[HN Gopher] Apple busts iOS 17 leaker with spycraft 'canary trap'
___________________________________________________________________
Apple busts iOS 17 leaker with spycraft 'canary trap'
Author : isomorph
Score : 130 points
Date : 2023-05-10 20:51 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cultofmac.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cultofmac.com)
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _Leaks spoil Apple's surprise "one-last-thing" approach to
| product unveilings_
|
| I remember Steve doing "one last thing" announcements a long time
| ago, but have they done any in the post-Steve era? I can't
| remember the last one, TBH.
| n2d4 wrote:
| Apple Watch, Apple Music, and iPhone X, according to Macworld.
|
| https://www.macworld.com/article/674643/every-one-more-thing...
| asimpletune wrote:
| The last one I remember was actually the Swift programming
| language.
| yalogin wrote:
| I don't get why employees leak like this. They know full well
| that the company does not want to reveal info and the employees
| are told not to leak too. I don't get what they get by leaking.
| In this case the girl is not even getting any money. Even if they
| get money it will never be enough to cover for a 6 figure salary
| + stock options. Such foolish people in this world throwing hard
| work away. If you don't believe in secrecy or believe in
| revealing info for what ever reason, just dont join the company,
| it's very simple.
| zyang wrote:
| You know what would the make the situation better, write up a
| melodramatic full admission of guilt and linked himself to his
| sister.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| > According to analyst941's post, Apple might take legal action
| against both the former employee and the tipster.
|
| Assuming the tipster is not under any NDA, is there anything
| Apple could take them to court for?
| jrm4 wrote:
| Sure, I'm a little rusty, but you could perhaps sue anyone for
| "tortious interference of contract," I'm guessing all you'd
| need to show is something like "deliberate and intentional
| screwing around with someone elses source of money"
|
| Folks below were also discussing criminal, which strikes me as
| unlikely but not at all impossible.
|
| (Can you tell I'm a non-practicing lawyer?)
| [deleted]
| xoa wrote:
| > _Assuming the tipster is not under any NDA, is there anything
| Apple could take them to court for?_
|
| In some jurisdictions (including mine, but I do not know
| California law) there is the civil tort of Tortious
| Interference, where Parties A & B have a contract, and Party C
| improperly pushes/induces B to break their contract with A. A
| could then have a claim against C. What counts is specific,
| some sort of financial carrot/stick commonly. The former is
| obvious, for the latter a classic/textbook example would be if
| you have a contract to sell 500 foobars to A. Meanwhile C is
| planning to start selling foobars too, and also has lots of
| existing business with A that is very valuable to A. So C
| threatens A, saying they'll stop doing business with them
| unless they breach their contract with you. There is no
| explicit bribing or payment there, merely denial of future
| payment, but that could still be a case for tortious
| interference.
|
| But it's very possible that there's nothing here actionable (or
| the tort may not be there in CA), and this is just someone
| using a very generous " _might_ take legal action ". If this
| goes to court Apple would do discovery and check I assume, but
| it'd be fact dependent.
|
| Edit: sibling comments mention there is also some specific CA
| law regarding trade secrets.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Reporting on leaked documents is not a crime. Providing
| financial, sexual, or other incentives for leaked documents
| could be a crime. Publishing certain parts of leaked documents
| (i.e. reporting on a major breach of 1 million social security
| numbers, by publishing all of the leaked numbers; or reporting
| the Nintendo breach by posting Nintendo's source code), could
| be a crime or civil issue on a circumstantial basis.
|
| For groups like Wikileaks, it helps that US government
| documents and laws, with limited exceptions, are not
| copyrighted or copyrightable in the US. So when they report a
| huge NSA scandal and publish those documents, the government
| can't claim copyright infringement... but they will tear the
| place apart to find the leaker. And of course, spy on the
| reporter extremely closely for any possible legal slip-up no
| matter how small (or, arguably, if they hate the reporter
| enough, make something up).
| danaris wrote:
| From the MacRumors thread posted by n2d4 (thanks for this
| context!), it sounds like the tipster was the sibling of the
| Apple employee who leaked the information.
|
| I don't know if this changes the legal situation any, but it
| has certainly already (assuming the tipster is honest) led to
| negative consequences for them: their sister lost her job
| because of them, and is now no longer speaking to them.
