8 ms·

The “walled garden” becomes a prison for reality

118 points by octopus 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago
Since buildings and items can also be copyrighted, would it be a stretch to add recognition software to the photo app, so that you can't take a snapshot in front of a copyrighted building or teapot anymore? Personally I'd say, let's blow up all the copyrighted buildings and things (and erase copyrighted videos, books and music). Since I am not allowed to process their existence in any meaningful way, I'd rather they don't exist at all.
- codingthebeach 15y ago
  Or a widely-available portable shunting device that broadcasts the "no video recording" code within a certain range. Attach a unique ID to each device. Create a bureaucracy to handle the registration and geolocation of such devices. Schools, libraries, govt offices, would all be equipped with them. Make possession of a jailbroken recording device in these areas a felony, of course. And equip the police with mobile versions so they can create a "cone of silence" around incidents and arrests, putting a stop to those pesky police brutality vids that keep popping up on YouTube.
- brudgers 15y ago
  [IANAL] In the US the design of buildings and other structures may be protected by copyright. However, this does not affect one's ability to photograph the building or structure and the legal precedents surrounding the commercial use of images containing copyright protected works remain unchanged.
billswift 15y ago
Interesting. I submitted this 3 days ago. Isn't the software supposed to catch duplicates that recent? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2662662 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2662662 ADDED: Thanks, it just occurred to me to check the URL and I noticed that.
- Luyt 15y ago
  It was reposted with an extra question mark in the URL, that way the duplicate detection was bypassed: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3331?
brudgers 15y ago
Restrictive licensing terms for software on the iPad &c. do not indict all non-open source software. Apple's hardware based approach to limiting device function is in many important ways less conducive to misuse than one based on geolocation or device ID (not to suggest that it is a good thing) because it does not rely on receiving and processing information about specific individuals. My wild ass speculation is that Apple's research in this area may be a result of the popularity of their devices within the US military for whom the capability to affect function at a distance would have meaningful tactical application and for whom it would make sense to fund the underlying research - it is difficult to see a significant revenue stream for Apple from the commercial market given the many alternatives to Apple's products for illicit recording of performances.
atacrawl 15y ago
Until Apple releases hardware/software that turns this patent into a reality, I'll leave the aluminum foil in my pantry.
- giberson 15y ago
  Realize, silence is interpreted as consent. If you wait until the hardware has been produced and implemented into the product before voicing concern--then it's already too late.
- cageface 15y ago
  What sense does this make as a defensive patent?
  - rmc 15y ago
    The optimist could say that this prevents any mobile phone device having this feature, and hence Apple can defend the common man against opression.
    - cageface 15y ago
      That much trust in the altruism of any major corporation goes beyond anything that could reasonably be called optimism. Is there any precedent in Apple's patent history for this courageous leap of faith?
      - rmc 15y ago
        When it suits their interests it has been a boon to the general public. Their refusal to 'licence' their DRM system used on iPods/iTunes, and their refusal to allow another DRM system (as well as their own) on iPods meant that if you weren't Apple and wanted to sell music, and didn't want to cut of 75% of your customers (those with iPods), you had to sell it in un-DRMed MP3s. Admitidly, the only reason Apple did this was to support the sale of iPods, but still.
        15y ago
cageface 15y ago
Hard to say if just filing a patent on this is a sign of any sinister intent but I do agree with his earlier argument that Apple has placed its bets on the big content cartels and the iPad is a delivery device for the products of such. You could argue that iTunes has made self-publishing easier than before but if you actually shop in the iTunes store all you're ever going to see is Justin Bieber and American Idol and other major label garbage unless you already know what you're looking for. Don't forget that Steve is on the board of Disney. Maybe it's slightly less user-friendly but a less centralized net is healthier and more interesting in the long run. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
- AllenKids 15y ago
  Which is why I want Google to be split into 6 companies and everybody should avoid Facebook Like button and comment system like a plague. Too centralized!!!
  - william42 15y ago
    I have the Facebook Disconnect extension for Google Chrome installed for a reason.
    - AllenKids 15y ago
      I'm sure you believe you are making a difference. /runofthemillsnarkycomment
- technoslut 15y ago
  Isn't it a bit much to say that Apple has sided against the consumer? They certainly didn't do that with publishers when they wouldn't give up subscriber data and they didn't show it with their constant battles with the music industry and NBC. Regarding music discovery on iTunes, it has always been the case that if you want good music you're going to have to look for it. Popular music has always been the easiest to find, be it on iTunes or your local record store. My main concern is that iOS forces you to buy music only from iTunes. As for the patent, Apple patents anything. It doesn't mean it'll ever see the light of day. Some other ridiculous Apple patents: Apple patent application reveals ad-supported OS, desktop Armageddon http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-application-reveals-ad-supported-os-armageddon/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-application-... Timely Apple Patent Introduces iMac-Like Docking Station http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2008/01/timely-apple-patent-introduces-imac-like-docking-station.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2008/01/timely-a... Apple patent shifts controls to rear of iPod http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-shifts-controls-to-rear-of-ipod-105191/ http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-shifts-controls-to-rea...
