Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday February 11 2018, @03:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the so-I-guess-he-will-never-work-there dept.

A former Apple intern has been blamed for a leak of iOS source code. The intern reportedly distributed it to five friends in the iOS jailbreaking community, and the code eventually spread out of this group:

Earlier this week, a portion of iOS source code was posted online to GitHub, and in an interesting twist, a new report from Motherboard reveals that the code was originally leaked by a former Apple intern.

According to Motherboard, the intern who stole the code took it and distributed it to a small group of five friends in the iOS jailbreaking community in order to help them with their ongoing efforts to circumvent Apple's locked down mobile operating system. The former employee apparently took "all sorts of Apple internal tools and whatnot," according to one of the individuals who had originally received the code, including additional source code that was apparently not included in the initial leak.

The DMCA notice GitHub received from Apple that resulted in the takedown of the ZioShiba/iBoot repository.

Related:
Leak of iBoot Code to GitHub Could Potentially Help iPhone Jailbreakers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @09:19PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @09:19PM (#636448)

    He took the copy. The copy did not belong to him. He stole the copy.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Sunday February 11 2018, @09:39PM (2 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 11 2018, @09:39PM (#636454) Journal

    He took the copy. The copy did not belong to him. He stole the copy.

    What *is* it with you people that every wrong or harmful thing, whether or not it involves a theft, has to be called "stealing?"

    He manufactured the copy. It belonged and indeed still belongs to him. He just didn't have permission to make it.

    There are three entire fields of law dedicated to this, copyright law, trademark law, and patent law. They do not overlap with the parts of criminal law that involve larceny, except that the people guilty of doing them are guilty of abridging some law somewhere (they are not all four the same thing).

    If someone punches you in the nose, they did not *steal* you--that's called assault.

    If they said something mean about you that hurt your ability to do business, they didn't *steal your reputation*--that's libel, slander, or somewhere in between (even though you may be deprived of your previous reputation, *they don't have it*--not stealing. Something different.)

    If they went around breaking streetlights by throwing rocks at them, they are not *light stealers*, except possibly in your unique world. Again, the world may be deprived of the light, but the vandal didn't carry the light off with him somehow. We use that word vandal because that crime isn't called stealing either, it's called vandalism.

    If someone drinks a large amount of intoxicating beverages, decides to drive, slides into a school bus, and injures 20 children, they did not *steal a bus*. Like the other things above, this is also its own thing, with its own name, in this case variously DUI, DWI, DFU, Drunk Driving, Drink Driving, etc.

    If a factory (probably in China) decides on their own to make fake "Rolex" watches and sell them online, they didn't (the pattern should start becoming clear) STEAL THE ROLEX COMPANY, didn't STEAL WATCHES, and didn't even STEAL THE DESIGN*, instead copying it from what's known about it. They counterfeited some watches, again up there with patents and trademarks. It is a thing, with a name, and that name is not "stealing."

    Words *mean* things.

    There are many things someone can do that are wrong, unethical, mean, bad, etc. Not everything wrong is called "stealing." This is seriously not that difficult, and you have *no* shortage of people pointing this out to you, in this thread alone.

    ---------------------------------------------
    * Ok, it's possible that they broke into the Rolex headquarters at 2 in the morning and STOLE THE PLANS, but I highly doubt it. If they did that, we would say THEY STOLE THE PLANS. If they did not do that, and instead did something different, we don't say they did that; we say they did something different.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by coolgopher on Monday February 12 2018, @12:09AM (1 child)

      by coolgopher (1157) on Monday February 12 2018, @12:09AM (#636500)

      Poor Vandals [wikipedia.org], everyone has been stealing their good name from them...

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Monday February 12 2018, @02:55AM

        by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 12 2018, @02:55AM (#636547) Journal

        Poor Vandals [wikipedia.org]

        Sshhh! There are people here who I would swear would steal vandalize that article just to say that the people are now to be known as the STEALERS instead of the VANDALS.

        The following sentence is in special danger...

        This led to the use of the term "vandalism" to describe any senseless destruction, particularly the "barbarian" defacing of artwork.

        With "vandalism" being replaced by "stealing", "senseless destruction" being replaced by "anything at all, nothing in particular", and "defacing of artwork" being changed to "looking at something, or perhaps making an additional copy of it without asking first."