Author: Shawn K. Quinn

Apple rejects iPhone apps with no reason given

Ars Technica reports on Apple rejecting iPhone applications without offering an explanation. Of particular note:

Marco Arment, lead developer of Tumblr and creator of Instapaper, chronicled the situation on his blog. On the last day of WWDC ’09, Apple had a session dedicated to the process of publishing an iPhone app to its App Store. The session ended early, and lines of developers formed at the microphones to ask questions—ostensibly concerning App Store rejections and how best to resolve issues identified in the review process. However, at the end of the presentation, the presenter and other engineers quickly exited the room, leaving the assembled developers scratching their heads.

“It was a giant middle finger to iPhone developers,” wrote Arment. “Clearly, they had absolutely no interest in fielding even a single question from the topic that we have the most questions about.”

And later, as reported on tuaw.com, one unlucky developer got this in their e-mail:

“As you know, Apple reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to reject any application for any reason.”

So if you plan to develop for the iPhone, this is what you’re getting into. You’re at the mercy of Apple, and they may not even tell you why you can’t sell the application you just spent hours or days working on.

No other computing platform, anywhere, has one company deciding what can and can’t run on it. (And yes, I realize it may seem odd to call the iPhone a computing platform, but that is in effect what it is: a computer that can also make telephone calls.)

I believe the developers, at minimum, have the right to know why Apple rejects an application. However, I also believe a far wiser choice, one that might just get Apple’s attention, is for developers to stay away in droves until Apple takes a more hands-off approach with regards to the iPhone platform.

Personally, I believe the only valid reason for rejection of an iPhone application is if it has the potential to cause harm to the mobile networks that the iPhone connects to. I should note here, “harm” does not include the following:

  • letting the user make phone calls over a VoIP network like Skype or Gizmo;
  • content that Apple finds objectionable or that in Apple’s judgment does not belong on a mobile phone;
  • parodying Apple, AT&T, O2, or other carriers which Apple partners with;
  • any of the other reasons Apple has for rejecting applications for the iPhone.

It’ll probably be a cold day in hell before that actually becomes reality, however. I’m not going to wait.

Bozeman’s city government engaging in flagrant snooping

Ars Technica reports on the city of Bozeman, Montana, USA and its very nosy–and possibly illegal–city government job application requirements.

The city of Bozeman does not stop at asking applicants to divulge “any and all, current personal or business websites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.” That would be nosy enough.

No, they also want the passwords. That, in my opinion, steps way over the line.

I found a listing of state computer crimes laws at onlinesecurity.com. For Montana, the relevant sections are: “Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-1-205(4), 45-2-101, 45-6-310, 45-6-311.” In order:

  • 45-1-205(4) is the statute of limitations, which isn’t really relevant here;
  • 45-2-101 is a listing of general definitions, none of which appear to be anything unexpected;
  • 45-6-310 and 45-6-311 are the “meat” of the computer crimes laws in Montana, and what I will be focusing on.

Depending on how exactly one reads 45-6-310 and 45-6-311, the Montana Code sections which detail “computer use” and “unlawful use of a computer,” this may even violate Montana state law:

45-6-310. Definition — computer use. As used in 45-6-311, the term “obtain the use of” means to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, cause input to, cause output from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network or to cause another to instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, cause input to, cause output from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network.
45-6-311. Unlawful use of a computer. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of a computer if the person knowingly or purposely:
(a) obtains the use of any computer, computer system, or computer network without consent of the owner;
(b) alters or destroys or causes another to alter or destroy a computer program or computer software without consent of the owner; or
© obtains the use of or alters or destroys a computer, computer system, computer network, or any part thereof as part of a deception for the purpose of obtaining money, property, or computer services from the owner of the computer, computer system, computer network, or part thereof or from any other person.

The way I read the law, the owner, here, would be Facebook, Google, etc. who would have to consent to access of their system, by the city of Bozeman’s HR department, under the identity of the prospective employee. Maybe my interpetation of the law is completely different from how a judge would see it; maybe I have some law students out there laughing their heads off. I don’t know, but it certainly looks at least legally dubious to me, if not outright unlawful.