| sberens wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > Apple also requires its employees to sign nondisclosure
| agreements, which forbid the signees from discussing secret
| projects with unauthorized people. That includes other Apple
| employees -- and most certainly anyone outside the company.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| The tipster didn't work for Apple.
| vulcan01 wrote:
| His sister shared the secret project with the "unauthorized
| person" (the tipster).
| bastijn wrote:
| The assumption apple employees are not under nda is already
| false. People working on projects that have classified
| information are asked to sign NDAs (like in most if not all
| companies). The article mentions the same.
| garbagecoder wrote:
| I thought the tipster was a relative of an employee.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| The brother of the Apple employee does NOT work for Apple.
| czx4f4bd wrote:
| The quoted section says "both the former employee and the
| tipster", so "the tipster" here clearly refers to the non-
| employee who would presumably not have signed any NDA with
| Apple.
| n2d4 wrote:
| This was discussed in the tipster's MacRumors farewell thread
| [1]. I'm not a lawyer to understand the context of it, but
| someone quoted:
|
| > California Trade Secrets Act (2022) sections 3426 to 3426.11
| of the California Civil Code
|
| > (a) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery,
| misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty
| to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other
| means. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone
| shall not be considered improper means.
|
| > (b) "Misappropriation" means:
|
| > (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who
| knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired
| by improper means; or(2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of
| another without express or implied consent by a person who A)
| Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
| or(B) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to
| know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was i)
| Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper
| means to acquire it;(ii) Acquired under circumstances giving
| rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use;
| or(iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the
| person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use;
| or(C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or
| had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that
| knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
|
| It sounds to me like that would incriminate the tipster as
| well, if the leaked information counts as a trade secret at
| least, regardless of whether the former employee knew about it
| or not.
|
| [1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/farewell-
| message.238918...
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| Trust, honesty, secrecy, decency are difficult to find together.
|
| Edit: the sister was most likely in marketing/social
| DamonHD wrote:
| Again: the site's cookie selection wouldn't know what GDPR and
| privacy were if they came up and bit it, but dark patterns are
| its old friend...
| colmmacc wrote:
| Has a single significant Apple launch _not_ leaked in the last
| decade? I can 't think of any. With the scale of the company and
| corporate loyalty being what they are these days, it just seems
| inevitable that many things will leak. Yet Apple persist in a
| hyper-vigilant program of leak prevention.
|
| There's definitely still huge value in the newsworthiness of the
| launches. Apple get a lot of free media coverage, and for the
| most part the press treat the actual launches as news because
| that final official confirmation matters much more than tenuous
| leaks.
|
| But I often wonder if the top down focus on secrecy and the
| famous leak prevention programs are more motivated by the strong
| desire for _focus_. One of the challenges of keeping a big
| company effective is combating the tendency for well-meaning
| collaboration and suggestion making to turn into sluggish
| bureaucracy and committees. Secrecy a _very_ powerful tool in
| optimizing a corporate culture, and reminding everyone that it is
| definitely not ok to share things has that big benefit too.
| giobox wrote:
| > Has a single significant Apple launch not leaked in the last
| decade?
|
| It's not a black and white leak vs no leak situation - there
| are very clearly degrees of severity at play here.
|
| To use a recent example, sure we all know Apple is working on a
| VR headset, but there have been (to best of my knowledge) no
| meaningful leaks of images of the actual hardware or software;
| these will be a surprise on launch day, and surprises can be
| news worthy - helpful when trying to sell new things, or slow
| down the rate at which competitors build imitations.
| foverzar wrote:
| There are leaks, and then there are _leaks_. The former is bad
| for business and the latter is marketing.
| sublinear wrote:
| I'm having an extremely difficult time believing this isn't a
| marketing stunt. In what universe can another company beat
| Apple on implementation, or generally ever do anything wrong
| according to its loyal fans?
| mrtksn wrote:
| IIRC the dynamic island functionality wasn't leaked, albeit the
| new notch design was. It felts so nice to be properly
| introduced to new ideas and work.
|
| I'm not surprised that Apple can't contain supplier leaks, they
| produce these things on such a high scale that tight teams are
| not an option in production.
|
| However I expect better from Apple when it comes to software
| leaks as they can have the employees close to themselves.
