5 ms·

So as about a million comments on Slashdot -- about as Apple-hating a place as you'll find -- pointed out, this patent application is basically for the phone eq

So as about a million comments on Slashdot -- about as Apple-hating a place as you'll find -- pointed out, this patent application is basically for the phone equivalent of OnStar's "someone stole my car, find it and shut it down" system, plus a couple extra features like taking a picture of the thief or detecting attempts to get through the passcode lock. The patent, if granted, will most likely be bogus, but the intent is perfectly reasonable. Of course, reasonable things don't generate lots of pageviews and donations, so it has to be spun into some megalomaniacal complex Steve Jobs has which drives him to want to spy on you, you personally and take away all your freedoms to suit his nefarious purposes. Which is vicious lying stinking reeking bullshit FUD, which is what EFF has lately taken to using as a signature tactic, which is why I no longer donate to them.

jarmop 16y ago
Analogy problem: You can't steal your own car. This application, bogus or not, is targeted to the possibility that you steal your own phone.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > This application, bogus or not, is targeted to the possibility that you steal your own phone. Uh... how? And what sense does that even make? How can you steal what you already own exactly?
  - nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
    If Apple doesn't agree with you that you own the software on the phone, then jailbreaking your phone is "stealing" the software from them...
    - alextgordon 16y ago
      It seems much more likely that they'll use this to recover stolen phones (which makes them money), than to spy on jailbreakers (which makes them no money, and will probably get them sued).
      - jrockway 16y ago
        You forgot part 3, where law enforcement compels Apple to activate this "feature" on whomever the suspect of the day is. Most people don't realize that they are trading their privacy for a shiny GUI when they buy an iPhone, which is why the EFF tries to remind them.
        masklinn 16y ago
        > Most people don't realize that they are trading their privacy for a shiny GUI when they buy an iPhone You do realize that you trade privacy for convenience every time you carry a cell phone with you — unless it's a one-time phone with prepaid SIMs — don't you? There is no need for "a shiny GUI" for that, be it Apple's, Google's or HP's.
        jrockway 16y ago
        That's true, but while my government-tapped phone can only harm my privacy, your government-tapped iPhone can harm everyone's privacy (by recording sounds and video and sending them to Apple's Centralized Server). Now, I know there is no "expectation of privacy" in public, but does anyone really expect that some random person's phone is recording a video stream of you and storing it indefinitely on a private company's servers?
        ubernostrum 16y ago
        Government agencies have used cellular phones as recording devices since long before there was such a thing as an iPhone. Take your meds and get some sleep.
        jrockway 16y ago
        Oh yeah. The government has already taken some privacy rights, so we should stop speaking out against taking more. You can do that, but I'm going to continue to support the EFF and ACLU. Take your meds and get some sleep. I wouldn't need the meds if the Internet wasn't so full of rhetoric like this!
    - masklinn 16y ago
      1. That doesn't even come close to technically incorrect. 2. Nothing in the application or idea of the software hints at such a use. A much more likely use case (the only sane one unless you're looking out for the black helicopters) is an extension of the existing "find my phone" set of features, which allow the phone's owner to locate and attempt to recover a lost or stolen piece of property
  - jrockway 16y ago
    By removing their Restrictions Management software.
- jsz0 16y ago
  That's how the EFF is choosing to spin it. A more reasonable person might view it as another opt-in security feature similar to Find my iPhone/Remote Wipe. The biometrics stuff is similar to Nike+ -- I'd love to see that built in and available to third party applications with my permission. It's one thing to educate people to the risks once a technology/feature is out there but to take a pre-emptive stand based on nothing but paranoid fantasy is dangerous. They might as well be advocating against TCP/IP since it's potentially a major privacy violation. Forget that it could be useful or facilitate new applications that people choose to use. The EFF has apparently turned into just another scummy political organization. I'd love to see a detailed audit of their donations/expenses. Something isn't quite right over there.
  - nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
    TCP/IP isn't owned and controlled by a single corporation with a history of restricting user freedoms...
    - jsz0 16y ago
      Neither is the SmartPhone. (though it is effectively owned by only a small handful of telcos in the US)
- Anechoic 16y ago
  This application, bogus or not, is targeted to the possibility that you steal your own phone. If Apple wanted to do this to prevent legitimate owners from jailbreaking their own phones, then why bother patenting (and therefore publicizing) the system? Why not just do it?
Natsu 16y ago
One interesting thing about OnStar is that it actually has been used for exactly the sort of remote bugging that the EFF fears Apple's program will get used for. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html And they've also done this with other cell phones: http://www.zdnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/150467 http://www.zdnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdr... Incidentally, I note that the reasoning given for why the OnStar case was reversed on appeal was that the bugging rendered the system unable to respond if there were an actual emergency. I'm not completely sure if this reasoning would also apply to a phone or not, but it might if using it as such would block 911 calls. It would be interesting, though, if they could activate the camera or something without blocking calls. And there's still nothing that would stop them from subpoenaing all of the information in Apple's possession, though they can and already do this with other cell phones, as I already mentioned. I still wonder about some of the strange data points they're gathering. What's up with gathering the user's heart rate, for example?
- Anechoic 16y ago
  >One interesting thing about OnStar is that it actually has been used for exactly the sort of remote bugging that the EFF fears Apple's program will get used for. Not quite the same thing, you're talking about the government using the OnStar system as a wiretap. In the government's case, they don't need an Apple-like system, they can just wiretap your phone with its built-in functions: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html
jrockway 16y ago
vicious lying stinking reeking bullshit FUD Isn't this exactly the same thing that you're speaking out against? Using emotional words to bias people in your favor? People do it because it works.

