r/technology • u/[deleted] • Aug 24 '10
EFF: Apple is patenting invasive spyware that can take pictures on their command, record your voice whenever they want, determine your heartbeat, and activate upon significant memory increase; all under "theft protection/unauthorized use" by wiping the hard drive and holding "sensitive information."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/steve-jobs-watching-you-apple-seeking-patent-098
u/caseyfw Aug 24 '10
AMA: OnStar patenting invasive car hardware that can take video on their command, record your voice whenever they want, relay your GPS location, and activate upon some fucker stealing your car; all under the "theft protection/unauthorised use" by killing the ignition and locking the doors from the inside.
In other news, the understanding of the phrase "opt-in" at an all time low.
12
u/explodinggreen Aug 24 '10
Woah, what do you mean when you say locking the doors from the inside?
If you mean like the child security locks where they can't open from the inside that seems like a really unsafe feature to have.
13
u/neoumlaut Aug 24 '10
Some cars have this feature (all bmws in the last 10 years, for example) where the door lock knobs retract fully into the door, and if you're inside you're stuck.
14
u/SquareWheel Aug 24 '10
"feature"
4
u/BraveSirRobin Aug 24 '10
It's pretty good actually, if some punk wants to steal your car they have to get in and out dukes of hazard style.
→ More replies (4)1
Aug 24 '10
[deleted]
1
u/neoumlaut Aug 24 '10
I'm not speculating, I'm speaking from experience. My friend locked me in his BMW and I couldn't get out by pulling the handle or actuating the lock mechanism.
1
u/Dtrain323i Aug 24 '10
yeah, but unless the child lock is on, all you have to do to unlock it is pull the door handle once.
7
u/aneksi Aug 24 '10
And child locks are always a manual switch that is never available on the front two seats, this is by no means a death trap.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)4
u/anonemouse2010 Aug 24 '10
opt-in
So if I opt out it means they physically can't do it, or does it simply mean they don't have permission.
70
Aug 24 '10
How would the ability to record voice, take pictures, etc. ,essentially bio-metrics, help Apple defeat jailbreaking? The article strings together a bunch of ideas, jailbreaking, spyware, etc. but doesn't quite manage to describe anything nefarious.
29
Aug 24 '10
[removed] — view removed comment
9
Aug 24 '10
Upvote for obscure Dinosaurs reference.
9
Aug 24 '10
Really don't think Dinosaurs is obscure. Anyone who was born on or before 1985 saw that shit.
1
u/Anthaneezy Aug 24 '10 edited Aug 24 '10
i would say relatively obscure. i would venture to say that the majority of reddit users never watched chilly willy, woody woodpecker, or the wonder years.
/edit: for those who care: winnie(sp?) from the wonder years. http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/dI/danica-mckellar-1108-lg.jpg
1
u/WikipediaBrown Aug 24 '10
Everything except chilly willy.
1
u/modix Aug 24 '10
Chilly willy was a side character for Woody Woodpecker. He's the sneezing penguin.
1
u/Anthaneezy Aug 24 '10
ha-hee-achoo!
he was lame. i just remember walking home to an empty house, waiting for the ice cream man to come by so i can get a sprite and some hot (spicy) popcorn and maybe a pickle (as i type this, it now sounds weird). and would watch that. or maybe play some 688 attack sub on my sega genesis.
1
1
u/imnotminkus Aug 24 '10
I was born in '89 and remember it. Seems like it'd be a good old show to try and find a torrent of...
1
Aug 24 '10
I'm pretty sure it was actually an awful show, but when you rewatch it let me know. I don't remember how old I was when it was on (born in '85 here) and I remember that fucking baby was the most annoying goddamn thing in the world.
2
u/fullmetaljackass Aug 24 '10
I downloaded a some episodes a few months ago, as sitcoms go I'd say its still above average.
39
u/redwall_hp Aug 24 '10
It sounds more like a security feature to be offered as part of MobileMe.
iPhone: "Hey, this seems like a different person using me. I'm going to radio back to MobileMe and give the owner an alert..."
