austinhuang0131
austinhuang0131 copied to clipboard
austinhuang0131
Cease and Desist of Facebook and Instagram - Barinsta
Sent by Gallego, Gabriella (Perkins Coie) ([email protected]). Created by fire.
Dear Mr. Huang,
Please open, read, and respond to the attached letter on behalf of Facebook, Inc.
Thank you.
Gabriella Gallego | Perkins Coie LLP
ASSOCIATE
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
D. +1.650.838.4815
F. +1.650.838.4350
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Attachments:
Anonymous access? I though Barinsta required an account, unless they're referring to the privacy features 🤔
Aside from the list of demands being harsh, hypocritical, and unreasonable, in the end, if the claims are true, it sounds like Barinsta did violate FB's ToS.
This is really sad, I feel devastated and I haven't even contributed to this project, I really hope you get over this... I would like to ask if it would hurt if I keep using the installed app ? Although I am considering leaving the platform at this point, it's just not worth it anymore.
then why is https://github.com/harismuneer/Ultimate-Facebook-Scraper still alive?
Facebook is the one who should be banned. Lets sign a petition on change.org against facebook.
and how the fuck public data is Facebook's property?
The data may be displayed publicly but that doesn't mean it's free domain. A general rule to follow is that if it's on their platform, they own it.
Then removing the anonymous access from barinsta and making the use of an account mandatory would be fine according to facebook's concerns ?
@mubashir-rehman
and how the fuck public data is Facebook's property?
https://research.mit.edu/integrity-and-compliance/export-control/information-documents/publicly-available-public-domain-open Public domain is not the same as public (publicly available) information.
@ThomasTraineau idea of removing the anon feature would work. That's is their main demand. Also a counter argument that stories can be screenshotted and screen recorded on nearly all OSs that use instagram.
I'm sorry, Austin. Here's hoping someone totally anonymous takes over and keeps the project going.
For the record: this is an intimidation letter, they're pretty common unfortunately. While it may be a valid cease-and-desist, that doesn't mean that you need to comply with the long list of demands listed in the letter, certainly not within the 48 hours stated there. In fact, providing the demanded information can weaken your legal position.
Talk to a lawyer first, and follow their advice!
Agree with @joepie91.
Especially the "tell us all domains you own" is proabably 100% bs. (though IANAL).
All that aside, is anyone surprised? Of course Facebook won't like it that you can watch stories from people without the read marker
For comparison Twitter, Reddit, Google, Youtube and couple of other companies never did this. #banfacebook
For example, you cannot use a name that is similar to or includes “Instagram,” “IG,” “Insta,” or “gram,”
cough, Tell them about SI units of weight, and install scripts :P
Along with Your response, You must provide the following information:
- A complete list of each and every product you created that targets Facebook users and/or interacts with Facebook or Instagram services;
- A detailed description of the methods used to automate Facebook and Instagram functionality and provide Instagram or Facebook related services, including a full list of all apps or APIs that you utilized or developed;
- A detailed description of the methods You used to obtain data from Facebook, Instagram, or any of its affiliate companies;
"We want you to give us pointers on how to fill the holes in our system"
Thank you for your continued support. Several things to keep in mind:
- Please do not intimidate the attorney. They have a job to do.
- Let's keep things respectful.
@austinhuang0131 Thanks for your great work. It wasn't wasted. This is an awesome app and has improved my LIFE dramatically by allowing me to keep in touch w/ ppl on insta and casually browse insta without falling into their algo mind trap.
This is just sad. Barinsta was an amazing app and it's a shame to see all of the work and effort put into making it a great experience suddenly gone.
This doesn't necessarily have to be the end of the road. As already mentioned, I'd love to see you take all of your work and instead put it towards the Pixelfed API, which is a much better, open source, federated and ethical alternative to Instagram.
Pixelfed currently suffers from a lack of decent or functional mobile apps. There is PixelDroid, but it's still in very early stages and more options are always nice.
Thank you for all of your hard work.
This is sad. I still have hope this project gets revived like YouTube-DL did. Facebook is cancer
@dada513 youtube-dl was only revived because the RIAA abused the DMCA system and GitHub found the RIAA in the wrong, hence reinstating it. This, in the end, has some parts which violated Facebook's TOS.
But it is very likely with a lawyer, the project can come back if the project removes the parts that Facebook mentions or implies are the main causes of TOS violations, as the project itself is fine but there seems to be some features/functionality that do violate TOS.
Remember, though, the legal system is not cheap. Huang can get a lawyer, but that doesn't mean they will because of legal expenses.
and how the fuck public data is Facebook's property?
Most apps say that they own everything you post (Snapchat too iirc) in their ToS.
Ironic how the letter says "may not access the Facebook or Instagram websites, mobile applications, Platforms, services, or networks for any reason whatsoever" and "See Facebook Terms of Service, https://www.facebook.com/terms" in the same letter. Isn't that a contradiction?
Lets sign a petition on change.org against facebook.
Printing it on a toilet paper would likely be of the same efficiency.
I'm not a lawyer, but it feels like the downloading of user's stories and posts is the main problem here.
Specifically, your app enables users to anonymously view and download other users’ Stories and posts.
Remove those features and probably Barinsta can survive?
Has anyone contacted Facebook yet? Because this does not align well with their own spirit of open source while suing undergrads/graduates. Someone should ask Mark Zuckerberg about this, especially if someone else would have sued Facebook in its very early days a long time ago.