jarmop 16y ago

Analogy problem: You can't steal your own car. This application, bogus or not, is targeted to the possibility that you steal your own phone.

masklinn 16y ago
> This application, bogus or not, is targeted to the possibility that you steal your own phone. Uh... how? And what sense does that even make? How can you steal what you already own exactly?
- nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
  If Apple doesn't agree with you that you own the software on the phone, then jailbreaking your phone is "stealing" the software from them...
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    It seems much more likely that they'll use this to recover stolen phones (which makes them money), than to spy on jailbreakers (which makes them no money, and will probably get them sued).
    - jrockway 16y ago
      You forgot part 3, where law enforcement compels Apple to activate this "feature" on whomever the suspect of the day is. Most people don't realize that they are trading their privacy for a shiny GUI when they buy an iPhone, which is why the EFF tries to remind them.
      - masklinn 16y ago
        > Most people don't realize that they are trading their privacy for a shiny GUI when they buy an iPhone You do realize that you trade privacy for convenience every time you carry a cell phone with you — unless it's a one-time phone with prepaid SIMs — don't you? There is no need for "a shiny GUI" for that, be it Apple's, Google's or HP's.
        jrockway 16y ago
        That's true, but while my government-tapped phone can only harm my privacy, your government-tapped iPhone can harm everyone's privacy (by recording sounds and video and sending them to Apple's Centralized Server). Now, I know there is no "expectation of privacy" in public, but does anyone really expect that some random person's phone is recording a video stream of you and storing it indefinitely on a private company's servers?
        ubernostrum 16y ago
        Government agencies have used cellular phones as recording devices since long before there was such a thing as an iPhone. Take your meds and get some sleep.
        jrockway 16y ago
        Oh yeah. The government has already taken some privacy rights, so we should stop speaking out against taking more. You can do that, but I'm going to continue to support the EFF and ACLU. Take your meds and get some sleep. I wouldn't need the meds if the Internet wasn't so full of rhetoric like this!
  - masklinn 16y ago
    1. That doesn't even come close to technically incorrect. 2. Nothing in the application or idea of the software hints at such a use. A much more likely use case (the only sane one unless you're looking out for the black helicopters) is an extension of the existing "find my phone" set of features, which allow the phone's owner to locate and attempt to recover a lost or stolen piece of property
- jrockway 16y ago
  By removing their Restrictions Management software.
jsz0 16y ago
That's how the EFF is choosing to spin it. A more reasonable person might view it as another opt-in security feature similar to Find my iPhone/Remote Wipe. The biometrics stuff is similar to Nike+ -- I'd love to see that built in and available to third party applications with my permission. It's one thing to educate people to the risks once a technology/feature is out there but to take a pre-emptive stand based on nothing but paranoid fantasy is dangerous. They might as well be advocating against TCP/IP since it's potentially a major privacy violation. Forget that it could be useful or facilitate new applications that people choose to use. The EFF has apparently turned into just another scummy political organization. I'd love to see a detailed audit of their donations/expenses. Something isn't quite right over there.
- nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
  TCP/IP isn't owned and controlled by a single corporation with a history of restricting user freedoms...
  - jsz0 16y ago
    Neither is the SmartPhone. (though it is effectively owned by only a small handful of telcos in the US)
Anechoic 16y ago
This application, bogus or not, is targeted to the possibility that you steal your own phone. If Apple wanted to do this to prevent legitimate owners from jailbreaking their own phones, then why bother patenting (and therefore publicizing) the system? Why not just do it?

Natsu 16y ago

One interesting thing about OnStar is that it actually has been used for exactly the sort of remote bugging that the EFF fears Apple's program will get used for. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-5109435.html And they've also done this with other cell phones: http://www.zdnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdropping-tool/150467 http://www.zdnet.com/news/fbi-taps-cell-phone-mic-as-eavesdr... Incidentally, I note that the reasoning given for why the OnStar case was reversed on appeal was that the bugging rendered the system unable to respond if there were an actual emergency. I'm not completely sure if this reasoning would also apply to a phone or not, but it might if using it as such would block 911 calls. It would be interesting, though, if they could activate the camera or something without blocking calls. And there's still nothing that would stop them from subpoenaing all of the information in Apple's possession, though they can and already do this with other cell phones, as I already mentioned. I still wonder about some of the strange data points they're gathering. What's up with gathering the user's heart rate, for example?

Anechoic 16y ago
>One interesting thing about OnStar is that it actually has been used for exactly the sort of remote bugging that the EFF fears Apple's program will get used for. Not quite the same thing, you're talking about the government using the OnStar system as a wiretap. In the government's case, they don't need an Apple-like system, they can just wiretap your phone with its built-in functions: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

jrockway 16y ago

vicious lying stinking reeking bullshit FUD Isn't this exactly the same thing that you're speaking out against? Using emotional words to bias people in your favor? People do it because it works.