|
| I definitely dig the leaks but it's much more satisfying to be
| surprised by a proper presentation. I remember the iPhone 4
| situation where the whole device leaked and I was reluctant to
| believe that this is Apple design because of the poor
| presentation bu by the tech journalists. Later, after proper
| introduction and using the device, it become my favourite
| iPhone design ever. Proper introductions are important, I wish
| Apple Jeynotes weren't spoiled as much.
| johnwalkr wrote:
| iphone 4 is timeless except for the bezels/chin/forehead
| around the screen. No wonder they've basically gone back
| towards iphone 4 mechanical design.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _It appears to be the first time Apple has used the method to
| catch a source of internal leaks._
|
| Definitely not. One of the infamous examples we know about is
| that _Think Secret_ was forced to shut down after publishing a
| planted leak about a FireWire audio interface.
|
| https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_subpoenas_mac_...
| nntwozz wrote:
| Oh man Think Secret was juicy back in the day, it had awesome
| leaks.
|
| Good times.
| giobox wrote:
| I was thinking the other day it's funny there's like an
| entire generation of Apple enthusiasts have now grown up not
| even knowing about the site, and its not like its still
| online as a historical thing - the quality and accuracy of
| some of the stories "Nick dePlume" broke was pretty amazing
| back then. The wikipedia page doesn't do it justice.
|
| > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Secret
| quitit wrote:
| I recall reading years ago that false information was always
| disseminated through Apple specifically for this purpose, along
| with many other forms of tracking and that staff knew about it
| specifically to limit temptation. When the goal is to stop the
| leak, letting staff know of the activities is more powerful
| than keeping the programme secret.
|
| In one example for the iPad, Business Insider reported that the
| device was chained to the desk and photos of the desk's wood
| grain were taken to simplify singling out any leaked photos.
| Obviously they could refer to the wood grain later, with so few
| prototypes, preshooting photos isn't needed - however it's
| about conveying the message.
|
| A lot of this stuff is theatre to telegraph to staff that they
| risk the weight of the NDA.
| dgriffinjones wrote:
| From your own link:
|
| _> Having failed to identify who leaked the information
| regarding "Asteroid", Apple requested the subpoenas in an
| effort to find the culprit._
|
| In that case, they used the courts to compel publishers to
| divulge their source. In this case, Apple's own methods of
| planting a false flag among their employees caught the source.
| This is what the author was referring to.
| CharlesW wrote:
| I recall reports that the leak _Think Secret_ published was
| planted by Apple, but that was long ago, and most of the
| original reporting has disappeared. I _can_ personally
| confirm that Apple wanted employees to know that planting
| leaks was something that Apple sometimes did, so it wasn 't a
| huge surprise at the time.
| SoylentYellow wrote:
| Apple tried to use the courts but failed. The California
| Appeal's court granted the publishers a protection order
| against revealing their sources:
| https://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does
| giobox wrote:
| Is there any evidence the "Asteroid" device was fake for the
| purposes of finding a leaker? I've never heard that angle,
| and I'm pretty familiar with the case and followed the trial
| and Think Secret at the time.
|
| While it never launched, it clearly made sense as a device
| given Apple's recent launch of Garage Band.
|
| From what I've just searched, the only "evidence" it was a
| hoax appears to originate in this very speculative _theory_
| concocted on lowendmac.com that the entire thing was planned
| to take down the rumor industry, which seems possible but
| unlikely to me:
|
| > https://lowendmac.com/2006/sudden-impact-apples-great-
| astero...
|
| The article also argues its odd for Apple not to release
| something that was planned, but hardware companies I imagine
| cancel unannounced devices all the time. Audio interfaces is
| a crowded space thats hard to stand out in too, even for
| someone like Apple. This claim alone makes me not trust the
| article:
|
| > "after over two years, Apple hasn't released a breakout box
| for use with GarageBand... Sound suspicious? It should. If
| this was an important project, you'd think Apple would have
| gone ahead with it even after the "trade secret" of its
| existence was made known. You'd think they would have rushed
| to market to take advantage of the buzz."
|
| I can't agree with that statement at all! There are countless
| reasons it could have been cancelled, and it was never all
| that "important" to begin with. It's also written by "Anne
| Onymus" - believe what you will.
| SllX wrote:
| I thought it was pretty well known in Apple circles this was
| one of the methods they use. I didn't know the term for it
| until now though.