Has anyone contacted Facebook yet? Because this does not align well with their own spirit of open source while suing undergrads/graduates. Someone should ask Mark Zuckerberg about this, especially if someone else would have sued Facebook in its very early days a long time ago.
Facebook and open source spirit? This is who Facebook are: https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/04/18/facebook-bullies-third-party-apps-swipe-and-simple-social-into-oblivion/
@austinhuang0131 I'm sorry this happened, buddy.
If you're inclined, and able, I would suggest you move the source to some other host. Not necessarily hosted GitLab, but something peer-to-peer; so they can't take it down. Then provide instructions/update the source to allow individuals to compile the APK themselves. That way, barinsta lives on, and there's nobody to serve C&D letters to. They'd be hard-pressed to come after every single user of a FOSS app.
If you're inclined, and able, I would suggest you move the source to some other host. Not necessarily hosted GitLab, but something peer-to-peer; so they can't take it down. Then provide instructions/update the source to allow individuals to compile the APK themselves. That way, barinsta lives on, and there's nobody to serve C&D letters to. They'd be hard-pressed to come after every single user of a FOSS app.
@daraul, it might be more heat for Austin to do that, seeing as the C&D letter calls out "Facilitating or encouraging others to violate the Instagram terms.". But someone reading this thread could take it upon themselves to do that.
Fuck you Facebook. You should be ashamed of your existence and die of shame!
Ok FaceBook, this is how you like Open Source, when use it -> you like it, but otherwise you kill it ;) AWESOME LOGIC
Contact a lawyer. Open up a crowdfunding campaign if necessary. Facebook has no right to demand half the things in that letter.
If this proves anything, it's once again that Facebook and all of its properties should be boycotted at every level. Facebook are malignant. Their continued existence is a net loss for the Internet. Your patronage of them at any level serves only to make them stronger and more harmful.
Don't patronise their sites or apps. Don't develop for them or use their APIs. Don't create third-party workaround apps for the proprietary ones.
You don't need Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, etc. Vote with your feet. Delete your accounts and go on with your business.
Don't develop for them or use their APIs
I disagree about this part and here's why.
Yes, companies like Facebook are a threat to the internet and to user freedom. We've all seen the scandals, the hostile anticompetitive methods, the abuse of user data. And yes FLOSS alternatives are needed.
But unless we find a way to break down the walled gardens that Facebook and these other tech companies create, we will loose this war. These companies are better funded have more manpower and more resources and are willing to play dirtier than us. The systems and laws and institutions are on their side and under their control, and they've been fighting tooth and nail to keep it this way.
The only way to beat them is not only to offer better FLOSS alternative to their products, but at the same time build ways to allow existing users of these products to still use these products when necessary while weaning themselves off these walled gardens and dip their feet in FLOSS.
Sure you could convince a passionate upstart to use Linux or mastodon or matrix or what have you tomorrow. But what about their friends? Their friends' friends? All these people wont switch overnight and our little upstart will still need a way to communicate with them.
There is power in having a closed garden that you can control, especially when you have market dominance. You can build a speedy, lightweight feature packed piece of software but unless you can get everyone and their grandma to switch from the closed system right off the bat, you will have a very hard time. Your users wont be able to communicate with the majority and vice versa.
But imagine if you could use said speedy, lightweight feature packed, secure, free piece of software with the existing service that everyone else is on...now people would be more willing to switch.
That's why Facebook is reacting this aggressively. That's why data portability scares tech companies. They know how important keeping their systems closed are in terms of maintaining their market dominance. Barista threatened that
We need to create platforms that not only provide better services than these closed broken systems, but integrate well with them too. The less obstacles we can put in the way of moving people away from these dangerous platforms, the better. And that starts with interoperability. With interoperability, companies can truly compete in terms of providing better quality software and service. They wont win right away from owning and controlling the majority of the market and forcing out everyone else.
And that's why the loss of barista is a huge blow in this fight. Having a fully free and open source client able to browse Instagram was a huge boon to user privacy while making dents in Facebook's closed system. Barista did more good for user privacy by creating a FLOSS client for a horribly privacy invasive company than they probably would by building a tiny niche ecosystem that only a few diehard users would download.
The only way to beat them is not only to offer better FLOSS alternative to their products, but at the same time build ways to allow existing users of these products to still use these products when necessary while weaning themselves off these walled gardens and dip their feet in FLOSS.
Such third-party clients do not wean anyone off these so-called walled gardens. Why would they? They don't offer an alternative product; they merely offer an alternative means of consuming the existing product. This merely adds value to the malfeasant. It doesn't weaken him.
You don't break down a walled garden by parasitically contributing to its maintenance. You either smash it, which is nigh on impossible in the case of big tech, or you refuse to reside within its confines.
Beating these companies is as simple as exercising your democratic right to vote. When users of systems that exploit them elect to become non-users, they economically starve the entity that preys upon them.
So, why doesn't this happen? Well, because people enjoy these products, like being able to use them for free, have a poor understanding of the damage they incur by using them, and generally experience any short-term inconvenience as a greater and more compelling hardship than long-term erosion of their privacy.
Apathy and complacency are the real obstacles here, and those are formidable foes. But foes there are, and that's where the real challenge lies. Building tools that pander to the collective lack of will to actually abandon harmful products is tantamount to complicity in the perpetuation of the ill. There are many ways to smoke tobacco, but whichever way you look at it, you are still imbibing a carcinogen.
