jard

This has absolutely no relevance to the UX of Apple software (which is the topic of this post), but everything to do with the fact that you’re trolling in a community of Apple users.

It’s also ironic how you’re willing to point out trolling, then exhibit that behavior yourself. Practice what you preach.

deleted by creator

“80-90% of your classmates [are being filtered out of your life]”

Citation needed.

Meh, it all sounds unsustainable in the end IMO. I mean, OG Beeper Mini was built on piggybacking off of a set of Mac Mini serial numbers, and Apple already plugged that hole.

Even then, internalized testing of an exploit and what actions a company would tolerate from abusing that exploit is very different from what that same company would tolerate once the exploit becomes publicly available. This is coming from personal experience — back in my “seedier” days I’d fuck around with random public APIs for the fun of it to see what I can do, and with my own “internal testing” I found I could get away with a lot. Once I shared that knowledge with others, I found that companies are far more willing to crack down on abuses of their API than my “internal testing” suggested otherwise.

I fully expect that Apple will probably revise the “10-20 accounts per Mac” fact once this fix actually starts to kick off.

That makes sense to me, though personally if I had to buy Mac hardware to enable the bridge I’d be inclined to go all-in with a self-rolled solution anyways, and fully route everything through the Mac. I just can’t bring myself to trust a company like Beeper after their pypush stunt.

The intersection of users who simultaneously use Android/Linux/Windows/Mac/iPhone (I’m part of the latter four) is small to begin with, and then additionally requiring the purchase of a Mac to even enable bridging capability pretty much excludes this to tech enthusiasts interested in bridging their iPhone/Mac with their other devices. Or in other words, it can’t really be advertised as Beeper “Mini” anymore…

So, essentially, it’s just a shitty company-operated clone of BlueBubbles now? What does Beeper offer now that a BlueBubbles solution doesn’t?

For example, it’s possible to self host and proxy BlueBubbles through an Nginx server on a VPS, which, when combined with connectivity to a Mac through local network/VPN handwavium, and proper security/authentication, allows you to securely access your iMessages on a public Internet domain through a web browser. Why should I trust some company’s band-aided implementation of that over rolling my own community-backed solution, especially if that company’s business model revolved around charging for exploitative access to a closed, proprietary protocol?

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Apple v. Psystar, 2011: Reverse engineering and circumventing copy protection mechanisms is copyright infringement under the DMCA, 17 U.S. Code § 1201.

Apple v. Corellium, 2023: Fair use doctrine, even when validated, is not an excuse to dismiss claims of circumventing copyright protection mechanisms, and can not be used as a defense against such claims. No ruling can be made on the validity of DMCA counts using fair use doctrine as a defense. Note that this is the exact defense that Beeper claims will protect them against litigation.

I have stated multiple times that Beeper is circumventing a copyright protection mechanism. I linked to the Python PoC, which is freely available for everyone to see. The exploit requires Mac serial numbers to forge an inauthentic Apple device identity, which need to be regenerated with a real, authentic Mac device. Additionally, the exploit needs to simulate an obfuscated macOS library, meaning the exploit itself hasn’t fully “reverse-engineered” the iMessage stack. Mac OS X has notoriously been impossible to simulate on non-Apple hardware, for issues of copyright infringement and license violations because of Apple v. Psystar. Beeper is simulating Mac OS X binary blobs on their servers (which is copyright infringement by Mac OS X’s licensing) for the intent of circumventing another copyright protection mechanism (which is copyright infringement by the DMCA), for the purposes of interoperability (which wouldn’t dismiss DMCA claims because of Apple v. Corellium.) And all of this is to bolster their “Beeper” brand, giving Apple’s lawyers a direct excuse for claims of monetary damages.

Seriously, to any knowledgeable programmer who’s even vaguely familiar with copyright protection and the DMCA, this all screams as a legal dumpster fire just waiting to be set ablaze. It’s a fucking mystery how Beeper was able to get their engineers onboard with the whole thing in the first place, especially since Migicovsky, their co-founder and CEO, is a delusional, egotistical nutcase who doesn’t even understand how his own tech works.

You continue to assert that I haven’t provided factual information. I cite court cases and factual evidence about how the exploit works. Yet you continue to argue like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand, nitpicking on technicalities like “well the kid actually did it, not Beeper.” Yeah, because Apple’s lawyers would care about that.

Any time I attempted to discuss technical details, you pull out your “we’re laymen” and “we don’t know the details like you do, explain it for a layman” bullshit excuses to reduce things down to a strawman that you can then attack — I did this in genuine good faith, by the way, in the hopes that we can come to a mutual understanding!

I’m only responding now because you’re misrepresenting my arguments in bad faith to a third party. Otherwise, I’m not going to argue any further with someone whose stance is entirely and hopelessly sided against by existing case law and the entire body of copyright law, who doesn’t understand how the DMCA works, who doesn’t understand any basic tenets about how copyright fundamentally works, and even more egregiously, who refuses to take in new information that contradicts their worldview.

The complexities of this legal shit is why I fully stay away from reverse engineering proprietary protocols owned by trillion dollar companies, and don’t rely on the arguments of random clueless Redditors (or Redditor-likes, because that’s all Lemmy is nowadays) to bail me out of an inevitable massive lawsuit. You, as a self-admitted layman, seem to think otherwise. Dunning-Kruger and/or trolling in full effect. That’s why I blocked you.

(IANAL, TINLA, speak to your own lawyer, yada yada yada.)

You honestly should stop, you’re a self-admitted layman who has no idea what they’re talking about and refuses to listen to anyone. I’m not sure if this is some elaborate attempt at trolling, or if this is another example of Dunning-Kruger, but my block list goes nom nom nom.