Apple to Pay $100 Million For Unauthorized App Purchases

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

thesilentman:

image

Using an iPhone/iPad/iPod/etc sure is a good way to pacify kids, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way. Using them as personal babysitters is what gets us riled. It's common knowledge that an iPhone can vacuum money out of your pocket if you aren't careful.

The iPhone, (and by extension, every "new" iteration of the smartphone) is an awesome tool. But like I said earlier: "Anyone can buy a chainsaw, but idiots will cut their legs off."

Your right it isn't the only way to pacify children. But when out and about a mobile device is the most convenient and something everyone is bound to have on them.What if it was a complete stranger that managed to make the purchases due to apples flawed purchasing system? what would your stance be then? Unfortunately for these individuals it was there children which means people like you can reign down upon the internet with your self righteous views about parenting even though you do not even know how or when these purchase took place.

I work in a timber ward where we use chainsaws, i wasn't allowed to touch them until trained. Same for when i hired one, the hie company had to train me even though i already knew how to use one.

Funny pic though. =/

Strazdas:

Ah, conformity, service i used before does this so therefore ill assume this new service must do it as well.

I take it that you cant name one other company that carries out transactions like apple? If that's the case i think people are more than justified to think that unless it is brought to their attention. What if it was a complete stranger that managed to make the purchases due to apples flawed purchasing system? what would your stance be then? Unfortunately for these individuals it was there children which means people like you can reign down upon the internet with your self righteous views about parenting even though you do not even know how or when these purchase took place.

Strazdas:

You dont need to experience parenting to know what it is like. thats a false assumtion. Yes, a rape victim should first of all udnerstand the reason behind the crime. im not saying she should be happy about it, but going on a rage of "devil raped me burn him at the stake" is not a logical way to go about it.
The problem with parenting skills is that most parents have exactly 0 of them. you have one of two choices: one, let them have children and accept that the world is full of terrible parents that lead to terrible humans. two, don't let them have children and break pretty much every human rights convention ever. you should, however, not go and blame whatever industry is popualr at that time for the lack of parenting skills that parents dont have.
i dont know what most parents would agree on, i dont prognoze personal opinions, but to claim i dont know anything if i am not a parent is simply stupid and shows your lack of understanding. I have a 5 year old sister, i know how parenting works, possibly better than most parents, yet i am not a parent.
your way of thinking is what makes the parents complain about thier games being teh devil because you know, one can just buy it, dont like it and then demand a compensation for emotional damage.

I couldn't even be bothered to read all of this. Your still using the horrible rape analogy then even going as far to insinuate you understand why people rape.
Then say most parents have 0 parenting skills, really please present me with the evidence for this, have you carried out a survey across several demographics? may we all see this please?
You seem to just be spouting rubbish as if you know everything about anything. I'm guessing your in your teens.
You'll understand when your older and if you ever have children of your own.
Until then i bid you good day and farewell and leave you to jump on the next topic you believe you have some wonderful insight too.

flarty:

What if it was a complete stranger that managed to make the purchases due to apples flawed purchasing system? what would your stance be then? Unfortunately for these individuals it was there children which means people like you can reign down upon the internet with your self righteous views about parenting even though you do not even know how or when these purchase took place.

Why would you give your iphone to complete stranger? Yes it is bloody well your fault if you gave your phone to stranger to buy sutff on. If it was stolen, then it is the fault of the person who stole it, but iphone remembers the passwrod for 15 minutes (or so been siad in this thread) so the chacnes of thief using such features within 15 minutes of theft is not that high to begin with.

flarty:

I couldn't even be bothered to read all of this. Your still using the horrible rape analogy then even going as far to insinuate you understand why people rape.
Then say most parents have 0 parenting skills, really please present me with the evidence for this, have you carried out a survey across several demographics? may we all see this please?
You seem to just be spouting rubbish as if you know everything about anything. I'm guessing your in your teens.
You'll understand when your older and if you ever have children of your own.
Until then i bid you good day and farewell and leave you to jump on the next topic you believe you have some wonderful insight too.

The rape analogy may nto be the best one, i admit. i do probably know better why people rape than most due to reasons i cant name on public forums. not that thats the topic anyway.
the things raging from beating the children to this prives this already. there were studies conducting family relations and the results were horrifying amount of people needing family counceling. sorry, i dont remember every link i read, im sure we both can use google at same competence.
I dont know everything about anything. far from it, i dont know a lot and are cosntantly trying to learn. you wont see me raging in, say, a car thread, im not itnerested in cars (most of my car knowledge comes from Top Gear, so thats pretty much void). but i liek discussing things im interested in, and parents responsibility happens to be one of them. not that it matters in my opinion, but for the record, i am 23.