And so it is with Facebook, a malignant tumour slowly destroying its host.
And that's why the loss of barista is a huge blow in this fight. Having a fully free and open source client able to browse Instagram was a huge boon to user privacy while making dents in Facebook's closed system. Barista did more good for user privacy by creating a FLOSS client for a horribly privacy invasive company than they probably would by building a tiny niche ecosystem that only a few diehard users would download.
With respect, this is a delusion.
Look how Barista has met its end. This is how all parasitic applications will meet their end when they are deemed to have bitten the hand that feeds them.
These companies do not tolerate attempts to feed off them outside of their own very restrictive APIs. And users agree not to attempt this when they sign up. When they later violate those agreements, the companies are well within their rights to respond aggressively. And they do, as we have seen.
This isn't a cat-and-mouse game. Or if it is, the cat holds all of the cards and can swat the mouse whenever the urge takes him.
Please adopt the Pixelfed API for this app! It’s an ethical, free, open-source software.
This was what I asked about beforehand, i think it would work very well.
Has anyone contacted Facebook yet? Because this does not align well with their own spirit of open source while suing undergrads/graduates.
There is no such thing. It's just become fashionable to claim open source support and is very handy to use open source. What happens here is very much in spirit of Facebook. They need you to be locked into their ecosystem, so that they have full control over your data, as well as what information you receive. Alternative clients may loosen this control, hence they do anything to ban them.
Agree with @joepie91.
Especially the "tell us all domains you own" is proabably 100% bs. (though IANAL).
All that aside, is anyone surprised? Of course Facebook won't like it that you can watch stories from people without the read marker
It's an interesting technique actually: If someone complies with this absurd demand, you know for sure you're going to run over them like a legal-truck.
Aside from the list of demands being harsh, hypocritical, and unreasonable, in the end, if the claims are true, it sounds like Barinsta did violate FB's ToS.
A ToS is an agreement you need to accept in some way. Just making a (public) API call isn't legally accepting ToS, so there is no ToS to violate.
The users of this App however, might violate their ToS.
So, Facebook's next steps would be taking down "Firefox" for accessing Instagram contents and taking down "Telegram" for using Facebook trademark by having "gram" in it's name?
At first, that letter is bullshit. When I was in college we received letters from our country's equivalent to RIAA because they found IPs from the university being used to download copyrighted material through BitTorrent protocol. All those letters ended in the trash.
Your application is a sophisticated web browser. Firefox has many extensions for Instagram which do the same as Barinsta: https://addons.mozilla.org/ca/firefox/addon/instagram-guest/ https://addons.mozilla.org/ca/firefox/addon/instagram-video-download/ https://addons.mozilla.org/ca/firefox/addon/media-helper/ https://addons.mozilla.org/ca/firefox/addon/instagram_download/
"Facebook will treat any further activity by You on its websites, mobile applications, Platforms, services or networks as intentional and unauthorized access to its protected computer networks" Probably you could sue them for removing your access to their website based on false accusations.
If they contact again with you, you should ask someone for legal advice and move Barinsta's git repository to another site. There's no doubt that the 48 hours period is FUD, specially the part where they ask you information.
Make Barinsta forks as much as possible on different platforms. Let them (facebook) fight with windmills. Fuck the system, fuck the matrix. Fuck (sick) society.
No respect for facebook, first they destroyed our privacy, and now if someone trying to do something good. They are trying to destroying them also. Facebook should be banned, I'm going to uninstall and delete both of my facebook and Instagram account. Fuck you Facebook. @austinhuang0131
Facebook should be banned, I'm going to uninstall and delete both of my facebook and Instagram account.
I have deleted my Facebook account long ago.
A name and logo change for the project wouldn't be too difficult and would easily clear up possible trademark infringement.
With regards to the other parts: Talk to a lawyer, specifically the EFF or any other programmer-friendly legal groups, as soon as possible - do not give Facebook any information until you talk to a lawyer.
trademark infringement
Isn't referring to other trademarks fair use? I mean, let's assumme someone has created a phone and sells it under a trademark. Then someone else creates a cradle for that specific phone. Is stating that that cradle should be used with that phone a trademark infringement and not fair use?
I'm not a lawyer but having a similar enough product to another product and giving it a similar name can be considered a dilution of the original trademark afaik. Generally it's wise to give a product a name that's generic or irrelevant to the original product and then mention "This product is compatible with [X]'s devices. [X] is a trademark of [Y]."
"Barinsta" isn't really in the same vein as making an "iPhohn" but if Facebook has decided it owns "insta" and "gram" there's nothing you can do about it, and really the entire project might have to go dark (web) if you wanna keep this afloat because Facebook can and will bankrupt anyone it doesn't like with legal fees. And it looks like the timeframe on the C&D is expired so, good luck.
Is there any way I can donate to you Austin? Not by any means a huge amount but I'm here to offer you the financial support to fight these assh*les! Your app is too brilliant that Facebook is jealous of how you did it. End of story.
