
Apple doesn’t allow Chaos Computer Club tvOS application - squarem
http://pastebin.com/zT1n0RPV
======
tvon
The specific reasons for rejection:

    
    
        > The following content was criticized by Apple in its review:
        > 
        > Hardware attacks: hacking chips on the (very) cheap (https://media.ccc.de/v/camp2015-6711-hardware_attacks_hacking_chips_on_the_very_cheap)
        > Bluetooth Hacking – The State of The Art (https://media.ccc.de/v/22C3-536-en-bluetooth_hacking)
        > Hacking Medical Devices (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD2013_-_5209_-_de_-_gate_104_-_201309081123_-_hacking_medical_devices_-_flo)
        > Gamehacking & Reverse Engineering (https://media.ccc.de/v/gpn15-6940-gamehacking_reverse_engineering)
        > Crypto-Hacking Export restrictions (https://media.ccc.de/v/1114)
        > Jailbreak: eine Einführung (https://media.ccc.de/v/hackover14_-_6494_-_en_-_raum_1_7_-_201410251615_-_jailbreak_eine_einfuhrung_-_erik_e)
        > Social Engineering und Industriespionage (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD15-7034-social_engineering_und_industriespionage)
        > $kernel->infect(): Creating a cryptovirus for Symfony2 apps (https://media.ccc.de/v/froscon2014_-_1436_-_en_-_hs6_php_-_201408231115_-_kernel-_infect_creating_a_cryptovirus_for_symfony2_apps_-_raul_fraile)

~~~
fweespeech
To be fair, CCC does have hacking content so its quite possible an automated
filtering process would flag it.

That said, its sad how much cenorship we have on the Internet vs. 20 years
ago.

~~~
nrb
The thing is, this isn't censorship "on the internet" but on their private,
closed platform that people choose to be a part of.

~~~
felipeerias
Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply
won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might
see it.

~~~
jolux
Freedom of speech isn't really the right to say what you want to a large group
of people, it's the right to say what you want _period_ regardless of who's
listening. It's your job to find an audience.

~~~
xg15
That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more
than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say
whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it.

Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of
finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful
gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform"
operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.

~~~
code_sterling
You have the right to say anything you want, you do not have the right to say
it in my home. I don't understand how there are so many people that don't
understand FOS.

~~~
Karunamon
They understand it perfectly - you're conflating the law (the government isn't
allowed to prevent you from speaking) with the principle it's based on
(restricting people's ability to speak is a backwards, repressive thing to
do).

Freedom of speech != the first amendment.

~~~
felipeerias
The story talks about an European group trying to reach a global audience. I
was making a more general point about how over-reliance on private platforms
makes censorship much easier for governments and corporations everywhere. Why
do you guys keep assuming that "the law" equals "US law as I understand it"?

------
mmastrac
Ugh. This is the nightmare scenario for walled gardens. Don't like the
content? Don't let it into the ecosystem.

I hope the open web continues to exist and we move past the app era, but I
think this is a pipe dream. It's Compuserve and AOL 2.0.

~~~
panarky
Not all platforms aggressively censor content to benefit the owner of the
platform.

I can easily use Google search and YouTube to find out how to block Google's
own ads[1] and to root Android phones. Google doesn't censor information that
hurts Google's interests.

Microsoft's Bing has information on how to replace Windows Media Player with
free and open alternatives like VLC.

Bing even suggests searches to prevent Windows 10 from spying[2].

It is possible to run an ethical platform that doesn't tilt the playing field
to the provider of the platform. Apple most definitely does not provide an
ethical platform.

(By the way, YouTube has a CCC channel[3].)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=block+google+ad...](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=block+google+ads)

[2] [http://imgur.com/K1fGwFt](http://imgur.com/K1fGwFt)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/user/CCCdeVideos](https://www.youtube.com/user/CCCdeVideos)

~~~
kentonv
Google banned disconnect.me -- a popular privacy app that blocks various
tracking mechanisms (without blocking advertising itself) -- from Android[0].
Apple had no problem with the iOS version.

It seems that each big centralized walled garden has their targets.

[0] [http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-banned-connect-
mob...](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-banned-connect-
mobile-2014-8)

~~~
panarky
> It seems that each big centralized walled garden has their targets.

This is false equivalence. Just because you can find an example where Google
banned an app does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical.

Google Play simply doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps. That's
the reason the disconnect.me app was removed.

It's telling that other apps from Disconnect are still available on Google
Play. Disconnect Search[1], for example, is contrary to Google's interests,
but Google does not ban it because it doesn't interfere with other apps.

[1]
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.disconnect....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.disconnect.search)

~~~
kentonv
> does not mean that all platforms are equally unethical.