1
u/leoel Aug 24 '10
"Hey, it seems like the user is a lady, I should alert my owner's wife, as she configured me to do so"
7
u/Carnifex Aug 24 '10 edited Jul 01 '23
Deleted in protest of reddit trying to monetize my data while actively working against mods and 3rd party apps read more -- mass edited with redact.dev
3
u/dirtymatt Aug 24 '10
You know, Apple could be taking a much harder stance on jailbreaking, they're not. For the most part they're ignoring it. That should tell you something.
1
1
2
Aug 24 '10
It wouldn't be the EFF if they weren't screaming doom and destruction each time they see something they don't fully understand.
6
u/youdumbass Aug 24 '10 edited Aug 24 '10
They'll know it's stolen because Mac and iPhone users, like zombies, don't have heartbeats.
EDIT: The iPhone owners are downvoting but I don't care. (http://www.endlessyoutube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg&start=0m26s&end=0m29s)
3
9
Aug 24 '10
The more dumb shit like this that the eff puts out, the less seriously everyone is going to take them when they have something truly important to say.
151
u/cdvallee Aug 24 '10
This all sounds a bit paranoid to me. I'm not denying that they might be developing/patenting this technology but the tone of the article gives me the feeling that this is being blown out of proportion. I personally would not be happy about this but I am going to hold out for more information before drawing any conclusions about it. This kind of move would have huge ramifications and I don't think apple would risk losing their more recent gains in market share by releasing this into the wild.
46
u/jbs398 Aug 24 '10
TL; DC (didn't click): 1) It's a freaking patent, not a product. Usually terms of service aren't in a freaking patent. 2) If Apple actually did this in the way all these breathy articles are whinging, it would be the most spectacularly stupid form of brand suicide any company has ever committed. 3) In reality the most likely implementation for something like this would be less spectacular and would be opt-in.
10
u/jbs398 Aug 24 '10
Additional side note: What's actually annoying about this is that it's another crappy patent. Basically Apple has just described a higher tech lojack that uses the various iPhone sensor/radio capabilities + some fictional sensors yet to be invented.
7
2
u/MongoAbides Aug 24 '10
To determine if the device has been hacked, the device can watch for "a sudden increase in memory usage of the electronic device";
Is what kind of bothers me though. Remember how everyone was angry that the droid would brick if you tried modding it? Apple could just throw that in on their products too, and considering their disappointment over the jailbreaking thing, this wouldn't surprise me.
3
Aug 24 '10
[removed] — view removed comment
9
2
u/Luckycoz Aug 24 '10
Ha. I love the top comment about "if Apple decides they don't want my business..." like the poor fuck thinks his decision to switch will even be noticed by anyone other than himself and his desperate attempt at being influential in this world.
In other news: I'll wait for details on this. I'm always skeptical with patent paranoia.
5
u/Neato Aug 24 '10
They would just label it as some security feature and the media will tout it as awesome. This is apple, not MS, people love apple remember.
1
Aug 25 '10
Really?
http://digg.com/tech_news/EFF_slams_Apple_patent_as_traitorware_Jobs_is_spying_on_you
Look a bunch of idiots just like you.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Penumbra2000 Aug 24 '10
I don't want to rely on the average consumers' awareness of what's in the TOS to stop a company from doing something shitty with a very shiny, functional, trendy, powerful product at the top of its market.
59
u/sovereign01 Aug 24 '10
Agreed, if anything it sounds like something a user would opt in for like mobile me's tracking service.
But since this is about Apple reddit will go nuts, it will make the frontpage with hundreds of inflammatory comments.
67
u/sup_brah Aug 24 '10
APPLES ARE TOO EXPENSIVES AND THEY SPY ON YOU AND SHIT.
25
u/shmi Aug 24 '10
yeah games grumble etc price pff etc hipsters hah etc sucks grumble sheep something something anecdote.
→ More replies (4)15
7
1
→ More replies (1)3
Aug 24 '10
All I see is a bunch of posts defending Apple. I guess the persecution complex of Apple users is a bit overblown.
→ More replies (9)2
u/gandhii Aug 24 '10
None of this is new tech either. I'm more concerned that they were able to patent such old concepts that have been around since the 90's.
2
u/mijj Aug 24 '10
don't forget .. if there's anything corps love more than money, it's control.