Not a lawyer but no judge would be stupid enough to set a precedent where parts of a trademark are trademarks themselves. In this instance alone you can see how stupid that would be. trademarking gram? the scientific community would have a ton of royalty fees to pay, and what about "insta" so any word containing insta, say instant would be owned by facebook as well? this is nothing more than a scare tactic. Grab a lawyer and fight these b*stards
Any update about this issue? I see the C&D has expired and what is your response about this beside taking down the repo? @austinhuang0131
Agree. Facebook cannot make trademark from words like "insta" and "gram", this is out of law. But it can "Instagram". In other words, phrases and words, which are commonly used, cannot be patented. Insta is part of [noninstallment, reinstallation, reinstatements, instantiations, instantaneous, instantiating, instantiation, installations, instabilities, instaurations, painstakingly, instantnesses, instantaneity, reinstatement, installation, instauration, reinstalling, painstakings, installments, instantiated, instantiates, uninstalling, instance, mainstay, instancy, installs, instable, instates, instated, instants].
"gram" [ungrammatical, parallelogram, autoradiogram, roentgenogram, interferogram, encephalogram, anagrammatize, graminivorous, plethysmogram, epigrammatism, epigrammatize, epigrammatist, deprogramming, chromatograms, cholangiogram, grammatically, ideogrammatic, hellgrammites, misprograming, misprogrammed, microprograms, logogrammatic, monogrammatic, overprogramed, nonprogrammer, reprogramming, preprogrammed, preprograming, programmables, etc]
If this person, who wrote the letter to Austin is so competent (he/she think so), I dont understand, why he/she wrote so stupid thing about "insta" and "gram" in the letter? From their(Facebook) side It should be more competent to use the whole "instagram". but not parts. Otherwise Facebook can say the same about its brand "Facebook", and its parts "face" and "book". So guys, do not use these words! They are patented by Facebook. Otherwise you will have problems.
One thing more. Can we suggest, that the letter Austin got is just a scam? Some foe send this letter. Technically it's not problem to spoof email sender data. So maybe it should be resonable (but not now already, time is gone) to send them answer, to ensure they are FB, not somebody "cute hacker".
Not a lawyer but no judge would be stupid enough to set a precedent where parts of a trademark are trademarks themselves. In this instance alone you can see how stupid that would be. trademarking gram? the scientific community would have a ton of royalty fees to pay, and what about "insta" so any word containing insta, say instant would be owned by facebook as well? this is nothing more than a scare tactic. Grab a lawyer and fight these b*stards
@Radiomix2000 Austin said in the telegram group that they did lose their accounts as indicated in the letter, so it's probably true.
@jeffersoncheang https://austinhuang.me/donate
For example, you cannot use a name that is similar to or includes “Instagram,” “IG,” “Insta,” or “gram,”
cough, Tell them about SI units of weight, and
installscripts :PAlong with Your response, You must provide the following information:
- A complete list of each and every product you created that targets Facebook users and/or interacts with Facebook or Instagram services;
- A detailed description of the methods used to automate Facebook and Instagram functionality and provide Instagram or Facebook related services, including a full list of all apps or APIs that you utilized or developed;
- A detailed description of the methods You used to obtain data from Facebook, Instagram, or any of its affiliate companies;
"We want you to give us pointers on how to fill the holes in our system"
🤣I bet if I start a teddy bear manufacturing buisness named BigTeddy, facebook would come after me because it contains "ig".
- "Collecting users’ content or information via automated means without Facebook’s prior permission"
How come facebook collects data by automated means from everybody under different domain names WITHOUT the user consent and is ok? So basically if we do it its ok but you don't because we not allow lol!
- "Using or sharing user data without the users’ consent"
Same bs as above.
- "Misleading other users and impairing the intended operation of Facebook and Instagram by, e.g., permitting anonymous viewing and downloading of Stories, a feature not supported by Instagram"
This one is interesting. Firstly "Misleading other users" is NOT true. There is no such thing in the app that purposely misleads or misguides its user. Also, a feature not supported does not mean a feature is not allowed? So what's the point of making custom then we should live by your set of features? I can make better version of your app and use what's available to public but (ONLY) through your platform thus your platform grow in popularity?
- Facilitating or encouraging others to violate the Instagram terms
They didn't even try for this one.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/van-buren-victory-against-overbroad-interpretations-cfaa-protects-security According to Mukund Rathi and Kurt Opsahl from the EFF:
Nevertheless, leaving the question open means that we will have to litigate whether and under what circumstance a contract or written policy can amount to an access restriction in the years to come. For example, in Facebook v. Power Ventures, the Ninth Circuit found that a cease and desist letter removing authorization was sufficient to create a CFAA violation for later access, even though a violation of the Facebook terms alone was not. Service providers will likely argue that this is the sort of non-technical access restriction that was left unresolved by Van Buren.
Facebook's interpretation that Barinsta's services violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act is dangerously broad and would be bunk in a world ruled by common sense, but a court would probably rule in favor of Facebook in spite of Van Buren v. United States.
Barinsta requests the content that users ask for, which the users could already obtain using Instagram. If Barinsta's services could constitute copyright infringement, then using a web browser which Facebook doesn't like in order to directly access the Instagram website could be copyright infringement. Unfortunately, since I'm not a lawyer and since copyright law in the US is backward, I can only imagine the worst.
https://codeberg.org/avalos/barinsta
I would suggest using a fake name and details if you don’t want your fork to end up like the original
https://codeberg.org/avalos/barinsta
I would suggest using a fake name and details if you don’t want your fork to end up like the original
No, I won't. It's not illegal to create an app like this. If Facebook has a problem with this, they should just disable the accounts of users who are using this app. Not sure what happened to the original author, but we need to resist this kind of intimidation. The actually legal claims on the letter are bullshit.