Even if perfectly legal under Montana law (and that is a huge “if”), the legal liability if just one of those applications gets mishandled (read “not shredded into really tiny pieces after use”) is enormous.

Conclusion: I don’t know what is in the water up there in Bozeman, Montana, but it can’t be good.

Kid’s henna tattoo runs amok

From weinterrupt.com comes this story of yet another body art mishap, this time on a five-year-old boy who sat for a temporary henna tattoo while on vacation with his parents in Indonesia.

Cannon Cribb got more than he bargained for when after the henna wore off, he was left with a large welt in the shape of the Oriental dragon tattoo. The scar happened because the “henna” contained a chemical called para-phenylenediamine (PPD), normally used in hair or textile dyes. DuPont, one of the makers of PPD, specifically warns against using PPD directly on the skin as quoted below:

DuPont does not recommend and will not knowingly offer or sell p-phenylenediamine (PPD) for uses involving prolonged skin contact. Such uses may involve, but are not limited to, products formulated with henna for tattoo applications or other skin coloration effects. This use of PPD in prolonged skin contact application has the potential to induce allergic skin reactions in sensitive individuals.

If there is a lesson to be learned, it is this, and this applies equally to anyone doing any type of face/body art: never use chemicals directly on the skin which are not intended to be used in that fashion.

I wish Cannon a full and speedy recovery, and sincerely hope someone out there will learn from his misfortune.

Never mind the dog

This bizarre story in the London Daily Mail almost defies description. Usually, when postmen feel threatened by an animal, it is a dog, typically one of the larger breeds of dog such as a mastiff, pit bull, Rottweiler, Doberman, maybe even a Great Dane.

So Kenneth Ridge and his son Bradley were quite shocked when they got a letter from the Royal Mail threatening them with suspension of mail service. On 2009-06-06 a postal worker (for some reason, referred to as both a postman and postwoman in the article, not that gender really matters here) delivering mail to the Bradleys had been attacked by the their six-month-old, seven-pound kitten Illy.

From the article:

A Royal Mail spokesman said it always treats animal attacks on postmen seriously, however minor they might appear.

‘We record about 5,000 animal attacks on our postmen and women each year with the vast majority being dogs,’ he said.

‘The member of staff suffered a very bad cut to her hand while delivering mail through the letterbox of the address.’

Having been around cats as long as I have, I find the story plausible, but still very bizarre. Then again, I’ve never been to the UK, so it’s entirely possible the domestic felines are much fiercer there.

Unite behind Opera? Read the fine print

NPR reports on Opera Unite, the latest attempt by the alternative Web browser maker to implement what at first is touted as a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, primarily among users of its browser. What Unite actually is, however, is a centralized network run by Opera where all user content must go through Opera’s proxy servers, and users are subject to an odious terms of service agreement (TOS). A portion of the TOS agreement reads as follows:

By using the Services, you warrant that you will not upload, transfer or otherwise make available files, images, code, materials, or other information or content (“Content”) that is obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or that violates any laws or third-party rights, hereunder, but not limited to, third-party intellectual property rights.

And further down, the rather ominous but predictable:

Opera has the right, in its sole discretion, to remove any content or prevent access to and/or use of any or all of the services, for any reason, including as a result of your violation, or alleged violation, of these Terms of service.

I think Opera really misses the entire idea of a P2P service here. The whole advantages of P2P are not having to depend on a centralized server and not having to deal with yet another set of restrictions on top of any imposed by one’s ISP.

This whole clause of the TOS smacks of censorship. Whose judgment applies to what is considered “obscene” or “vulgar” anyway? Where does Opera get off telling users what they can and can’t share?

Even Flickr lets you share such content willingly as long as you label it appropriately. Of course, there are some things that even Flickr will not allow at all; that’s where Freenet and hidden services such as Tor come into play.

If Opera had just said “Why trust Facebook, Flickr, and YouTube when you can just trust us instead?” it would at least be transparent what their service is about.

[edit 2023-07-03: fix formatting]