| npunt wrote:
| It's incredibly stupid to leak like this, plus it's a real f-you
| to the people working on the stuff. If I were on a product that
| got leaked I'd be pissed seeing my unfinished work out there.
| Looking at this person's past leaks[1] their eagerness for
| approval is on full display, and it's just a bunch of details
| that do nothing but diminish the magic.
|
| The only real utility leaking has to people is stuff like 'do I
| buy now or wait' but that can usually be determined by supply
| chain status dredged up by rumors sites. Sometimes it's best if
| we don't treat everything like we _have to know it right now_
| like every day is Information Christmas or something.
|
| [1] https://forums.macrumors.com/members/anonymous-
| a-s.1321969/#...
| amelius wrote:
| If they can't even keep their releases a secret, how can I trust
| them with my data?
| haney wrote:
| Can anyone recommend a book or resource for an introduction to
| spy craft? I'm sure there are more approaches like 'canary traps'
| that would be useful mechanisms to understand.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| The tone in this comment section is, frankly, baffling. Nobody
| owes Apple any kind of right to control when or how their
| products are announced.
| JohnFen wrote:
| What's baffling? It's not a matter of "owing" Apple any right.
| Apple already has the inherent right to control what and when
| they want to publicly reveal, and anyone who has signed an NDA
| with them has made a promise that they won't do it first.
| yasp wrote:
| Really foolish to keep posting with details even after the sister
| was caught. Some people just can't help themselves.
| bagels wrote:
| Yes, that post is going to be evidence. It potentially ties the
| leaker to the sister that was fired.
| grupthink wrote:
| If my sister was caught doing something illegal, the last thing
| I would do is reveal more details about her inside leaks online
| (that could be further used against her in court).
|
| It feels like a cautionary tale for would-be leakers inside of
| Apple.
| vkou wrote:
| Generally speaking, leakers aren't very smart.
| grupthink wrote:
| Let me get this straight. The sister gets caught. The
| sibling expresses concern for impending legal action, but
| in spite of this, goes online to share EVEN MORE details
| that could be used against them in court, and cries "woe is
| me" and "farewell".
|
| This canary story feels like a contrived story intended to
| scare potential leakers inside the company.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Whenever I hear people say some variant of "criminals
| aren't very smart", there's a part of my brain that says
| "how do we know? Surely the smart ones aren't getting
| caught so we never hear about them."
| xoa wrote:
| > _" how do we know? Surely the smart ones aren't getting
| caught so we never hear about them."_
|
| This only works if you exclusively consider crimes that
| have zero discernible external effect ("victimless
| crimes" in common parlance). Some percentage of copyright
| infringement or drug use would be good examples. But most
| crimes people really care about have external effects,
| and that is indeed precisely why they're crimes. If
| someone robs a house, they need not ever be caught for
| everyone to know a house was robbed. In turn, one can
| consider the ratio of crimes to criminals-caught-for-
| those-crimes. Further, since trials are all fully public,
| one can look at why exactly those criminals were caught.
| If most get caught, and it tends to be for stupid
| mistakes, then one can reasonably argue "criminals aren't
| very smart".
|
| Leaks by definition are self-revealing, that's the point
| of them. If secret information is appearing in the
| general world, the organization knows their are one or
| more leaks, even if the exact nature of them could be a
| number of things (ie, could be an insider, could be a
| partner, could be an external break-in).
| porkbeer wrote:
| I would contest that.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| There's also the possibility that this information is just made
| up by the leaker in an attempt to look better for a coming
| lawsuit.
|
| A possibility: analyst941 and the Apple employee are the same
| person. They leaked for whatever reason. After they were
| caught/fired, they fabricated this story about analyst941
| actually being the sibling (with a real sibling's blessing).
| The sibling will not be in any trouble, because they didn't
| sign a confidentiality agreement - so it seems a loving sibling
| might sign on to play this role.
|
| The ex-employee could face a lawsuit, and the lawsuit will look
| much better for the ex-employee if they merely told a sibling
| all these things(who then had loose lips), vs if the ex-
| employee specifically went to MacRumors message board to leak
| the info to the general public.
| pasttense01 wrote:
| Did the leaker make any money out of the leaks?