napierzaza 15y ago
I haven't jail broken in a while because I don't have a need for tethering. If I go on a trip where I need it I will JB. And if Apple ever does this I will JB it too. If they somehow prevent JB'ing I will switch to another device.
- bad_user 15y ago
  The danger with this mentality is that you are still their customer, making them more powerful, giving them more control. And when you'll switch to that other device, it may be too late to do that, as you won't be able to find a suitable device in a world where (a) Apple has a monopoly on such devices or (b) everybody else mimics them, yielding similar control over you. Vote with your wallet, buy Android phones with unlocked bootloaders.
scythe 15y ago
>Demand Android in your phones Is it just me or is this not a sufficient demand? If we are to live in a truly open world, we need software which is truly Free, not something which is developed on top of open-source. Google Chrome is no more open source than is Mac OS X. It is confusing to see people count adoption of Chrome as a victory for the open-source community when frankly it seems like anything but.
- spot 15y ago
  you've never heard of chromium?
  - scythe 15y ago
    I've heard of Chromium, just as I have heard of Darwin. Regardless, the proportion of users who use these technologies is a vanishingly small fraction of the Chrome and OS X marketshare.
    - kamechan 15y ago
      but at least an open source version does exist. IIRC, the reason there is an open and non-open source version of chromium/chrome is that chrome contains some proprietary 3rd party software that cannot be open sourced.
      - scythe 15y ago
        >but at least an open source version does exist. So what? If the goal is to promote the users' freedom, what use is it to develop software they do not use?
        freyrs3 15y ago
        Chromium is used quite frequently on the Linux side of things. Distros like Arch Linux and Debian distribute only Chromium in their main repos.
- 15y ago
billybob 15y ago
One comment I found interesting: "And I didn’t check the source [of OpenBSD] for trojans or backdoors. Do I trust Theo DeRaadt that much? Not particularly, though I have nothing against him. Do I trust “the community”? No. Mostly I just didn’t care at all." I agree that in practice 1) it's not practical for anybody to audit an entire OS for security and 2) you don't know everyone in the community. However, I think it's reasonable to feel safer using software that's audited and trusted by brilliant libertarian nutjobs than software that isn't. And if you truly DID need to know that a product didn't contain back doors, and it was worth enough money to you, you could hire people to audit it and stick to the specific version that you'd audited. Most people don't care about this stuff. But I like knowing that some people do; that push come to shove, when your government becomes a tyranny, there ARE tools that are beyond their reach. And in many parts of the world, tyranny is not theoretical.
ChrisLTD 15y ago
Luckily Apple is patenting this technology, so folks with other makes of camera phones wont have these restrictions.
api 15y ago
I'm starting to really dislike Apple for a number of reasons, but I can't switch. No, not can't, but it would be tough. Why? Because nobody else cares about design or user experience. Apple is the only company on Earth that can design a user interface, and their products are the only well designed (read: minimal... in industrial design, minimal is a synonym for good) products IMHO. Everything else is covered by marketing-idiot-driven pimples like the "ThinkVantage" button on ThinkPads, etc., and both Windows and Linux UIs are horrible. Edit: to clarify, what I'm really pointing out is that Apple has a near-monopoly, and like any near-monopoly they are starting to leverage it in disturbing ways. Their near-monopoly is on good industrial and UI design.
- lukifer 15y ago
  I've been an enthusiastic Apple user since around 1993, and I have tremendous respect for their engineering and design. But IMHO, they've long since passed the threshold for antitrust investigation. If I had my druthers, every device manufacturer (including game consoles) would be federally mandated to offer some way of sideloading software. Hell, at least let people run their own code on it without having to buy a developer certificate! As it stands, Apple has all the same incentives to behave badly as Microsoft did in the 90s, if not more so.
  - jonhohle 15y ago
    But what do they have a monopoly on (isn't a monopoly required for antitrust investigations in the US)? Good taste? Surely that's free for anyone.
    - lukifer 15y ago
      My (admittedly poor) understanding of antitrust is that it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but rather it's illegal to abuse that monopoly position in anti-competitive ways. And aside from the consumer rights issues of walled gardens, there are serious conflicts of interest with Apple offering services such as iTunes and iBooks while also being the sole software vendor for competitors such as Netflix and Kindle.
    - 15y ago
omouse 15y ago
so the "extremist" Richard Stallman was right all along?
samlevine 15y ago
Most consumers don't care about negative liberty, they care about positive liberty. You want people to have more freedom? Build a better phone than an iPhone with a more convenient platform to get software and media with better support, better stores to buy them in, etc.