Allegedly infringed laws
- 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers. This law, from what I can see, serves to protect access to “protected” computers (i.e. government computers) in the context of national security. It doesn't protect servers of private companies, if I understand correctly.
- 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions. This “law” contains definitions of copyright terms.
- 15 U.S. Code CHAPTER 22— TRADEMARKS. This law is basically trademark law, which doesn't apply in this case because “Insta” and “gram” are not registered trademarks, and thus, “Barinsta” is not infringing in any trademark.
- Penal Code 502 PC – Unauthorized Computer Access and Fraud. This law might actually make sense regarding this project, but it doesn't seem like it applies outside California, and you can easily defend yourself saying you didn't commit or intend to commit fraud.
We need to stop acting like we committed murder or something, take it easy, y'all.
Two days ago, after Facebook deleted the accounts of the New York University researchers who run Ad Observer, EFF posted an interesting article about it. Here's a particularly relevant quote from the article:
Another issue EFF emphasized at the time is that Facebook has a history of dubious legal claims that such violations of service terms are violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). That is, if you copy and paste content from any of the company’s services in an automated way (without its blessing), Facebook thinks you are committing a federal crime. If this outrageous interpretation of the law were to hold, it would have a debilitating impact on the efforts of journalists, researchers, archivists, and everyday users. Fortunately, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision dealt a blow to this interpretation of the CFAA.
I am not a lawyer.
Under 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) pretty much any networked computer is a protected computer. See subsection e>2>B, for the qualifier for a "protected computer":
""" which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; or """
Facebook's servers are used for the purpose of interstate communication and can be protected under the law, depending on how you read it. The CFAA is a shitty, kind of vague piece of legislation, and it's thrown around everywhere because it's so easy to violate it. Depending on how you interpret the law a Facebook ToS violation is a federal crime. So yes, like most normal Internet activities, the use of this application can possibly be in offense to the CFAA.
I am not a lawyer. Get a real lawyer. They're worth it.
I just posted an article about this whole thing: https://blog.avalos.me/2021/08/14/barinsta/
Thank you very much @ivan-avalos for your post. Facebook crap has to stop. I hope @austinhuang0131 reads this and contributes back to his project on your backup on codeberg.org
https://codeberg.org/avalos/barinsta
I would suggest using a fake name and details if you don’t want your fork to end up like the original
No, I won't. It's not illegal to create an app like this. If Facebook has a problem with this, they should just disable the accounts of users who are using this app. Not sure what happened to the original author, but we need to resist this kind of intimidation. The actually legal claims on the letter are bullshit.
Allegedly infringed laws
- 18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers. This law, from what I can see, serves to protect access to “protected” computers (i.e. government computers) in the context of national security. It doesn't protect servers of private companies, if I understand correctly.
- 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions. This “law” contains definitions of copyright terms.
- 15 U.S. Code CHAPTER 22— TRADEMARKS. This law is basically trademark law, which doesn't apply in this case because “Insta” and “gram” are not registered trademarks, and thus, “Barinsta” is not infringing in any trademark.
- Penal Code 502 PC – Unauthorized Computer Access and Fraud. This law might actually make sense regarding this project, but it doesn't seem like it applies outside California, and you can easily defend yourself saying you didn't commit or intend to commit fraud.
We need to stop acting like we committed murder or something, take it easy, y'all.
Two days ago, after Facebook deleted the accounts of the New York University researchers who run Ad Observer, EFF posted an interesting article about it. Here's a particularly relevant quote from the article:
Another issue EFF emphasized at the time is that Facebook has a history of dubious legal claims that such violations of service terms are violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). That is, if you copy and paste content from any of the company’s services in an automated way (without its blessing), Facebook thinks you are committing a federal crime. If this outrageous interpretation of the law were to hold, it would have a debilitating impact on the efforts of journalists, researchers, archivists, and everyday users. Fortunately, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision dealt a blow to this interpretation of the CFAA.
I agree, their letter is BS. The problem with Facebook is that if they decide to sue defending can cost a lot of money. Im interested though - could anti bullying laws apply if they do decide to sue
DISCLAIMER: Please consult with your lawyer prior to proceeding
@austinhuang0131 Please inform us about the current situation with the provided C&D letter as i plan to bring this issue up on the upcoming meeting of Volt Europe in the Czech Repubic to be integrated in manifesto https://assets.volteuropa.org/2021-08/Volt%20Mapping%20of%20Policy%208th%20Edition%20August%202021.pdf as a part of volt's political push for Free Software in the European Union.
Also as a voting member of Codeberg e.V. i've created an issue tracking to see whether we can assist you with keeping the repository public there and allow you the continue the development.
Consider contacting me on [email protected] if you don't want to share these informations publicly.
@Kreyren We're already hosting Barinsta on Codeberg, it's still not the official unless the community decides. I'm the one in charge of the Codeberg fork, so you might as well contact me for that. I'll hand out control to Huang as well on his request. I really appreciate your support!! https://codeberg.org/avalos/barinsta
DISCLAIMER: My statement does not represent an official statement of the Codeberg e.V. i represent myself and my voice in Codeberg's decision making as a voting member. DISCLAIMER: I am not your lawyer and this is not a legal advise that would create client to lawyer relationship.
