I didn't see this news in HN, but in Brazil a judge forbidded the app stores to let brazilian users download Secret anymore.
The app is being extensively used to bully people - non-authorized pics of naked people, messages with ofenses and etc. It was covered all over mainstream media and there is a consensus that it was a right decision (in this kind of press I mean).
The bigger story there is not that Brazil banned Secret, but that Google, Apple and Microsoft, all have the power to delete those apps from your device. That Orwellian power is the truly terrifying story there. And yes, personally, I've been aware for a while that they can do that, but I bet the vast majority of people don't know that.
When will these companies learn that "if you build it (the infrastructure for censorship/surveillance), they (the governments) will come"? It's inevitable, and they should know better by now.
I consider my phone to be my property. Typically, other people or corporations can't make changes to my property without my permission.
I guess by "mobile infrastructure" you can extend that to "every phone," in which case why not remotely remove programs from PCs as well? Why not just say outright that the coalition of your local government plus Apple/Microsoft own your computer, rather than you?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and advocating free software, or openly advocating for autocratic computer systems management.
(This is of course what RMS has been saying for literally decades, but for the people on HN who disagree with RMS, ... told you so.)
> other people or corporations can't make changes to my property without my permission.
IANAL but it seems you have given permission:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its principals reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any App and Book Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the App and Book Services at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for making these changes.
Well, I use an Android phone, but regardless, I've never given anyone permission. Maybe in a legal sense someone could claim that, but that's irrelevant to what's actually happened.
Stop letting game-riggers dictate your view of reality.
If this is really a problem for you, here's a solution:
1. Get a Nexus phone.
2. Flash to a custom ROM.
3. Don't flash Google Apps.
4. Sideload APKs or use an alternative store.
5. Enjoy.
The reason you can't have everything is that the app devs and most people prefer the store situation. If this is a particular problem for you, there will be sacrifices.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and advocating free software, or openly advocating for autocratic computer systems management
I am basically saying that the market can support both but is trending toward user acceptance of the latter. All those EULAs out there are the agreements that make all this possible. If people rejected those terms then we wouldn't be in this pickle.
At the same time, you don't generally get a choice about what laws are in effect in the land you live in, but you do get to choose whether to buy Google or Apple products and partake of their app stores, or whether to go F/OSS and keep your freedom.
It never says they can, it just says they have to. Completely separate meaning, in fact it calls it a "tall order" which means at the very least that's it's pretty difficult if not impossible.
Even if it's technically impossible now doesn't mean that it won't be technically impossible in the future.
It's plausible that future iterations of smart phones will make progress on this "feature", should it become a more stringent requirement for shipping in Brazil.
Interesting about why it was banned…the Brazilian constitution says "the expression of thought is free, and anonymity is forbidden;" (in other words, you can say what you want as long as it's accompanied by your name).
There is also a Tumblr called "Os Melhores Secrets" (The Best Secrets) which publishes secrets (no NSFW pics on the blog). If anyone speaks Portuguese, you can get an idea of what kinds of things are being passed around, though certainly there are worse secrets (w/ pics) on the app's network.
The Brazilian government is still, to me, a very reactionary one, especially when it comes to technology. It reminds me of the US government, but without the slowdown that causes most terrible/great ideas from making it through the legislative process.
I'm not sure the predominant use case is people posting their own secrets, so much as people posting gossip or secrets about others. I don't use Secret all that often, but I have a lot of friends who do. Most of them run in tech circles in SF. Most of their use of Secret seems to be "Heard X is happening," or "Heard Y is leaving Z," or "Heard A is working on B." This stuff isn't entrustment; it's the opposite. It's a willingness to divulge.
I find the gossipy aspect of Secret entertaining, occasionally useful, and maybe 25-50% reliable. It serves its purpose. I don't post anything to Secret, though, and I would certainly never post any of my own secrets.
I share the concerns over cyberbullying, libel, and other potentially dangerous issues with any service of this nature. I don't think banning a class of apps altogether is the right solution. More likely, it's a flagging system, combined with a very active moderation policy on Secret's part. There will come a time -- maybe it's triggered by government regulation or banning in some regions; maybe it's triggered by lawsuits in others -- when Secret decides it needs to get serious about moderation. IANAL. But I can't imagine that, in a hypothetical libel suit, Secret can mount a strong defense right now.
Why would Secret have liability in such a suit? If someone starts a blogger account and uses it to accuses someone of being a (for example) a neo-Nazi, then would the accused sue Google for libel?
It's tricky, but it would probably come down to a determination of whether Secret is a "publisher" or a "distributor" of its content. Case law is generally on Secret's side, in as much as online message boards and hosts are not considered responsible for the statements their users make. But I can see a scenario in which determining what, exactly, Secret is introduces complications to the "message board" category.
In your Google example, Google is in no way responsible for the content of someone's blog post. Google is not the publisher of that content, and is debatably not even the distributor.
>> "The app is being extensively used to bully people"
Sounds like ask.fm all over again. Afaik there were news stories about people getting bullied actually killing themselves on that site so I have no problem with apps being removed if they fail to moderate this stuff correctly.
The app is being extensively used to bully people - non-authorized pics of naked people, messages with ofenses and etc. It was covered all over mainstream media and there is a consensus that it was a right decision (in this kind of press I mean).
Edit: here a TechCrunch about it: http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/20/brazil-court-issues-injunct... It was submitted to HN but got no comments or upvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8202444