RSSApple Criticized for Watermarking Music Files
By Ed Oswald | Published June 4, 2007, 3:56 PM
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is criticizing Apple over its practice of encrypting user data into purchased tracks from its iTunes music store, saying it poses a security risk to its users.
Information such as customer name and e-mail can be found within the files of an iPod, and the data can apparently be culled from a stolen iPod rather easily, the technology lobbying group said.
With iTunes Plus now offering songs in unprotected format, it may pose an even greater list. The EFF admits that the data included is not as sensitive as including credit card data and the like, however some users may see it as a privacy issue.
Apple's reasons for the practice of including identifiable information in music files is not exactly known, as it has never given a reason for it. It may be out of an attempt to track files to a source if they end up being pirated.
Opinions on the practice vary, although some defend it as being better than DRM. Watermarking is less restrictive and does not automatically assume that a consumer will pirate the material, but a method of tracking is there if they do.
"Bottom line: DRM-free doesn't mean that Apple suddenly supports piracy," Erica Sadun wrote for The Unofficial Apple Weblog last week.
There is no privacy issue with iTunes Store DRM-free files.
In other news, items that are sent to you via the postal service have metadata which can pinpoint your very home!
So what's the problem?
Score: 0
lmao...
Good point.
Score: 0
Whats the problem???
Big difference here. It's much easier to steal an iPod than it is to obtain this Postal Service meta data. How would you even obtain this device or whatever it is to get that?
the bottom line is that an iPod can be stolen. This is no way relates to your postal service comment.
Score: 0
ROFLMAO!!!
The "metadata" part confuse you?
Stealing an iPod:
Find target, wait until they're not using it, swipe it, run like hell.
Stealing postal info:
Drive up to mailbox. Open Mailbox. Take envelope. Drive away.
Which seems more risky to *you*?
Score: 0
So burn to a cd and rip back to you rpc and your good to go!
Score: 0
Another reason to rip CD's and torrent for music rather than pay for DRM free music.
Score: 0
Rip CD's for your own use yea, but RIAA is getting really greedy with their lawsuits an untill some rich kid get nailed with one of them suits and their folks take it to court with the resources to win, this is finally a cost effective way obtain music song by song.
Score: 0
Inst this same info present in the DRM'd itunes tracks? Why didnt the EFF fuss then? Its the same risk in 'the ipod is stolen' scenario.
Score: 0
This real problem with Apple adding this information to tracks is whether that information can be changed or spoofed by someone - I have to assume "YES". I doubt it will be long before someone maliciously uploads an Apple track with false user information to get someone in serious trouble. And given the RIAA's ignorance of "due diligence", you can imagine what happens next...
Score: 0
That's the danger. I have to say that it *seems* reasonable to put info in there, but better would be a numeric string that is associated with an account number from iTunes -- not a credit card or anything -- just like any numbered account. That way, the tag in the DRM isn't giving away names or emails, nor is there opportunity to upload away under false name.
Very close to a perfect system... I'd be more than happy to buy music tagged with just an account number. If someone wants to get me, let it be Apple, not the RIAA.
Score: 0
STOP BEING STUPID APPLE!
Score: 0
Yeah,s top trying to keep your customers honest.
I mean...
How dare they tag the music you download from them with *your* information.
*gasp*
Ooh, the horror...
Score: 0
Yup, Apple's one of the evil coorporations now (sigh). Since they make more money than you, they also violate your privacy and are anti-competitive just like Microsoft.
By this line of thought, the EFF should be fined for violating Apple's privacy by revealing their secrets openly to the public without discussing them with Apple first. P2P networks should all be illegal because they allow for the sharing of private individual's private data, too. Betanews--and for that matter, myself--should be fined because we just violated EFF's privacy in revealing this information. In fact, the fact that Apple didn't patent watermarking technology means they must have another patent dispute as well.
Anyone else think these privacy and patent lawsuits are becoming more and more insane? Oops, I can't use that word--forgot I didn't patent it (rolls eyes).
Score: 0
If it's like an MP3 style tag it'll just be removed by hackers.
It will be interesting to find out how it's applied to the file.
Score: 0
Or by legitimate users who care about their privacy!
(sigh)
--->it'll just be removed by hackers.
Score: 0
How in F(*&('s name would an MP3 tag threaten your privacy???
(Unless you shared it...ya know, illegally...)
Score: 0
@PC_Tool
Use your imagination. iPods are stolen all the time. Not everyone is a pirate, you corporate shill.
Score: -1
Maybe if, I don't know, the example given in the article itself happened, and someone happened to steal it? Sure, they COULD use that material for getting your device back to you, but... wouldn't it suck to first get your iPod stolen, and then to get sued by the RIAA because someone else dumped your music on the internet?
Score: 0
That's not even taking into account, Elf, the number of WiFi users that *unknowingly* leave their wireless router connection unsecured, thus putting their privacy at risk. Apple Airport, anyone?!
Score: 0
lmao...
Then you've got record of the stolen Ipod.
No big deal.
Score: 0
That's them doing it, not Apple.
Score: 0
And those stolen iPods get reported, there's record of it, and if you get sued, you have *nothing* to worry about.
See how easy that is?
I never said everyone was a pirate, you silly boy.
Man, I'm losing count of how many corporations I am apparently a shill of. Microsoft, Google, Apple, RIAA...the list grows daily.
I gotta ask, are shills the only folks who are allowed to not be paranoid? Are they the only ones who argue for personal responsibility and common sense?
Score: 0