118 points by octopus 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

Since buildings and items can also be copyrighted, would it be a stretch to add recognition software to the photo app, so that you can't take a snapshot in front of a copyrighted building or teapot anymore? Personally I'd say, let's blow up all the copyrighted buildings and things (and erase copyrighted videos, books and music). Since I am not allowed to process their existence in any meaningful way, I'd rather they don't exist at all.

codingthebeach 15y ago
Or a widely-available portable shunting device that broadcasts the "no video recording" code within a certain range. Attach a unique ID to each device. Create a bureaucracy to handle the registration and geolocation of such devices. Schools, libraries, govt offices, would all be equipped with them. Make possession of a jailbroken recording device in these areas a felony, of course. And equip the police with mobile versions so they can create a "cone of silence" around incidents and arrests, putting a stop to those pesky police brutality vids that keep popping up on YouTube.
brudgers 15y ago
[IANAL] In the US the design of buildings and other structures may be protected by copyright. However, this does not affect one's ability to photograph the building or structure and the legal precedents surrounding the commercial use of images containing copyright protected works remain unchanged.

billswift 15y ago

Interesting. I submitted this 3 days ago. Isn't the software supposed to catch duplicates that recent? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2662662 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2662662 ADDED: Thanks, it just occurred to me to check the URL and I noticed that.

Luyt 15y ago
It was reposted with an extra question mark in the URL, that way the duplicate detection was bypassed: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3331?

brudgers 15y ago

Restrictive licensing terms for software on the iPad &c. do not indict all non-open source software. Apple's hardware based approach to limiting device function is in many important ways less conducive to misuse than one based on geolocation or device ID (not to suggest that it is a good thing) because it does not rely on receiving and processing information about specific individuals. My wild ass speculation is that Apple's research in this area may be a result of the popularity of their devices within the US military for whom the capability to affect function at a distance would have meaningful tactical application and for whom it would make sense to fund the underlying research - it is difficult to see a significant revenue stream for Apple from the commercial market given the many alternatives to Apple's products for illicit recording of performances.

atacrawl 15y ago

Until Apple releases hardware/software that turns this patent into a reality, I'll leave the aluminum foil in my pantry.

giberson 15y ago
Realize, silence is interpreted as consent. If you wait until the hardware has been produced and implemented into the product before voicing concern--then it's already too late.
cageface 15y ago
What sense does this make as a defensive patent?
- rmc 15y ago
  The optimist could say that this prevents any mobile phone device having this feature, and hence Apple can defend the common man against opression.
  - cageface 15y ago
    That much trust in the altruism of any major corporation goes beyond anything that could reasonably be called optimism. Is there any precedent in Apple's patent history for this courageous leap of faith?
    - rmc 15y ago
      When it suits their interests it has been a boon to the general public. Their refusal to 'licence' their DRM system used on iPods/iTunes, and their refusal to allow another DRM system (as well as their own) on iPods meant that if you weren't Apple and wanted to sell music, and didn't want to cut of 75% of your customers (those with iPods), you had to sell it in un-DRMed MP3s. Admitidly, the only reason Apple did this was to support the sale of iPods, but still.
      - 15y ago

cageface 15y ago

Hard to say if just filing a patent on this is a sign of any sinister intent but I do agree with his earlier argument that Apple has placed its bets on the big content cartels and the iPad is a delivery device for the products of such. You could argue that iTunes has made self-publishing easier than before but if you actually shop in the iTunes store all you're ever going to see is Justin Bieber and American Idol and other major label garbage unless you already know what you're looking for. Don't forget that Steve is on the board of Disney. Maybe it's slightly less user-friendly but a less centralized net is healthier and more interesting in the long run. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

AllenKids 15y ago
Which is why I want Google to be split into 6 companies and everybody should avoid Facebook Like button and comment system like a plague. Too centralized!!!
- william42 15y ago
  I have the Facebook Disconnect extension for Google Chrome installed for a reason.
  - AllenKids 15y ago
    I'm sure you believe you are making a difference. /runofthemillsnarkycomment
technoslut 15y ago
Isn't it a bit much to say that Apple has sided against the consumer? They certainly didn't do that with publishers when they wouldn't give up subscriber data and they didn't show it with their constant battles with the music industry and NBC. Regarding music discovery on iTunes, it has always been the case that if you want good music you're going to have to look for it. Popular music has always been the easiest to find, be it on iTunes or your local record store. My main concern is that iOS forces you to buy music only from iTunes. As for the patent, Apple patents anything. It doesn't mean it'll ever see the light of day. Some other ridiculous Apple patents: Apple patent application reveals ad-supported OS, desktop Armageddon http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-application-reveals-ad-supported-os-armageddon/ http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/apple-patent-application-... Timely Apple Patent Introduces iMac-Like Docking Station http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2008/01/timely-apple-patent-introduces-imac-like-docking-station.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2008/01/timely-a... Apple patent shifts controls to rear of iPod http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-shifts-controls-to-rear-of-ipod-105191/ http://www.slashgear.com/apple-patent-shifts-controls-to-rea...