@ivan-avalos I am aware of your fork and i've created a discussion in Codeberg's administration (for Codeberg members https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Discussion/issues/40) about it where we currently agreed that the presented legal issue is currently not actionable as it's not (yet?) involving a german law (where codeberg is registered as Registered Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_association_(Germany)).
That said it is not unrealistic that Codeberg would have to take the repository down i will refer to Codeberg's previous statement regarding the takedown of youtube-dl in https://blog.codeberg.org/on-the-youtube-dl-dmca-takedown.html with relevant parts being:
Codeberg e.V. was founded in Germany and Codeberg.org is hosted in Germany, therefore we're tied to EU/German law. A DMCA takedown request by itself is not an issue for us. But since the RIAA justifies their call with German law, we see a risk that Codeberg e.V. could become a target of similar requests.
However, if we for example host a legitimate open source tool and we would receive a similar notice, then we most likely would have to disable the repository until the matter is resolved by court ruling if such is fought through by the project owners. This could include the code, issues, and documentation, which would immediately threaten/weaken the development community around that project.
Codeberg has to comply with the law to avoid legal consequences ranging from a fine to german authorities shutting down the operation, thus the only permanent solution that i can currently think of would be to respond to the legal case and set a precedent for relevant cases in the future which i am currently investigating as interested third party including relevant cases that were pointed out to me such as:
- Facebook/Instagram C&D against Friendly App Studios LLC where EFF was involved https://www.eff.org/files/2020/11/20/eff_letter_to_facebook_re_friendly.pdf
- Facebook/Instagram C&D against AlgorithmWatch https://algorithmwatch.org/en/instagram-research-shut-down-by-facebook/
- AndroidPolice report on Swipe and Simple Social https://www.androidpolice.com/2021/04/18/facebook-bullies-third-party-apps-swipe-and-simple-social-into-oblivion/
- youtube-dl DMCA takedown by RIAA on GitHub https://github.com/github/dmca/pull/8122
- https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/01/2020-01-22-facebook.md
Furthermore in response to youtube-dl takedown on codeberg a proposal regarding Codeberg's legal defense fund was created that i fully support to ensure codeberg's functionality by establishing an economy to fight similar claims (for codeberg members https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Discussion/issues/20) if you wish to contribute to this effort then consider either donating on https://liberapay.com/codeberg (the funds may be used for something else as the fund is not yet established) or contact [email protected] with message:
I would like to donate to the legal defense fund mentioned in https://github.com/austinhuang0131/austinhuang0131/issues/2#issuecomment-901328270 by Kreyren
P.S: Any relevant information and legal cases are welcomed
It seems that unfortunately @austinhuang0131 has complied with the letter, and is showing no interest in supporting any further development of this project. Meaning facebook is likely to implement UI and API changes to prevent forks or similar projects from operating.
This is to @ivan-avalos or whoever else plans on picking up the torch and moving on: Your primary objective is to rally the community around you and make sure they believe in your ability. saying "fuck the system" won't get you far, you need to show competence and professionalism, not to mention a plan to combat future letters should they come. My suggestion is to first focus 100% on bringing back the community and then get the support of organizations like the EFF or FSF. They're your best bet at shielding the app from such letters or fighting them.
I'm also not sure whether hosting on Codeberg is the best idea. Don't get me wrong I very much appreciate @Kreyren's help in keeping this going, but the community is mostly here on github, who AFAIK have taken no action to remove the repository. And it's equally likely that the project loses its hosting in case of a letter regardless of the provider.
So good luck to you and everyone who supports this project with you. This app is a big step not only in combating privacy invasive practices, but also addictive designs that ruin our lives. And I hope that Facebook fails in this push against the free community.
@The-EDev I am still working on this with some positive progress made, but i can't share more informations atm.
The end-goal is permanent solution to scare tactics which halt FLOSS development.
@Kreyren I wish you the best of luck and pray you succeed, let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
@The-EDev One of the current plans is to establish legal defense fund for which sharing the awareness and help with crowdfunding would be appreciated.
The MF M.Z. wants all our information for himself F* u m.z. Guys, use Instagram and whatsapp in an applicarion isolator programm or in work profile (using shelter or something)
@whytecks I would argue for PixelFed (https://fediverse.party/en/pixelfed) instead of instagram and mastodon or alike instead of facebook, see https://fediverse.party/
* Please do not intimidate the attorney. They have a job to do.
True, spineless as they are, it's still FB that all the hate should be aimed at.
Ladies and gentleman, the letter presented above is a schoolbook example of typical 'murican corporate racketeering and blackmail. You won't comply? Don't worry, they won't come after you or your family members with baseball bats or machine guns (like in 3rd world hellholes), they'll only destroy your life instead and will enjoy every minute of it.
I do believe the attorney and their corporation deserve to be called out. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them taking FB's money with no more than an non-magentized needle for a moral compass. I don't think death threats or spam works at all though.
the attorney and their corporation deserve to be called out.
It's not a good idea, never was. Even in ancient times the shooting of the messenger was considered bad practice. The evildoer is just and only Facebook, the lawyers are just relaying the evil words uttered by the (presumably) psychopathic upper management of FB and are only putting it in legalese. To put it in other words: if a colleague of yours told you that you're being fired would you punch your colleague for telling you that?