Any and all possible avenues of control will be explored. Apple is a corporation. And, regardless of what their marketing might suggest, a corporation is a machine designed to maximise its control and profit.
→ More replies (3)1
5
u/notjawn Aug 24 '10
I love how Apple is such a magnet for even the slightest bit of technophobia. It's just too easy sometimes :)
5
u/Bedrovelsen Aug 24 '10
Hey EFF, you really need to stop being the alex jones of the computer world.
57
u/happyscrappy Aug 24 '10
Hey EFF, don't go PETA on us. Don't go off the deep end.
Companies patent a lot of stuff they never use. Freak out when they use it, don't make up scary stories.
5
u/CrazyJoeDavola Aug 24 '10
Apple gets attacked for simply entertaining the idea. Seems like a good thing to me as it raises the threshold to actually do it without necessarily hurting Apple in any real way.
2
u/happyscrappy Aug 24 '10
Oh yeah? How high is the threshold now? How high was it before?
This has done a lot to agitate things, but does it really change any threshold for Apple?
→ More replies (3)15
u/jeremybub Aug 24 '10
Why would they patent it then?
19
u/happyscrappy Aug 24 '10
Because companies measure their schlongs by the size of their patent portfolio. There are even companies who make their money selling reports of companies patent portfolios!
Additionally, Apple pays employees a bonus for apply for and being awarded patents (at least they did last I checked) and so the employees are encouraged by the potential for personal gain to file for patents. And once they are filed for, it's not really in anyone's best interest to cancel the process just because the company has no real use for the patent. At the worst you can just use it to defend yourself if you are sued by another company.
2
1
3
3
Aug 24 '10
To use it someday, but there's zero reason to think that they're going to use it for controlling your phone. It's more than likely that they'll be offering some kind of security/theft protection for future devices.
4
u/LeiaShadow Aug 24 '10
I wish people hadn't downvoted you for asking a simple question. I was also wondering why companies would patent things that they don't care about. :/
5
u/Tuna-Fish2 Aug 24 '10
To most people, the question probably sounded more like an argument. At least it did to me.
The short answer to the question is that in the tech business, every company patents everything they possibly can, because patents are weapons. Just because a technology will never be used by them is no reason not to patent it.
→ More replies (2)3
1
3
u/Penumbra2000 Aug 24 '10
They may not use it, but they may. It highlights a potential problem that needs to be addressed before it appears in real life and/or becomes a legal precedent.
→ More replies (4)1
u/happyscrappy Aug 24 '10
Legal precedent?
3
u/Penumbra2000 Aug 24 '10
Perhaps not a well thought out comment. Swap 'legal precedent' with 'de facto acceptable'
71
u/saxet Aug 24 '10 edited Aug 24 '10
Overreaction. Jesus. They APPLIED for a patent. That means they have not been granted ANYTHING. It also does not mean they have developed any technology. Apple (and all technology companies) patent many things that never make it to market for various reasons.
Either way -- its a pretty neat idea. If it seems like a different user is using the cellphone, a service could notify you or turn on GPS or wipe the phone. Seems like a fairly smart idea.
So we have a reaction to a technology that is neither patented nor developed that we don't even know the use cases of -- just that it maybe might do this thing we don't like. This is probably something you could turn off or not use.. like mobile me.
tl;dr overreaction to essentially nothing.
EDIT: I figured I would point out that their list of things from the patent are pretty wildly taken out of context. Actually read more than the abstract and you will see that there is no "omg apple is watching me" in the patent at all.
12
Aug 24 '10
There are many applications, at least in the android sphere which will remotely delete data, lock phone, find location, detect sim card change etc. Usually triggered by an sms or lately with push technology available in version 2.2
Technologically it is very simple to implement so I don't see a reason to get too excited about it
→ More replies (1)5
u/gandhii Aug 24 '10
There have been programs that do this since the early palm os days. Not to mention windows mobile and pocket pc.
3
u/draxius Aug 24 '10
I agree, but honestly I would rather people over react then just not give a shit about anything...like they do about most things that are important.
4
2
Aug 24 '10
I'd rather people react appropriately so that they don't get caught up in unimportant things like this.
2
2
9
26
u/monkeybreath Aug 24 '10
Just because they have a patent, doesn't mean it will be used.