I would agree that Google is more ethical than Apple, _for now_. But they
still do bad things, and they could easily get worse in the future. We need to
move away from this kind of centralization, so that no one has the power to
unilaterally gag legitimate content.

> Google Play doesn't allow apps that interfere with other apps.

Almost every app "interferes" with others in some way. The "no interference"
clause seems clearly intended to target interference which was _unwanted_ by
the user, but that is not how Google applied it here.

If the user expressly intends that the app interfere with other apps, then I
think that it is unethical to prohibit them from doing so on their own device.
Disconnect is not malware; users install it for exactly the purpose it
implements.

~~~
Natanael_L
Interference here is targeted functional manipulation. Not fifth degree
unintended side effects. The user's wish is not considered. There's a reason
not a lot Xposed modules are on Google Play.

Don't like it? Enable 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!) and
install those apps from elsewhere.

~~~
kentonv
> 3rd party sources (a function added by Google!)

It's great that Google allows this. That's one thing that makes them better
than Apple (in my opinion).

However, it is still the case that being banned from the Play store can kill
an app. Few users know how to sideload things.

In a world where there are several competing app markets that users can easily
switch between, it would not be a big deal for Google to refuse to carry apps
they don't like on their market, but when 99% of the users realistically can't
get apps anywhere else than Google Play, then it becomes problematic.

~~~
Natanael_L
And then developers who get their apps handicapped by apps promoted next to
them takes their apps down. I understand your reasoning, but Google's focus is
the ecosystem. If it was trivial for everybody to disable all adds and in-app
purchase functions in all free apps with just a few taps, there'd be far fewer
of exactly those apps you want to use.

So the rest of us simply have to get Xposed from outside Google Play and root
with unofficial methods to make all apps, including proprietary ones, behave
exactly as we want on our devices.

------
jrockway
I have a feeling that when someone at Apple who knows what CCC is wakes up on
Monday morning, this rejection will be reversed.

Remember that these rejections are not the Official Word Of Apple From The
Ghost Of Steve Jobs. It's just some random employee that has to get through a
million of these in a day or something. The thought process is probably
something like "hacking, jailbreaking, industrial espionage... nope" and they
click a button to reject. Or it could even be a mistake.

~~~
xrjn
They put a very specific list of talks that they do not approve - it does seem
that they spent some time going through the content that CCC wanted to share
through this app before finally rejecting it.

~~~
nacs
> it does seem that they spent some time going through the content

Or .. the automated filter noticed the words "Jailbreak", "espionage",
"attacks", and "Hacking" in the title of the videos and flagged them.

------
Bud
Headline is misleading. "Its platform" implies that Apple is somehow excluding
CCC's content generally, across Apple's entire product line. Which is absurd.
Apple has denied them a dedicated tvOS channel for broadcasting their content
about industrial espionage, etc. The content is still viewable by many other
means, across all of Apple's devices.

My cat also does not have a dedicated tvOS channel.

To be fair, I do support CCC's position here, overall, but this headline is
still hysterical.

~~~
mmastrac
> My cat also does not have a dedicated tvOS channel.

Your cat _could_ have a channel and would not be rejected, however. That's the
key difference.

~~~
mhurron
> Your cat could have a channel and would not be rejected

That would depend on what the cat is doing.

------
striking
Don't buy walled platform devices if you're opposed to the walled garden
strategy. Vote with your wallets.

~~~
api
Is there a quality laptop not bound to an ecosystem that doesn't come loaded
with shitware? Of course I would just install over it, but I don't want to
support those kinds of models either.

In mobile I suppose there is cyanogen. Anyone tried them recently?

~~~
rsync
"Is there a quality laptop not bound to an ecosystem that doesn't come loaded
with shitware?"

Yes - it's called a macbook (pro/air/whatever) running OSX. It is still (thank
god) a general purpose computer and you can do whatever you'd like with it.

~~~
ris
For now, but ultimately Apple are in charge.

------
c-rack
Direct link to the CCC-TV GitHub repo:

[https://github.com/aus-der-Technik/CCC-TV](https://github.com/aus-der-
Technik/CCC-TV)

------
davexunit
Friendly reminder to not use pastebin.com as they block all Tor users.

~~~
shopkins
Good to know. I've personally been using write.as for the past few months for
stuff like this, as they're more Tor friendly [0]. What do you use instead?

[0] [http://writeas7pm7rcdqg.onion](http://writeas7pm7rcdqg.onion)

~~~
davexunit
paste.lisp.org usually since I mostly post Scheme source code snippets, but
there's good general purpose ones like [http://pamrel.lu](http://pamrel.lu)

------
klean92
Most of the arguments I read here are: it's OK for Apple to do this because
they're a closed app, and the same content is on Youtube anyway.