napierzaza 15y ago

I haven't jail broken in a while because I don't have a need for tethering. If I go on a trip where I need it I will JB. And if Apple ever does this I will JB it too. If they somehow prevent JB'ing I will switch to another device.

bad_user 15y ago
The danger with this mentality is that you are still their customer, making them more powerful, giving them more control. And when you'll switch to that other device, it may be too late to do that, as you won't be able to find a suitable device in a world where (a) Apple has a monopoly on such devices or (b) everybody else mimics them, yielding similar control over you. Vote with your wallet, buy Android phones with unlocked bootloaders.

scythe 15y ago

>Demand Android in your phones Is it just me or is this not a sufficient demand? If we are to live in a truly open world, we need software which is truly Free, not something which is developed on top of open-source. Google Chrome is no more open source than is Mac OS X. It is confusing to see people count adoption of Chrome as a victory for the open-source community when frankly it seems like anything but.

spot 15y ago
you've never heard of chromium?
- scythe 15y ago
  I've heard of Chromium, just as I have heard of Darwin. Regardless, the proportion of users who use these technologies is a vanishingly small fraction of the Chrome and OS X marketshare.
  - kamechan 15y ago
    but at least an open source version does exist. IIRC, the reason there is an open and non-open source version of chromium/chrome is that chrome contains some proprietary 3rd party software that cannot be open sourced.
    - scythe 15y ago
      >but at least an open source version does exist. So what? If the goal is to promote the users' freedom, what use is it to develop software they do not use?
      - freyrs3 15y ago
        Chromium is used quite frequently on the Linux side of things. Distros like Arch Linux and Debian distribute only Chromium in their main repos.
15y ago

billybob 15y ago

One comment I found interesting: "And I didn’t check the source [of OpenBSD] for trojans or backdoors. Do I trust Theo DeRaadt that much? Not particularly, though I have nothing against him. Do I trust “the community”? No. Mostly I just didn’t care at all." I agree that in practice 1) it's not practical for anybody to audit an entire OS for security and 2) you don't know everyone in the community. However, I think it's reasonable to feel safer using software that's audited and trusted by brilliant libertarian nutjobs than software that isn't. And if you truly DID need to know that a product didn't contain back doors, and it was worth enough money to you, you could hire people to audit it and stick to the specific version that you'd audited. Most people don't care about this stuff. But I like knowing that some people do; that push come to shove, when your government becomes a tyranny, there ARE tools that are beyond their reach. And in many parts of the world, tyranny is not theoretical.

ChrisLTD 15y ago

Luckily Apple is patenting this technology, so folks with other makes of camera phones wont have these restrictions.

api 15y ago

I'm starting to really dislike Apple for a number of reasons, but I can't switch. No, not can't, but it would be tough. Why? Because nobody else cares about design or user experience. Apple is the only company on Earth that can design a user interface, and their products are the only well designed (read: minimal... in industrial design, minimal is a synonym for good) products IMHO. Everything else is covered by marketing-idiot-driven pimples like the "ThinkVantage" button on ThinkPads, etc., and both Windows and Linux UIs are horrible. Edit: to clarify, what I'm really pointing out is that Apple has a near-monopoly, and like any near-monopoly they are starting to leverage it in disturbing ways. Their near-monopoly is on good industrial and UI design.

lukifer 15y ago
I've been an enthusiastic Apple user since around 1993, and I have tremendous respect for their engineering and design. But IMHO, they've long since passed the threshold for antitrust investigation. If I had my druthers, every device manufacturer (including game consoles) would be federally mandated to offer some way of sideloading software. Hell, at least let people run their own code on it without having to buy a developer certificate! As it stands, Apple has all the same incentives to behave badly as Microsoft did in the 90s, if not more so.
- jonhohle 15y ago
  But what do they have a monopoly on (isn't a monopoly required for antitrust investigations in the US)? Good taste? Surely that's free for anyone.
  - lukifer 15y ago
    My (admittedly poor) understanding of antitrust is that it's not illegal to have a monopoly, but rather it's illegal to abuse that monopoly position in anti-competitive ways. And aside from the consumer rights issues of walled gardens, there are serious conflicts of interest with Apple offering services such as iTunes and iBooks while also being the sole software vendor for competitors such as Netflix and Kindle.
  - 15y ago

omouse 15y ago

so the "extremist" Richard Stallman was right all along?

samlevine 15y ago

Most consumers don't care about negative liberty, they care about positive liberty. You want people to have more freedom? Build a better phone than an iPhone with a more convenient platform to get software and media with better support, better stores to buy them in, etc.