| porkbeer wrote:
| Unlikely
| webwielder2 wrote:
| Never understood the motivation for leakers. Are their lives that
| gray?
| nomel wrote:
| "The Psychology of Espionage and Leaking in the Digital Age"
|
| https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...
| jonbc wrote:
| Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20200716101239/
| https://www.cia.g...
| robocat wrote:
| Darn: link comes up blank on Mobile Safari (iPadOS 16.4.1
| (a)) in New Zealand.
| nikp123 wrote:
| Same here in Serbia, I'm guessing this document is being
| geo restricted via IP.
| ajross wrote:
| It's just gossip. Same impetus exactly: "I know something
| special and want to share it" is a basic human motivation. It's
| only in places like this where shy introverts are the norm that
| anyone would even ask that question.
| [deleted]
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| I'm reminded of another recent incident where Dan Allen, a
| gaming YouTuber, used the handle TheRealInsider to leak secrets
| (against NDA). As far as I know he got nothing from it except a
| bit of minor fame while the persona was active, and wide
| ridicule when he was found out -- how that's worth enough to
| risk your reputation and livelihood I can't imagine.
| porkbeer wrote:
| Depends on the leak. Some leaks are for the good of mankind,
| others are just for some internet points. Seldom do they
| generate a profit unless the leaker is leveraged or in cahoots
| with someone who is.
| dmbche wrote:
| My understanding is that for websites that live on leaking
| things from manufacturers, the person who leaks gets some of
| the revenue. I wouldn't be surprised they get people hired to
| get access to the information.
|
| Doubt it's a good way to run a profitable enterprise - but I'm
| sure some people do
| JohnFen wrote:
| > for websites that live on leaking things from
| manufacturers, the person who leaks gets some of the revenue
|
| I have a hard time believing that's common, if for no other
| reason than because it would open those websites up to legal
| liability.
| trzy wrote:
| I don't know about that. It's usually just reporters reaching
| out asking you to dish in violation of your NDA for nothing
| in return. When I left Apple TDG, I was contacted by two
| reporters from well known publications on LinkedIn. I
| completely ignored both. Quite frankly it's pretty upsetting
| that they're so eager to put people in legal and financial
| jeopardy to write their stupid columns.
| dmbche wrote:
| Wow! I was going from their comments on the leaker being
| fired after this leak being done - I imagine the site has a
| roster or something? Or a bounty program kind of thing?
|
| Edit: hadn't read the full thing - it's just a guy that
| shared stuff her sister said to him for internet points -
| what a loser
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I completely ignored both.
|
| That's very wise.
|
| Here's an illustrative tale, although I'm omitting details
| that could identify myself or the companies involved.
|
| Many years ago when I was still pretty wet behind the ears,
| I had just completed the sale of my company to another.
| This was fairly big news at the time, and my phone was
| ringing off the hook with reporters wanting more details.
| The details -- especially the sale price -- were
| confidential, and I was contractually prohibited from
| discussing them.
|
| One particularly devious reporter managed to get me
| involved in a "friendly" conversation talking generally
| (and safely) about the the two companies, then when my
| guard was down, asked me a question that wasn't directly
| about the sale price -- but my answer did tell him the
| general magnitude of it, which he reported.
|
| It was a huge hairy problem that took weeks to smooth over.
| It nearly made the deal fall through. I learned to never
| talk to reporters. Some of them are very, very good at
| their job.
| trzy wrote:
| Yeah these guys are total slime balls. Once they get what
| they want, their lack of concern for their sources is
| appalling. Breaking the news to drive eyeballs on their
| reporting is their 100% priority.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| My understanding that the more well known sites ( _such as_
| Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors, 9to5Mac etc) avoid paying for leaks
| because it creates poor incentives and legal issues.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Hard way to learn that internet likes aren't everything.
| barbegal wrote:
| I remember the rumors of a 2025 release date and thinking that is
| oddly far into the future. If you were deeply involved in the
| project you would know that those dates weren't accurate so it
| must have been someone on the periphery. In that case the number
| of possible date combinations will be far fewer than the number
| of people who need to be informed so it seems this must have been
| a targeted communication to someone Apple suspected was leaking
| information.
| [deleted]
| peyton wrote:
| It's a hardware company, so it's not uncommon for software to
| be planned a few years out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-10 23:01 UTC)