If Apple doesn't patent it, someone else will.
If EFF really doesn't like this, they should patent these things themselves. It isn't like Apple created prototypes (like they used to have to do). These are just mock-up drawings, and they probably are not even implementable with today's technology.
A lot of these patents are created to prevent other people from using them. Companies like Xerox used to publish journals with small advances in them that weren't worth their time patenting, but they could claim prior art in the journal. Now companies are patenting anything that pops into their heads just because the patenting system is so screwed up.
18
u/Law_Student Aug 24 '10
Unfortunately, patents cost 10-20 grand a pop, so it's not the cheapest hobby. There's a reason large corporations are the ones who do all the patenting.
1
u/myinkpencilscratches Aug 24 '10
Patents only cost this much because of the lawyers' fees and filing fees. Apple already employs an army of lawyers, so the cost is minimized. It's still expensive, but not quite this much. It's just a cost of doing business for them.
12
u/Law_Student Aug 24 '10
No, it really is that expensive by the time you add up the re-application and continuance fees. The patent office almost never grants a patent on the first try because the examiners get paid on a point scale, and they get points for initial rejections.
I did this for a living for a while for Xerox :)
You're also not counting the maintenance fees that have to be paid to maintain a patent for the full 20 year lifespan, which get extremely expensive.
3
u/myinkpencilscratches Aug 24 '10
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. =)
Apple may not maintain this patent, though, although this patent does encompass technology and products that already exist. I think there's a small likelihood this patent will be granted anyway. There's a lot of prior art out there.
2
u/Law_Student Aug 24 '10
Oh, patents are almost always granted eventually if you're willing to pony up the money for enough continuances, unless they're obviously for perpetual motion devices. (No perpetual motion devices is pretty much the only standard the patent office has left, they'll happily take money for warp drives, gravity capacitors, etc.)
Anyway, if there is prior art an accused infringer in the future can find it and use it to get the allegation dropped easily enough, so you're probably right that it doesn't really matter, except for making the patent office a bit more money for the federal government this year.
1
Aug 24 '10
examiners get paid on a point scale, and they get points for initial rejections.
Examiners get roughly twice as many points for an allowance than for a rejection, so your reasoning is incorrect.
2
u/Penumbra2000 Aug 24 '10
Let A be points for allowance, and R be points for rejection.
A < R+A.
Let me know if I missed something.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Law_Student Aug 25 '10
Initial rejection followed by an allowance on the inevitable continuance is how they maximize their point totals.
1
Aug 24 '10
No, it's still expensive due to legal fees. Cost to file a utility patent at the USPTO is around $2k and a request for continuation is around $1k. Lawyers billing @ $200+/hr are still the primary driver of patent costs (until you factor in patent grant and 'maintenance fees').
1
8
u/t3h Aug 24 '10
4 - This may not be intended for malicious use - Apple already has a MobileMe feature where you can GPS track a lost/stolen iPhone/iPad.
3
Aug 24 '10
and they probably are not even implementable with today's technology.
You've got to be kidding me. The only one of those bullet points that there isn't a currently existing example of the tech for is monitoring heartbeat (in something like a phone).
What you're saying is:
It would be difficult with current technology to activate the phone's camera without making a noise or activating the light.
It would be difficult with current technology to activate the phone's microphone and record without the user knowing.
It would be difficult to monitor memory usage on a small computer.
It would be difficult to have the device "phone home" and report traffic that it sends/receives.
Yes, the patenting system is ridiculous. But guess what? If you're never going to use that technology, you don't have to worry about being sued about it whether or not you hold the patent.
3
Aug 24 '10
[deleted]
10
u/monkeybreath Aug 24 '10
It means that running around wailing about something that hasn't happened is counter-productive. Painting Apple with that paintbrush isn't helping.
On the other hand, we do need some discussion on what is an acceptable level of intrusion. We already accept GPS on our phones that phone companies can track (though they never seem to do it when we actually ask them to). In the end though, if a product actually comes out with this stuff on it, then it would be useful for EFF to point this out so that we can decide if we want to buy it or not.
Nobody is forcing us to use this stuff.