Tomorrow Google says: "We remove this content from Youtube, Apple did it
anyway and many of you thought it was OK. We're a company making money too,
we're not the Government".

Now what's the argument? The first one to censor is OK, the second one is not?

A few people will still say: they can still use their own player and servers!

Then the UK govt will block them, if one does not ask explicitely their ISP to
have a access to it. Then Comcast will throttle them through bad peering.

Then nobody will care anymore if it gets blocked further or not, they're out
of most people's reach already.

Welcome to the new 21st century.

~~~
tajano
It's an outrage. I recently submitted an incoherent, hate-filled diatribe to
the New York Times, and they refused to publish it on the front page! Where is
my freedom of speech? I recently submitted a video of my parrot to NBC, and
they refused to play it on the nightly news! Where does the censorship end?
We're clearly witnessing the erosion of our constitutional rights.

~~~
sdoering
Your comparison is so far off anything, that I have a hard time answering.

Nobody asked Apple to publish the videos on their front page. There is an app
that let's people access CCC content in a more friendly/more easy way then say
Safari or YouTube.

Apple blocks said app, but does not do so for all the other apps that can show
this content. And the reason they give is, that this app shows content, that
does show how "secure" some Apple products are. Content mostly from renown
security hackers?

So why is CCC-TV banned, but not Safari? Not any other browser? Not YouTube?

Why does Apple get to selectively punish smaller organisations and all the
fanboys run to their defences?

btw.: Written on a Macbook Pro, but not from an iOS user.

~~~
tajano
The point of the comparison is not about placement on a front page (I could
complain the NYTimes won't publish my article anywhere on their server), but
rather that Apple created and operates a private distribution channel, and it
has a right to exercise editorial judgement over that channel.

I don't necessarily agree with their decision to omit CCC-TV, and I think it's
a bit silly that they did so. But it doesn't matter: it's their right to do
so, and I don't get to force my will on them just because I disagree or think
they're being irrational.

I'm glad people are critical of Apple's decision, but not when they claim it's
a violation of freedom of speech, or when they falsely equate it to government
censorship. I can't support a gross misunderstanding of law, government, or
the Constitution that's being invoked, even if we want the same end result.

------
jakobegger
Here's the text of the referenced section 3.2(e) of the developer program
license agreement:

(e) You will not, through use of the Apple Software, services or otherwise,
create any Application or other program that would disable, hack or otherwise
interfere with the Security Solution, or any security, digital signing,
digital rights management, verification or authentication mechanisms
implemented in or by the iPhone OS, this Apple Software, any services or other
Apple software or technology, or enable others to do so;

It looks like the reviewer thought this was a jailbreaking app.

~~~
mkempe
Or, more charitably, the reviewer thinks knowledge is power! ("or enable
others to do so")

------
pinealservo
That's a little bit ironic, considering the hijinks Steve Jobs and Steve
Wozniak got up to before they started selling computers:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/the-
de...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/02/the-definitive-
story-of-steve-wozniak-steve-jobs-and-phone-phreaking/273331/)

------
jlg23
I wonder what Apple tries to accomplish by blocking a specific way of
accessing freely available content - besides annoying security researchers.
People who understand the talks are able to watch them anyway, even without
the app. How inclined they now are to follow "responsible disclosure"
procedures when it comes to Apple, remains to be seen...

------
eridius
I see no sign in here that they have even initiated the appeals process, much
less gotten a response from that.

Spurious rejections happen. Whether or not it's meaningful and indicative of
Apple's policy can't be determined until you appeal it. Maybe the reviewer
thought this app was intended to aid in jailbreaking as suggested in
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483860](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10483860).
Maybe the reviewer is just zealous. Or maybe it really is Apple's official
policy to disallow this. We can't know that until it's appealed.

------
interpol_p
Does this really matter? Think of the App Store like Apple's physical retail
stores. They are only going to put products in there that show their best,
that they curate, and products that they like.

This is exactly the sort of app that anyone interested in using could pull
from Github and install on their own device.

------
ksec
Isn't this kind of the same as on TV. I don't find this to be offensive at all
to be honest.

It is like you can't have over sexual content during certain time or 18+ (
porn ) on a publicly viewed TV.