The attorney is not a messenger in this case, it's more of an enforcer, without the attorney, facebook wouldn't be able to do this. but without my colleague, my boss could still fire me no problem. This isn't a case of shooting the messenger, it's a case of exposing and boycotting people who carry out immoral orders.
@The-EDev @KOLANICH @Kungergely Calling out individual attorneys would be "shooting the messenger" which I must not condone. You should, however, call out the law firm, since they basically issue these letters on a daily basis
ofc if we go all the way up then there's the entire American legal system that enables them to do this but let's not get too ahead of ourselves
entire American legal system
Other members of WIPO have similar legislation. It is not inherently American. In fact American "IP" legislation permits far more than analogious legislation of some other jurisdictions, which were introduced after US one and took the restrictions from US one, without taking the permissions from US one and also adding own restrictions.
In other words, whole copyright system must be abolished. But we cannot abolish copyright when the ones who talk about how they dislike proprietary software (the one that is based on copyright and tries to benefit from the system) license their works under GPL and other licenses based on copyright and trying to benefit from it.
If one wants to abolish copyright, he must start from himself, not tell us how is BSD "lax" and "non-free, because it allows proprietarians to take your work and benefit from it". He must just relicense every work he is allowed to relicense under a public-domain-equivalent license. Otherwise I don't beleve a single word of him about how he dislikes copyright, because he doesn't really dislike copyright system itself, he only dislikes when people other than him hold copyright.
@KOLANICH think you're going off-topic here, this thing is not about copyright tho
@KOLANICH I think you have the wrong idea on the GPL and free software, BSD considered "weak" not because it allows proprietarians to benefit from it. It's because it allows them to use the copyright system to replace non copyrighted work with their own restricted version (EEE strategy). The GPL merely uses the existing copyright system to prevent that kind of abuse, you can still benefit however you want, as long as your benefit doesn't harm someone else.
In any case @austinhuang0131 is right, this is way off topic.. and since you're here Austin, I hope you're doing well
The GPL merely uses the existing copyright
It not "merely uses". It relies on it. No copyright - no GPL, no money from selling licenses to proprietarians (and users of more permissive licences, but users of more permissive licenses would likely not buy any licenses from GPLians, they would likely choose to rewrite an own product from scratch than to pay GPLians without getting the full copyrights without a right to relicense under a permissive, because FOSS movement in large part is a protest on control enforced via licenses) to use GPLed code without disclosing their sources. One cannot plausibly claim to be an opponent of copyright, using copyright to extract money from population the same time.
think you're going off-topic here, this thing is not about copyright
It is all related. When I say "copyright system", I mean not only copyright, but everything that can be considered so called "intellectual property" and so called "related rights". Copyright, patents, "trade dress", "utility model"s, trademarks, "DB copyright", "protected geographical indication" ... - it is all has the same goal - extract money from population. And the distinctions between them have arised historically, when it was decided that some area that was not covered by one type should be covered in order to extract money from population better.
The only way to weaken this system is not to participate into it. Any participation, no matter proprietary or GPL, only reinforces it.
True, spineless as they are.. -- @Kungergely (https://github.com/austinhuang0131/austinhuang0131/issues/2#issuecomment-940972334)
Lawyers are the least spineless subject in the legal system! They are paid to research and interpret the relevant laws and then represent the client legally for the judge or relevant subject to decide if their claim is legally valid and actionable.
If you are looking for people to blame while making a positive effect on these issues then:
- Blame politicians and judges who enable these laws to be interpreted into an evident scare tactic by Facebook
- Contact your relevant politician or political party and propose a new policy
- Advocate for the policy and spread it to other people (Activism)
- Provide resources to affected parties to deal with these issues e.g. Codeberg's legal defense fund.
If we blame employees of Waffen-SS and SS-Totenkopfverbande for just doing their jobs, why shouldn't we blame lawers for just doing their jobs?
If we blame employees of Waffen-SS and SS-Totenkopfverbande for just doing their jobs, why shouldn't we blame lawers for just doing their jobs?
No, not really. The commoners have gotten away with it completely, only the highest ranking officers were prosecuted. In the Eastern bloc the members of the local equivalent organizations have been admitted to the Communist state terror organizations and secret services and lived a happy life ever after.
But this has no relevance to the "love letter" from above at all. Yes, FB is a big target, but the responsibility in sending out these blackmail letters is 100% theirs, not the law firms who draft them.
In the Eastern bloc the members of the local equivalent organizations have been admitted to the Communist state terror organizations and secret services and lived a happy life ever after.
I know. But the word with the meaning "ss-employee" ("эсэсовец", it is untranslatable because relies on Russian morphology) has still a very negative tonality, at least in Russian.
BTW, don't call them 'Communist', state capitalism is not communism.
responsibility in sending out these blackmail letters is 100% theirs, not the law firms who draft them.
No. When a person hires a killer to kill someone, both the one who gives the money and the killer are liable. The killer has lost his chance to be not liable in the crime he had committed at the moment he has accepted the contract. And the members of waffen-ss have lost their chance to not being liable in the crimes they had committed while in waffen-ss at the moment they have joined waffen-ss. The only difference here is that the activity of the lawyers is legal and is not a crime.
the responsibility in sending out these blackmail letters is 100% theirs, -- @Kungergely (https://github.com/austinhuang0131/austinhuang0131/issues/2#issuecomment-942648891)
sending out these blackmail letters
I am not your lawyer and this is not a legal advise: Consider using words like allegedly.. or evidently.. to avoid being subjected to legal claims of defamation.