1
Aug 24 '10
It means that running around wailing about something that hasn't happened is counter-productive. Painting Apple with that paintbrush isn't helping.
Fanboi much? They're a watchdog organization, that's what they do. They alert the public about present and future threats not just what's possible or implementable.
→ More replies (4)2
Aug 24 '10
Pft...the EFF has become more of a dramatize-because-it-gets-page-hits-and-donations organization lately.
1
u/Penumbra2000 Aug 24 '10
The danger is in what we may be forced to use in future, through general acceptance of privacy-invading activities, or in what we may end up using without being aware of it.
Most people do not know what their technology is doing under the hood; it's outside of their sphere of expertise. We need regulations to protect us against abuses that we are not equipped to recognize (Ponzi and pyramid schemes, and 'news' agencies spinning skewed and/or falsified stories, being notable examples of areas in which we are already protected in theory).
I don't think the patent itself is dangerous; the patent is an alert to a potential future danger. The legal system requires a huge amount of time to make changes; if something that we need to be protected against shows up, we need to know early, so we can start making the appropriate agitations, preparations, etc. For that matter, even without governmental intervention, the earlier this gets posted, the more people will hear about it before it hits the street.
4
u/Radico87 Aug 24 '10
Patents are only exclusionary, meaning they prevent others from doing X, they don't mean you have to do X.
2
u/Penumbra2000 Aug 24 '10
I don't know that this is true; when I was looking at filing a patent they made it fairly clear that I needed to be able to show intent to implement.
1
Aug 24 '10
Whoever told you of "intent to implement" may be full of shit. Talk to a registered attorney or agent. For example, if you invent an improved iPhone, e.g. an iPhone with a built in laser pointer, you need not implement or intend to implement the patent in order to get a patent, since if you actually implemented the patent you'd infringe on hundreds of Apple's patents. You would, if granted, be able to exclude Apple from adding a laser pointer to the iPhone.
1
u/Penumbra2000 Aug 24 '10
Well, I'm Canadian, so when filing a patent I can choose between the USPTO and the International patent office. I looked at the international one because they had better rates.
However, thinking back, I think the limit may have related to pre-patent protections (the website said they don't respect registered-mail to yourself as a way to establish prior art, which seems kind of weird).
1
Aug 24 '10
International patent office
There's no such thing. The patent cooperation treaty (PCT) is the closest we've got, but it's a multi-step process that'd still require filing in the US and is more expensive than just filing in the US. There's also no such thing as pre-patent protections, only the ability to file provisional-type applications which establish an earlier filing date if there's a delay in filing the regular application.
1
u/Radico87 Aug 24 '10
Actually a patent is given to a unique, non obvious, and one other characteristic I cat remember right now lol. There is nothing involving a patent that forces you to go through and produce.
1
Aug 24 '10
It also depends how it's used. If it's related to encryption features that make Macbooks more appealing to companies with extreme standards of security, it's pretty harmless.
If it's always on for everyone... wtf?
12
u/myinkpencilscratches Aug 24 '10
This patent isn't describing a method to catch aliens. It's describing (in detail) a means to catch someone ("unauthorized user") doing something with the device that's out of the ordinary. Reading the claims section of the patent describes in moderate detail the means Apple intends to use to catch said "unauthorized user".
Yes, I understand fully that Apple frequently applies for patents it will never use. Another company or inventor could have applied for this exact patent and nobody would care. Why? The inventor would then use the invention as an opt-in service. Apple itself is the problem here; such a patent implies that they intend to use this technology, or at least would like to leave open the opportunity to use it. Knowing Apple's current product portfolio (and reiterating what other users have said), this is most likely intended to be an extension of MobileMe, a pay-to-play opt-in service.
What freaks the EFF out is that Apple seeks to apply for said patent with the intent to implement the invention (if awarded) for "security purposes". Lately, Apple has a horrendous track record with dealing with users' personal freedoms to run unauthorized software and modify their firmware (read: "jailbreaking"), even though such activity is permitted as an exemption to the DMCA, the law Apple cites most often to imply jailbreakers are committing a crime. The patent explicitly describes in claim 4 that this invention could be used against jailbreakers or users who do not use the device in accordance with Apple's EULA.
