While those uses may be ``legitimate'' in the sense that they enforce social norms, it is important that users are able to use their own discretion; laws exist-

While those uses may be ``legitimate'' in the sense that they enforce social norms, it is important that users are able to use their own discretion; laws exist---where appropriate (and sometimes not)---to help deter such things, but a citizen has a right to disobey that law if they so choose. If Apple decides to implement this technology, they are choosing enforcement before any legal process: They, or whomever is controlling such an anti-feature, are acting above the law, because these devices so heavily influence their users' lives. Lawrence Lessig goes into the concept of social norms and the dangers of this type of enforcement in Codev2 (http://codev2.cc/); http://codev2.cc/); he summarizes it as follows: > Thus, four constraints regulate this pathetic dot—the law, social norms, > the market, and architecture—and the “regulation” of this dot is the sum of > these four constraints. Changes in any one will affect the regulation of the > whole. Some constraints will support others; some may undermine others. > Thus, “changes in technology [may] usher in changes in . . . norms,” and the > other way around. Who decides what is and is not a ``good'' time to use this anti-feature? The RIAA might want this feature enabled during concerts, for example, and try to compel Apple to do so---DRM in the real world. This is a slippery slope that one should not go down. > [...] stopping cameras in a locker room or other place where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Sort of like I have a reasonable expectation when using my personal devices?