Strazdas:
and if the fault occured due to your misuse of the car they will flip you off. Iphone follows the government set up security regulations and more. they have no responsibility to make it safer. they CAN, if they want to win the market share agaisnt those that dont, but there is no obligation.

If there is no obligation, then why did Apple lose the case? :o)

parents gave their kids the Iphone with thier password in it, therefore parents allowed thier kids acess to the account.

The parents didn't give their kids the password. They entered the password to purchase the app, and assumed that the password entry wouldn't carry over to the app they just purchased once they left the App Store-app.

'Reasonably' assumed i might add.

A thing with mobile phones is that they always remember everything. this can be useful for stuff like autolog into youtube, but not so for others (this case).

Uh, no.

You are confusing 'logging in' with a 'password confirmation'. Those two are not the same, and in close to all cases (yes on mobile phones too), password confirmation is NOT remembered unless you check a 'remember me' checkbox, and it certainly doesn't carry over from one app to another. Why the hell do you think it's called confirmation to begin with, genius? :o)

It's standard for mobile phones to remember that you've logged in, but not that you've confirmed your password beyond the application that you're using.

In fact, Apple themself confuse users this way by including a 'Don't ask for my password next time' button in iTunes when you purchase stuff. So in iTunes, you can check so it remembers your password. On iOS it automatically remembers (or rather, remembered) your password without asking nor warning you about it, and even allowed the password to carry over to a different app. Not very smart.

thing is, they been doing that forever and only people that have been living under a rock dont know this yetw.

Once again, wrong.

First of all, referring to my iTunes example in my last paragraph, they haven't been doing this forever. Purchasing through iTunes or through iOS is essentially two windows to the same function, yet they work differently.

Second - and more importantly - in-app purchases HAVE NOT existed forever either. All of these accidental purchases that Apple is now reimbursing happened shortly after in-app purchases were implemented. It was an entirely new system, so your claim that this has existed forever is false.

except destroy this computer you just bought and paid your 3 month salary for (thats how low salary is here).

Except that crashing your computer doesn't destroy it. One quick Windows reinstall and you're back in business.

Also, there is the added factor of an evil entity (aka. an attacker). If you ccould get financially damaged as a result of pure carelessness on Microsofts part, then you would actually be able to sue Microsoft, but if you get sabotaged by a third party (and yes, a virus IS sabotage), then Microsoft can't take the blame because it might be impossible to defend against sabotage from an attacker. You can't sue a car manufacturer either if your car was deliberately sabotaged by someone else.

In Apples case, there is no attacker or third party to be blamed. Just plain and simple carelessness in implementation.

apple has no responsibility to implement kids-friendly security for devices that are not meant for kids. the game creator that created specifically for kids could be blamed for not making a kids friendly way system, but them, didnt he really? what defines kids-friendly?

Apple does by allowing those apps on the App Store in the first place. If Apple wanted, they could bar kids games from the App Store (similarly to how they bar anything involving porn) and then argue that these things were never intended for kids. But they don't.

Also, saying these devices are not for kids is also false. This is 2013, and kids ARE going to be using these devices, both in the future and now. Pretty soon they will be in almost every place, including kindergardens. As i have mentioned earlier in this thread, even cats can use iPads. There is nothing that says or indicates that these devices aren't for kids and cannot be used by kids (to play, to learn, to be entertained, take your pick).

So in short, most of your arguments are as full of holes as this cheese.

Athinira:

Strazdas:
and if the fault occured due to your misuse of the car they will flip you off. Iphone follows the government set up security regulations and more. they have no responsibility to make it safer. they CAN, if they want to win the market share agaisnt those that dont, but there is no obligation.

If there is no obligation, then why did Apple lose the case? :o)

there can be many reasons, inadequate local law, inadequate judge, apple wanting to pretende nice and many many other reasons, including the majority thinking this is the way it should be (which does not make it the optimal one though).

The parents didn't give their kids the password. They entered the password to purchase the app, and assumed that the password entry wouldn't carry over to the app they just purchased once they left the App Store-app.

'Reasonably' assumed i might add.

assumed.