Do you want to watch those exotic content? Do you want to watch porn? Then you
move to other site specifically for these content. Now someone will point out
porn is a different sort of thing. How about a video making a bomb for
teaching the science behind it? I am not sure about US but many other counties
in the world would simply not allow to be aired.

------
jkelsey
I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt for now that it was a
automated layer or a ignorant reviewer. I'm hoping for a reversal of the
decision here.

Regardless, I really lament the dilemma of the open web vs. walled-off apps.
Hopefully Apple shares that perspective. My regrets to the FLOSS community,
but years of using substandard laptops, lagging user experiences, and dealing
with low-level Linux problems has gotten to me.

Please save the "you should try this or that" \-- I'm just tired of the whole
hassle. I want to spend my time focusing on building things and focusing on
higher level problems. For me, that means using a Mac.

It's possible that companies like Apple will push folks like me to see how far
they can extend their walled garden. I'll admit, at some point, it would cause
me to jump ship. I guess I'll just hope that reason will win out here.

------
kybernetyk
Well, good to see which smart tv box I don't need to buy then. I usually like
and prefer Apple's products but if they ban content that is highly interesting
to me then no thanks.

~~~
stesch
Is Apple filtering YouTube?

~~~
themartorana
Is actively making ideas and information harder to access better than
censoring it completely?

~~~
Dylan16807
Yes.

------
owly
Zero surprise. Why is this even a story? Why would CCC even waste time
developing for a closed platform. Focus on the free web, available on all
devices... for now.

------
nnutter
Does CCC have an app on Fire TV? On Chromecast (Android)? It bothers me that
Apple has this power but is there even another choice in this specific
example?

------
ClayFerguson
Banning content on your site that discusses how to bypass security in apps
from said company is not bad behavior of company but something any sane
company should do. I happen to hate apple, but i'm honest enough to know
banning this app is a non-story.

------
gcb0
so, if they upload to youtube, causing youtube to now have the exact same
content, and apple do not take down YouTube app, can they sue for
discrimination?

------
mtgx
That's crazy. This is censorship plain and simple.

------
josteink
Apple doesn't allow hackers to have fun on their platform. Water is wet.

Anything I'm missing?

------
Navarr
Surprise?

------
suprjami
Why would any self-respecting hacker use Apple products? Truly baffling.

~~~
jackweirdy
They aren't necessarily using Apple products though - they're trying to make
their content available to those who aren't hackers and are being denied.

~~~
jo909
You will see very very many Apple devices at every CCC event, used by the
hackers themselves.

~~~
AUmrysh
As someone that used to hate Apple and still does, I use apple products (don't
buy them myself). There are many reasons people use Apple products. From the
support to the high quality of their products. There's also the fact that a
macbook can run all 3 main operating systems at the same time, whereas no
other hardware can easily and legally do so. Macbooks are also pretty much the
lightest and smallest laptops you can get.

Some people also get them because of loyalty to Apple from the past, or
because OSX is unix-compatible.

The point I'm trying to make is, you can disagree with Apple and still use
their products. I hate Apple but my work provided me with a mac mini and a
macbook, which I use every work day. I also have developed iOS apps even
though I've never owned an iPhone.

Also, if you are talking about iPhones, you are going to see a lot of those
everywhere because you really only have 2 viable choices anyway.

------
pluma
Apple is a company. Apple is not your friend. Apple doesn't care about you.
Apple just wants to make money.

This is okay and this should be expected.

That people are upset about this kind of behaviour is disconcerting.

~~~
Tenobrus
This should be definitely expected, but the fact you think it's ok is what's
disconcerting.

~~~
pessimizer
It's ok to me for Apple to do this, too. Regulating is what governments and
laws are for. Apple can exclude stuff from its ecosystem simply because it
competes with its own offerings; excluding it for 'moral' reasons is
relatively charitable.

~~~
pluma
There is simply no disincentive. Yes, it's upsetting, but is it upsetting
enough to impact their bottom line, now or in the near future? Not likely.

It's okay because this is the kind of behaviour we have come to expect from
large, for-profit corporations. It's how they're expected to behave, it's
textbook behaviour. If you're outraged that a company would do this, you've
simply not been paying attention to the business world for decades.

Whether it's morally okay or not is a different question. Companies are
amoral. They can't be expected to act on conscience because they have none. If
you want them to act on morals, you need to codify these morals in regulations
-- or you need to make sure your moral outrage is big enough to directly
create a disincentive for that kind of behaviour (e.g. be in a position of
power where that outrage directly translates to a significant change of their
bottom line).