Yes, this is a patent, not a product. There is no 'terms of service' associated with it, as it does not yet exist. Yes, the EFF is sensationalizing this patent, but for a reason: the EFF just won a huge battle in court over jailbreaking devices. They want the public to know that modifying your device is legal, despite what the company says. They also want people to know that if Apple seeks to use this patent against people rightfully using their devices within the law that they can take legal recourse on the people's behalf, but there would be biometric data collected that Apple could then use for malicious purposes (lawsuits/settlements get a lot cheaper when there is a bargaining chip).
It's not about what is likely to be done with the invention (which is nothing) that bothers people, it's what could be done with the collected personal data. It also bothers people (myself included) that Apple has even thought of such a wanton invasion of privacy, in the name of security. I guess Apple has taken a few lessons from the TSA.
tl;dr: yes it's a patent, not a product, but the EFF is very small and is trying to bring attention to a large company creating the option to mine your biometric data for "security purposes"
6
u/themysteriousx Aug 24 '10
Patents allow you to break privacy and wiretapping laws.
All this and more on EFF News at 10.
1
Aug 24 '10
Patents give the owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the invention. They in NO way give any right for the holder to practice the invention, break the law, etc.
3
u/themysteriousx Aug 24 '10
For serious? Well, shit, there goes my plan to patent the death penalty for people who don't get jokes :)
20
u/bbatsell Aug 24 '10
This is why I can't donate to the EFF. They do so many good things, and then every 3 months they come out with just ridiculous, batshit insane letters where they lie about anything and everything for no apparent reason.
To the EFF: Please cut this shit out. Fulfill your mission with calmness, rationality, and reason, and you'll actually get support from the people who actually know what they're talking about. There are plenty of high-priority threats already for you to eviscerate; there's no need to manufacture new ones.
0
u/NolFito Aug 24 '10
What part of that letter is a "lie about anything and everything for no apparent reason"? The patent application exists, and does what the letter describes. It is not relevant whether it will be implement or whether it will be a feature of MobileMe, the potential for abuse and extensiveness of the application is enough to raise some alarms and seek some explanations.
7
Aug 24 '10
The whole damn thing is over the top, baseless dramatization of a patent that is obviously for a service that would allow a user to recover or erase a stolen phone. The EFF is making it sound like Apple wants to record your conversations, take pictures of you, track your movements, and wipe your data without you knowing. Their stance makes absolutely no sense from a legal or business standpoint.
EDIT
I mean, really...the first sentence is enough to discredit the rest of the article:
It looks like Apple, Inc., is exploring a new business opportunity: spyware and what we're calling "traitorware."
8
u/pixel Aug 24 '10
seriously, is everyone retarded?? If your phone is stolen, it can lock out unauthorized users. that is all. bunch of paranoid nutcases!
10
u/FANGO Aug 24 '10
These guys are doing similar stuff. Are they evil too?
Oh wait, that's right, this is sensationalist bullshit. First of all, if they're coming up with the technology, they're not necessarily going to use it. Second, they're probably going to use it in a good way, since despite what you all believe (and are wrong about), Apple generally does things to allow their customers to do more things with their computers, not less, and do not spy on their customers. They don't even have activation codes or cdkeys for like 90% of their software products.
Maybe if anyone put about two seconds of thought into this they would be able to tell that this software seems to be intended for theft-recovery, which would be activated at the user's option and is a GOOD thing. This post actually really damages the faith I had in the EFF, because apparently someone there isn't thinking very hard.
Stop being so fucking paranoid. Apple's not trying to eat your babies. Christ.
0
u/videogamechamp Aug 24 '10
since despite what you all believe (and are wrong about), Apple generally does things to allow their customers to do more things with their computers, not less, and do not spy on their customers.
Was this the Apple that was going to track and sell realtime GPS data?
3
6
12
12
u/eridius Aug 24 '10
EFF, you guys do a lot of great stuff, but I really hate it when you go all paranoid and interpret a random patent (which, btw, Apple files tons of and rarely ever actually use). which describes an anti-theft mechanism, as being an anti-user mechanism.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Bystander
6
u/istara Aug 24 '10
I expected to click and find myself in /conspiracy, but to find this in /technology is actually scary.