You are confusing 'logging in' with a 'password confirmation'.

and you stopped needing password to log in when?

Except that crashing your computer doesn't destroy it. One quick Windows reinstall and you're back in business.

there are worse things than crashing. i remember back when CDs were new one woman called and said ther her "disk drive" doesnt work. turns otu she has put a floppy disc in there. im not evne talking about the obviuos virus overheating and burning MB things. remember the Chernobyl virus that managed to burn over 100.000 PCs in one day?

Apple does by allowing those apps on the App Store in the first place. If Apple wanted, they could bar kids games from the App Store (similarly to how they bar anything involving porn) and then argue that these things were never intended for kids. But they don't.

allowing your third party application suppliers to create games suited for kids does not turns the device to be meant for kids.

[quoet]Also, saying these devices are not for kids is also false. This is 2013, and kids ARE going to be using these devices, both in the future and now. [/quote]
personally i hope noone woudl use an apple device but thats biased. kids should not be allowed to use these devices until they know how to properly use them, and that responsibility falls on parents.
so, since cats can use them, should i sue apple because my cat scratched the glass?

Capcha: case closed
i seriuosly dobut your accuracy capcha.

Strazdas:
there can be many reasons, inadequate local law, inadequate judge, apple wanting to pretende nice and many many other reasons, including the majority thinking this is the way it should be (which does not make it the optimal one though).

The optimal way is that the party in the best position to mitigate a risk is financially responsible for the lapses that happens.

In this case, Apple is in the best position to protect since they design the system and can implement safety-measures.

assumed.

Reasonably assumed.

and you stopped needing password to log in when?

* <--- The point

O <--- Your head.

Standard measure is that login information can be remembered and carry over, but password confirmation doesn't.

there are worse things than crashing. i remember back when CDs were new one woman called and said ther her "disk drive" doesnt work. turns otu she has put a floppy disc in there. im not evne talking about the obviuos virus overheating and burning MB things. remember the Chernobyl virus that managed to burn over 100.000 PCs in one day?

Yes, but that's the exception rather than the rule. And the part of my post you left out with viruses being deliberate sabotage still holds true. The amount of protection you can provide against an attacker is limited, no matter how good your security is. But in this case there are no attacker. Only bad security implementation.

allowing your third party application suppliers to create games suited for kids does not turns the device to be meant for kids.

When you control 100% who gets to supply apps to the app-store or not, then yes it does.

iOS is not like Windows. On Windows, you can install ANY application that ANYONE has written. In iOS, Apple clears every application before it hits the App Store. Hell, they even clear updates to applications. Apple is 100% in control, and by selectively allowing kid applications there, they are marketing their devices for kids.

personally i hope noone woudl use an apple device but thats biased. kids should not be allowed to use these devices until they know how to properly use them, and that responsibility falls on parents.

Yes they should. Again, welcome to 2013. This IS how the world is going to be.

Using a tablet or smartphone is a learning experience if you're new to it, no matter if you're 3, 13 or 30 years old.

The companies that sell us these devices is selling us the future. And as mentioned, it only makes sense for the party in the best position to mitigate the risk to be financially responsible for it. That's how you achieve good security in this world. You want an example, check the history of credit card fraud. Originally credit card companies weren't liable for fraud (customers were), and security was sh*t because they didn't care. Then congress passed laws that made the companies liable, and suddenly they couldn't trip over each other fast enough to actually secure their damned systems against the simplest of frauds. As a result, credit card security is really good today (automatic blocks if large sums are used in a short timespan, 24/7 revocation service for stolen/lost cards, secure network audits), and fraud only happens if users grossly misjudge card safety.

You are basically taking an "educating the user" stand, something i will remind you isn't even working with adults when it relates to IT-security, so how on earth you expect children to learn this is beyond me when even grownups fail at doing it. I can't even teach my mother, who is a 10+ years computer user, how to secure her PC. How do i teach a 4 year old again? :o)

There is a limit to what parents can teach kids. Just like everyone else, kids need to learn by doing. There ISN'T, however, a limit to how many security measures Apple can implement. They are actively profiting on selling these devices, and therefore it's their responsibility to secure them against the simplest of mistakes. I don't expect them to provide 100% security, but what they did here was simply dumb, and the staggering amount of cases there has been more or less proves it. If there had only been 2-3 cases, then you might argue that these were incredibly stupid parents. But we have cases in the thousands here.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here