Apple seeking to patent spyware(eff.org)
eff.org
Apple seeking to patent spyware
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/steve-jobs-watching-you-apple-seeking-patent-0
12 comments
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
And they've also done this with other cell phones:
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?
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-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?
>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
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
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.
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.
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.
TCP/IP isn't owned and controlled by a single corporation with a history of restricting user freedoms...
Neither is the SmartPhone. (though it is effectively owned by only a small handful of telcos in the US)
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?
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?
> 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?
Uh... how? And what sense does that even make? How can you steal what you already own exactly?
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...
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).
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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!
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
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
By removing their Restrictions Management software.
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.
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.
From the patent description:
"Many [..] electronic devices are used frequently by
their owners, and the electronic devices may contain
personal or sensitive information stored within them. [..]
Accordingly, if the electronic device is lost or stolen,
the loss of the electronic device can be exceedingly
disruptive to the owner's peace of mind and security.
Thus, the owner may desire to find out where the lost
electronic device is located or who may have gained
possession of or stolen the electronic device."
"traitorware"? Wow, that's not unnecessarily inflammatory at all!
They're taking after the RMS school of linkbait PR — a mix of activism that's too earnest for all but their most strident supporters and neologisms so punny that even your dad would groan at them.
I know. I know. It isn't endearing when RMS or the FSF do it either. Turns me off from supporting them in the future.
OTOH, it keeps my $120 a year flowing.
True. But let's not make it sound like it's only a hackery community thing. Another example: Greenpeace (as opposed to other pro-enviornmental groups).
And depending on your world view, possibly Fox news. ;)
And depending on your world view, possibly Fox news. ;)
Well I would have to respectfully disagree. They are calling it what it is. I appreciate the simple and direct language.
What Apple is attempting to patent sounds almost exactly like the software that was at the center of that school-district spyware scandal a few months ago:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/webcamscanda/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/webcamscanda/
I'd be fine with this as long as it is an optional install. If the software is forced on you is where it becomes a problem. Apple could have the best intentions ever, but as mentioned in the article, if they have this capability the government, at some point, will come knocking.
"The Government" doesn't need this. Your standard phone already has everything it needs to locate you and tap your communications.
I disagree...the government will very much want this as I don't have a standard phone anymore because of cell phones. Many people are getting rid of their land-lines in favor of one phone. Not to mention that tapping my phone would likely require a warrant whereas in this situation they simply have to convince Apple it's in there best interest to comply.
Bogus articles like this, particularly from an organization with a serious reputation, obscures good articles that point out actual dangers. This is a patent on a form of lojack or extension to what's already available on the mobileme website. I am much more afraid of a thief using the stolen data than the government (who already have means to do this).
Answers the question: why do normal people, when they know the EFF exists at all, think it is a joke?
Well I never understood the phrase "normal people", that's sort of like "the real world", but given that "most people"(choose your study and scary high percentage) can't identify which century the civil was fought it and believe the president is a muslim, it wouldn't surprise me that normal people would think that an organization dedicated to protected their constitutional and civil rights was a joke.
> an organization dedicated to protected their constitutional and civil rights
The appeal to emotion aside, that sounds like serious work, maybe they should avoid sensationalist blog posts and snarky little nicknames like "traitorware" that make them sound childish.
I certainly take them a little less seriously now than I did before I read the linked blog post.
The appeal to emotion aside, that sounds like serious work, maybe they should avoid sensationalist blog posts and snarky little nicknames like "traitorware" that make them sound childish.
I certainly take them a little less seriously now than I did before I read the linked blog post.
Everyone here is talking about the sensationalistic headline from the EFF. What about all the hype and sensationalism that follows Apple products??
The EFF is trying to work in your best interests, for the sake of your privacy. Apple is not.
The EFF is trying to work in your best interests, for the sake of your privacy. Apple is not.
The danger is that it could backfire... ever read the fairy tale of the child who cried wolf?
Sensationalistic headline from EFF.
Then again, they need to raise some awareness, even though I am not always siding with them. I still do support the EFF.
Talk about prior art, Google already does most of this.
I've had Prey installed for some time (though I've never needed to use it).
http://preyproject.com/
It doesn't do the biometrics stuff, but then neither does Google.
http://preyproject.com/
It doesn't do the biometrics stuff, but then neither does Google.
It seemst hat MobileMe is getting a biometric update huh?
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.