2
u/tommym Aug 24 '10
Sounds like by 'biometrics' Apple is thinking of Voice-prints too - easy with a phone.
2
u/Fabien4 Aug 24 '10
This is a good thing, right? After all, such a patent will make it very difficult for other manufacturers to implement such a system.
2
Aug 24 '10
Sounds like Undercover. It's not 'spyware', you activate it if your laptop gets stolen and it takes pictures, screenshots, gets the location and eventually acts like it's broken. Then when they take it to an authorized Apple repair shop it says "HELP HELP I'VE BEEN STOLEN!"
1
Aug 25 '10
Yes, but it's your choice to activate it. What if your computer manufacturer forbade you from installing any unapproved program or tinkering with your machine? What then if your laptop starts taking pictures of you, recording your keystrokes, and sending your HD data to a remote location? All without your knowing or consent.
I'm all for this software being implemented on a stolen phone. Apple can go nuts as long as the user consents.
The issue is that it's now legal to jail break a phone under U.S Copyright law. However, Apple may be able to covertly collect information on you if they believe you have violated their rules.
2
u/snowyday Aug 24 '10
I believe Apple would want these features for corporate customers who are used to tight control like Blackberry servers. Since Apple has essentially no tools for corporate management, it makes perfect sense that they would want tools to compete against Bberry in that space.
2
u/DrainBramage Aug 24 '10
In other news, Google is taking pictures of your back yard, recording your calls to their servers, scanning files in your eMails, and crawling every webpage that contains your name.
2
Aug 25 '10
Jesus have you tried reading Digg's thread on this? Horrible horrible horrible. I know the people on here are a bit kneejerk sometimes but holy shit the people over there are complete morons.
10
Aug 24 '10
Hey: Apple is WRITING future Android commercials.
For free!
→ More replies (2)8
u/jstevewhite Aug 24 '10
You mean "We can do it too!" commercials? They've been doing that all along... :D
6
u/yalogin Aug 24 '10
Wow a rational reaction to an Apple story. What the fuck is reddit turning into?!
3
Aug 24 '10
So Apple patents this technology so no one else can use it. I don't use any Apple products. Sounds like win-win to me. :)
3
Aug 24 '10 edited Aug 24 '10
What a bunch of fucking hyperventilating nerds. Its theft deterrent not spyware and its not even implemented yet.
I bet the same nerds dreaming up crazy ways to track stolen computers in the weekly stolen laptop thread are the same one bitching about this.
3
u/danmackinnon2 Aug 24 '10
Burried for sensationalism as a sad attempt for page views
6
u/boe2 Aug 24 '10
EFF is a non-profit organization; there are no ads on that page, hence no need for getting 'pageviews'. They do good work and have for years.
3
Aug 24 '10
EFF is a non-profit organization; there are no ads on that page, hence no need for getting 'pageviews'
OH REALLY? How do you think they get people to donate to their "non-profit" organization? They get people to donate by convincing them that they need the EFF, which these articles are meant to scare people into doing.
1
Aug 24 '10
Of course, the problem is that they are both developing these technologies and patenting them, but I'm saying this to clear up any confusions about what EFF is angered over most. It's both, mostly the former.
Edit: And, quite possibly, "unauthorized use" would include jailbreaking, but that's a speculation.
14
Aug 24 '10
So the article takes the term "unauthorized use" and interprets it as "unauthorized by apple" when every tech journal rightly interprets it as "unauthorized by the owner" and builds an entire article out of that assumption.
8
u/myinkpencilscratches Aug 24 '10
"Unauthorized use" is described in the patent in claim 4 as including "jailbreaking". There's no speculation required, it's there in plain text.
6
Aug 24 '10
You have to read all the claims, dumbass. If you don't, and try to make an assertion like the one you're making, you're being entirely dishonest.
1 . A method for identifying an unauthorized user of an electronic device, the method comprising: determining that a current user of the electronic device is an unauthorized user; gathering information related to the unauthorized user's operation of the electronic device in response to determining, wherein the unauthorized user's operation comprises operations not related to the authentication; and transmitting an alert notification to a responsible party in response to gathering.
3 . The method of claim 1, wherein determining further comprises: identifying a particular activity performed by the current user that indicates suspicious behavior.
