Isn't this a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or other US laws? Doesn't the fact they are trying to make money off of this negate any ethical hacker arguments?
Beeper doesn't "hack" anything though, it uses the exact same authorization mechanism as a real iOS device and grants the user access to no more than a real device would.
I agree that the CFAA can be abused to try and prosecute this (as well as the DMCA), and I suspect Beeper is intentionally hoping for (heavily publicized) litigation to settle this once and for all and set a precedent.
> it uses the exact same authorization mechanism as a real iOS device and grants the user access to no more than a real device would.
And a hacker that social engineers someone's bank password is entering just like the account owner would. "Hacking" doesn't have to involve exploiting a technical vulnerability. It's just unauthorized system access, regardless of methodology
> However, the jury also found Wednesday that Oculus didn’t violate any trade secrets. Instead, it ruled that Luckey, who was working as a contractor for Zenimax before starting the Kickstarter for the Oculus Rift headset, violated his non-disclosure agreement, according to a Polygon report.
I don't understand how this works. Why does Facebook have to pay $500M over an NDA violation between an individual and his previous company? It seems like ZeniMax should only have a case against Palmer Luckey.
TechCrunch says "Oculus pays $200M for NDA [breach of contract], $50M for false des[ignation], $50M for copyright [infringement], Luckey pays $50M false des, Iribe pays $150M false des" [1]
So it's more like FB/Oculus pay 300m, Luckey 50m, Iribe (former CEO) 150m. It looks like the judgement is against Oculus and their execs, which misrepresented what was sold to FB. It seems like they were found innocent of theft, which would have been more the more damaging charge going forward IMHO.
As it is, it's a big cash penalty and that's it; which could mean FB might choose to cut their losses and just pay, rather than risk going through an appeal.
If Alice hires Bob, and Bob sells Alice's information to Charlie, and Charlie makes $2bn out of it, then it seems fair to hold Charlie responsible as well. Otherwise all you're doing is creating a market for sacrificial goats to take the fall while the company making the money gets away clean.
Because Oculus (now part of Facebook) was built on the NDA breach. (It is the court's opinion that) Luckey misappropriated trade secrets, formed that misappropriation into Oculus, and then sold that to FB. IANAL, but I suspect it's a 'receipt of stolen goods' argument - FB should have known through it's due diligence that what they were buying was stolen property.
> That's actually a legal requirement in many countries, including the US--either the CEO or CFO of the company must directly deal with a financial institution when setting up a financial institution account (i.e., bank account--note that Paypal is a registered financial institution in nearly all of the jurisdictions in which it operates). My clients run into this all the time. It's a hassle, but it's one you simply have to accept as the cost of doing business in the big leagues.
As we're talking about cross-border bank accounts, the Patriot Act, when applied to foreign persons (individuals or corporations) attempting to open US bank accounts.
Also, FATCA. Though FATCA technically only applies to the financial institutions and not their customers, its information gathering requirements have the same effect as requiring bank customers to disclose certain information.
There are state level laws that may govern US persons attempting to open US bank accounts, both those vary by state.
I purchased Nokia with Windows Phone 7 expecting the same kind of OS updates that I got as an Apple user. My iPad 2 (from 2011) is on the latest iOS version. Instead Microsoft abandoned Windows Phone 7 users. It's mildly annoying that I can get Cortana on my iPad now but not my Windows Phone device.
It's not a "computer" - it's a document signing/management service, and you could get your data out just fine. The person wants more functionality, which is actually available as a feature, but it costs money. So, pay the money and you get access to the feature.
