Based upon numerous reports and Apple's own earlier admissions to the US Congress in 2009 it appears that Apple has never met these statutory requirements.

So it seems in BC this action appears well-founded and Apple may not have the ability to resort to defences that might have been available in the US of A. This is BC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to reports she is suing on the basis that Apple has “engaged in deceptive acts or practices” ( I would assume under BC consumer protection law - (BCPC) -The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act) that entitle her and anyone who joins the suit “to aggravated, punitive and/or exemplary damages.”

The statutory definition in the BCPC seems applicable as pleaded:

"deceptive act or practice" means, in relation to a consumer transaction,

(a) an oral, written, visual, descriptive or other representation by a supplier, or

(
B)
any conduct by a supplier

that has the capability, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading a consumer or guarantor;

...

(2) A deceptive act or practice by a supplier may occur before, during or after the consumer transaction.

Also in BC we have the Privacy Act and we were the first Commonwealth jurisdiction to enact such protection and we have been followed by a number of others. Remember this is not the US of A and our courts take privacy violations seriously as mandated by law.

1 (1)
It is a tort,
actionable without proof of damage
, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another.

(2) The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.

(3) In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties.

(4)
Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.

This would be in the category of a statutory tort.

Also we have another wide ranging piece of legislation that applies to privacy of information as it applies to private organizations, including corporations doing business in BC - the PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT. Note this foundation principle that pushes aside technical defences:

4 (1) In meeting its responsibilities under this Act, an organization must consider what a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

And as far as the a purported defence of consent by a consumer that is also significantly limited by law:

7 (1) An individual has not given consent under this Act to an organization unless

(a) the organization has provided the individual with the information required under section 10 (1), and

(
B)
the individual's consent is provided in accordance with this Act.

(2) An organization must not, as a condition of supplying a product or service, require an individual to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service.

(3) If an organization attempts to obtain consent for collecting, using or disclosing personal information by

(a) providing false or misleading information respecting the collection, use or disclosure of the information, or

(
B)
using deceptive or misleading practices

any consent provided in those circumstances is not validly given.

...

10 (1) On or before collecting personal information about an individual from the individual, an organization must disclose to the individual verbally or in writing

(a) the purposes for the collection of the information, and

(
B)
on request by the individual, the position name or title and the contact information for an officer or employee of the organization who is able to answer the individual's questions about the collection.

(2) On or before collecting personal information about an individual from another organization without the consent of the individual, an organization must provide the other organization with sufficient information regarding the purpose of the collection to allow that other organization to determine whether the disclosure would be in accordance with this Act.

(3) This section does not apply to a collection described in section 8 (1) or (2).

11 Subject to this Act, an organization may collect personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances and that

(a) fulfill the purposes that the organization discloses under section 10 (1), or

(
B)
are otherwise permitted under this Act.

Based upon numerous reports and Apple's own earlier admissions to the US Congress in 2009 it appears that Apple has never met these statutory requirements.

So it seems in BC this action appears well-founded and Apple may not have the ability to resort to defences that might have been available in the US of A. This is BC.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a yes no question Wetcoaster, do you really want to see apple lose this case? Thanks. Right now you sound quite happy about this. Cause if her actually wins, I'm going to launch a lawsuite against Google. Trust me bro, on top of that Facebook.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well has anything bad happen to her since she used the phone? I don't think so. Again, if she has concerns just contact apple. It anything she is trying to capitalize on a huge lawsuite against apple. Just reading through the apple user agreement for the io4. I personally think their ass is covered. Of course I'm not a lawyer, just a regular person reading through, and it looks like they are covered in virtually every angle possible that can prevent them from getting a lawsuit. Also Ms Ladas didn't have to go this far, doing all that research, didn't make any attempts to contact apple about her concerns, didn't do anything. She probably didn't even read the apple agreement, and my guess is nothing happened to her in terms of danger. She might as well stop using facebook, google, her android phone, (after this she might as well stop using the android phone right now, cause google is always sharing personal information anyways) etc etc. anyways, this is small news actually. Nothing is going to come out of it.

Lets put it this way...

Ganapathi <<<<<<<< apple lawyers. Apple Lawyers is pretty much in a diffrent leauge then a lawfirm such as Ganapathi. That being said.. good job on all that research. I think one thing they forgot to research was the ios4 agreement.

But what does ms ladas want out of this? It didn't say.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, she might even have a case if anything dangerous actually happened to her.

However, nothing did. And since you have to agree to a long-winded Apple disclaimer before you do anything like install an app that tracks your phone and other phones on your ios network, or even set up an icloud, then it's safe to say that Apple has nothing to fear here. Nobody forced her to do these things. Meanwhile, Apple is on ios 6, not 4. They say that you have to constantly upgrade to avoid all potential security risks. This is common among all operating systems and programs that access the internet.

(It's the tracking of our cellphones that we don't have to agree to a disclaimer for that's more concerning to me. But those people/companies/governments are generally far more discreet than 'Big Brother' Apple Co.)

While it's 'potentially' unsafe to use technology like this, in the end it's up to you if you want to use it or not. Same with facebook, e-mail and the internet as a whole. Want to be 100% secure? Don't use any of these technologies.

As for Apple being labelled 'Big Brother' here, it will be readily dismissed as conspiracy nonsense. Quit wasting our time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, she might even have a case if anything dangerous actually happened to her.

However, nothing did. And since you have to agree to a long-winded Apple disclaimer before you do anything like install an app that tracks your phone and other phones on your ios network, or even set up an icloud, then it's safe to say that Apple has nothing to fear here. Nobody forced her to do these things. Meanwhile, Apple is on ios 6, not 4. They say that you have to constantly upgrade to avoid all potential security risks. This is common among all operating systems and programs that access the internet.

(It's the tracking of our cellphones that we don't have to agree to a disclaimer for that's more concerning to me. But those people/companies/governments are generally far more discreet than 'Big Brother' Apple Co.)

While it's 'potentially' unsafe to use technology like this, in the end it's up to you if you want to use it or not. Same with facebook, e-mail and the internet as a whole. Want to be 100% secure? Don't use any of these technologies.

As for Apple being labelled 'Big Brother' here, it will be readily dismissed as conspiracy nonsense. Quit wasting our time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.