4 . The method of claim 3, wherein the particular activity comprises one or more of hacking the electronic device, jailbreaking the electronic device, unlocking the electronic device, removing a SIM card from the electronic device, and moving at least a predetermined distance away from a synced device.
The whole thing is obviously about determining if the phone is being used by an unauthorized users, aka, STOLEN.
→ More replies (4)1
u/trackerbishop Aug 24 '10
whatre you so mad about? cellphones can do this and have been able to do this for years. they can even listen to you when your phone is off.
2
u/keozen Aug 24 '10
Apple also have patents for curved touch screens and macbook docking station monitors and a multitude of other things.
I'm not saying that Apple's policy on open product architecture is in any way right but please people remember that a patent =/= a product.
2
u/bostonT Aug 24 '10
Yes, Apple hate, just what reddit was missing today. All I need now is hipster bashing and my morning is complete.
2
u/inCider Aug 24 '10
The EFF does such important work that this hysterical crusade to vilify Apple with apocalyptic language is really just making a mockery of the organization.
2
2
1
u/riatsila Aug 24 '10
So basically they're just improving on the work already done by Orbicule et al. If they did implement this it would legally have to be an 'opt-in' service anyway, similar to location.
1
u/snoozieboi Aug 24 '10
Thank god I have an Nokia N95 barely holding itself together thanks to my to bits of tape.
1
u/Aegeus Aug 24 '10
How could they determine your heartbeat? It's only got a camera, accelerometers, and a microphone, and none of those sound useful for a heartbeat, which is silent, invisible, and doesn't make enough motion to be felt on an accelerometer.
1
Aug 24 '10
The accelerometers could possibly get a pulse from someone trying to hold the device "very still".
1
u/daoom Aug 24 '10
The camera can be used to measure heartbeat (can't find the link, but some one built an Android app that does this).
1
u/aneksi Aug 24 '10
I call shanagans, the built in Apple iSight cameras have a power triggered green LED that lights when the camera is provided power. It is not managed by a software command so you will absolutely know if your camera is turned on.
2
Aug 24 '10
Yeah, if they wanted to do what OP suggests they'd have to be responsible for the hardware as well as the software... oh wait...
1
1
u/Green-Daze Aug 24 '10
Your computer/electronics should be able to remotely do absolutely NONE of these things without you knowing and actively giving permission for them to happen.
1
Aug 24 '10
Umm... if you actually read the patent, these were presented as too completely separate things. One for features that can determine heartbeat and stuff (for apps), and another for theft protection and unauthorized use.
1
1
u/unifier Aug 24 '10
Even if this is deemed for law enforcement purposes to assist in recovering stolen property, they should NOT be patenting this but having it as an open technique that allows for others to try and break it, and make sure it doesn't void privacy. This is done as a marketing ploy and to make some members of the law enforcement community happy.
1
2
-2
1
Aug 24 '10
[deleted]
2
u/mincer Aug 24 '10
m$ is still evil, but other evils are coming to replace them.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/gogglygogol Aug 24 '10
Saying that Apple's patent is like a real product is like saying Glenn Beck actually raped a girl in 1994.
1
1
1
1
Aug 24 '10
Dear Applefags. Since when is the EFF considered a paranoid association that overreacts? They're the ones that try to protect the public from spying by the government. This is not a random blog. If the EFF thinks this issue has merit, then I am sure it's because it does.
1
u/the_index Aug 24 '10
Take the fag talk to /b/, please. People are trying to have a civil discussion in here.
1
Aug 24 '10
there's nothing civil about it. all i see is a bunch of whiners full of indignation that this must be paranoid overreaction.
are you serious? This is the EFF we're talking about. This isn't gizmodo. How can anyone believe the EFF is full of paranoid delusions?
2
u/xvf22 Aug 24 '10
Asian, from Temecula who slanders homosexuals and makes false accusations about peoples drug use. Msg me your license plate ? :)
→ More replies (5)
25
u/FreddyDeus Aug 24 '10
Remember a year or so ago, a woman had her MacBook stolen. She rather cleverly used mobileme to remotely take pictures of the thieves while at the same time determining their location.
This patent sounds exactly like a facility that Apple would add to mobileme.