I will append this to my previous statement in https://github.com/austinhuang0131/austinhuang0131/issues/2#issuecomment-942051011
- Organize a peaceful protest in person or start an online campaign (e.g. adding a thing to your profile picture and spread the message across social media)
Since that allegedly worked in the RIAA v. youtube-dl case to be handled outside of the court and might put barinsta out of this issue as Facebook can't easily afford more bad PR in their current whistleblower bombshell if they want to maintain sane stock prices which is dropping since 7th Sep 2021.
sending out these blackmail letters
I am not your lawyer and this is not a legal advise: Consider using words like
allegedly..orevidently..to avoid being subjected to legal claims of defamation.
My preferred formulations are usually "I think" and "in my opinion", but still, in this case I'd gladly turn to the local press outlets to give FB some bad publicity (they just can't get as much of that as they truly deserve) if they ever did that. Headlines such as "Average Joe IT guy sued by Farcebook over trolling comment" surely wouldn't make them look good. Since I'm not in 'murica nor UK they couldn't sue me for arbitrary exorbitant amounts (like they do in those countries) that'd mess up my life for good anyway.
Since that allegedly worked in the RIAA v. youtube-dl case to be handled outside of the court
I fear that they'll still keep pushing for banning youtube-dl, they're probably just "regrouping" at the moment or something. After all RIAA's reputation couldn't be worse already, give or take a lawsuit here and there. Thus I really wouldn't extrapolate anything from that case. Maybe FB wouldn't push for a lawsuit, maybe they would, it's hard to tell. I totally understand that the author doesn't want to expose himself to a potential lawsuit (even if a frivolous one) against an evil corporation though, nobody in their right mind would. Besides, MZ's blatant lies such as asserting that they care "about issues like safety, well-being and mental health" more than their shareholders' profit wouldn't put my own mind at ease either.
the word (...) "эсэсовец" has still a very negative tonality, at least in Russian.
So does the word "eštebák" (a reference to StB/ŠtB, the Czechoslovak secret service during Communist times) in Slovak, but despite that all those ex-agents are powerful people with lots of money to spare today. And they couldn't care less what the people think about them. So it's really similar to lawyers: quite a few people dislike them, and yet they're still doing well. But contrary to former autocratic secret service agents I don't think that lawyers should be intimidated or harassed, even if they represent despicable corporations like FB. Plus it wouldn't make the critics of said corporations look good either: nobody wants to be labeled as a fundamentalist that's impervious to reason.
In regards to possible future development of this app by others; for the past couple of weeks, I have been frequently signed out of the account I use with this app, and asked to verify my identity and change my password. I have a couple of other accounts I use frequently, but not with this app, and have had no such trouble with them.
I don't know if Instagram has simply made changes to it's automated detection of "suspicious activity" that happens to affect any non-API using apps, or if they're intentionally cracking down on it. Either way, this should probably be considered going forward; any further development would be kind of pointless if the app becomes basically unusable on the service side.
if they're intentionally cracking down on it
I'm 99% sure it's intentional. Even the evil bastards working at FB know that legalese can surely intimidate some developers (plus the author), but not all of them and that there are quite a few places in the world (with developers) where the US pro-rich and pro-corporate "justice" system has no power whatsoever. Thus it'd make sense if they'd try to harass the application's users as much as possible for "good measure" too. Perhaps a bit more extensive rework of any potential forks would help, but only until said bastards will discover these forks. Then the cycle will just repeat.
No, it is just the complementary measure.
- just changing the website is inefficient without harrassing devs to stop development
- just harrassing the devs is inefficient, if old no longer developed versions continue to work
I just found out today about it. Man that sucks, I love your app. I'm a bit anxious with social networks and all, your app helped gain some peace of mind while still using IG. Thanks!
Is there any fork hosted somewhere else that is gaining some traction in the community?
Is there any fork hosted somewhere else that is gaining some traction in the community?
@arteteco yes, there is a fork on codeberg from @ivan-avalos, but it's not as actively developed as before. I would encourage @austinhuang0131 to check it out and ignore anything from that cease & desist letter which would prevent further development...
I'd like to know what Austin thinks about going on with the development on codeberg (maybe I'm missing something?)
I don't know why you are anxious about this letter. If they want to take legal actions they need to do through proper channels which are the judiciary system of your country. Not a letter and a pdf on your mail. For all you know this could be a fake, this is a total valid argument in court. You are based in a specific country. Since you don't have an hq anywhere else, in every country there is a protocol to follow for those kind of letters. So if they want it to be official, they need to hire a lawyer in your country which the identity is easily verifiable, and not from another state. And I guess it's even the same logic between states in the US.
I don't know why you are anxious about this letter.
Because England has a "nonstandard" relationship with the US (i.e. they extradite pretty much ANYBODY to the US, no matter how bogus and BS the legal claims against them are, see the case of Assange, where they've managed to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot), 'murica is literally controlled by those freakin' corporations and thus his worries are completely justified? I mean sure, if I'd receive ANY legal document written in English from said bastards (or anybody else for that matter) I'd literally ask them to GFUS, but alas I come from a non-English speaking country. The author is from the UK however and 'murican corporations can very efficiently ensure that UK citizens who wrong them end up in a world of pain. So the author is completely right in not wanting to push his luck with evil bastards who's set out to make his life miserable.