Apple Applies For Patent To Remotely Disable iPhone After Detecting Unauthorized Activity Such As Ha
Comments
-
Briefly
1) apple never had open access but you bought (yes I know it was sometimes better - too much to address)2) remember when anything broadcast over common carrier was in the public domain so it was the business's job to protect content, say, by encryption. But that became too much trouble so business interest was protected by legislation instead and no longer the company's responsibility. So now it is a crime to de-encrypt cable content for private use and not the broadcasters responsibility.
4) Medicare patients cannot
patients cannot sellect ect and privately pay for the procedure of their choice. It is a crime unless unless deemed appropriate by the government.
I am a MD. And an EE.
5). Electronic medical records. All doctors are being slowly forced to implement. Who do you think this will benefit? In the 6th grade I thought this would be wonderful. Now I am terrified.
I hope the content and context make some sense.
Very limited by the format.
•••I don't say trust no one, but don't be sheep. Orwell would not believe our society. -
"fortunately the courts and the lawyers are still human..."
I try to be neither radical nor reactionary, and to look at recent history to interpret the meaning and effects of todays events. Not meant to be condescending, but apparently their are many who have absolutley no clue as to what is going on in our courts and society.
Some seem to think that personal rights and privacy are more important than corporate interests. Or, that the majority of people in business and government use common sense, logic, and fairness.
But consider (and I hope you see the relevance to many apples and few jobs) one set of laws for example. The Equal Opportunity laws, no discrimination based on religion, sex, race, etc. All very obviously appropriate. In fact, it is embarrassing that it even had to be written down. It's just the right way to treat people.
The right way to treat people. But there is a group that does not have to follow this law. That is members of congress. They made themselves exempt from the Equal Opportunity laws. Why? (after all, they're still human)
And we all are required by the law to be part of the Social Security system. Even though it is abused and going broke, we all still have to contribute because it's the law.
All except several groups, one of which is the members of congress. They have a separate system. wonder why?
Our government is the best in the world. But just because you believe something (I bought it, I have the right to modify it) does not make it true. Just because it is fair and makes sense (I bought it, I have the right to make changes in it) does not make it true.
Jobs can't do that. That can't happen here! OR... "this was written before that other article, there is really no malicious intent..."
WAKE UP.
Common Carriers. But now it is illegal to have a certain type of receiver set to a certain frequency. Or to have a pair of sine wave generators set to certain combinations of frequencies. Not just illegal to use them maliciously, which would be understandable. Beyond a certain point, malicious behaviour may be harmful and is stopped. But now it is illegal just to own some audio frequency generators set to the wrong combination of tones. This is scary.
Will the law make reprogramming a phone illegal, just because the new program is not approved by Apple, even though it doesn't harm anything or obtain services without paying??
In 1977 if you built an LC circuit to unjam the cable HBO channel, if you did not "publish" the content it was not a crime.
Even if not published, is it a crime today? Sorry for the political bent, but this is what everyone is talking about. We live in a great country. What direction are we going?
Don't rely on your warm feelings. Get data. Wake up.
-
with all this.. i can see only one man on this earth with an iphone - STEVE JOBS!!!! one jobless bugger
-
well put (to the post above mine) i agree w/you totally.. i love apple..i have an ipad, a mac and an iphone 3gs..was gonna buy a 4 but first the antenna situation started, then the bluetooth and proximity sensor problems..now this?? it was applied for in '08? doesn't mean won't happen..if it does..i won't buy a droid (i hate google) i'll keep my JB 3gs and then in the future won't know..i don't wish Steve Jobs to die of cancer..that's too harsh and cruel..i certainly don't agree w/this..but we all know apple loves to be in control..this time though I think they might've blown it. let's see what develops folks..hopefully it won't happen. but i will still love my ipad, mac and phone, regardless..they're the best products after all. Right?
-
Hitler of Cupertino CA.
-
What the ****
This is just outright crazy and dangerous if this was ever to be approved. What next asking permission to view **** sites. -
I think that this goes to new users on new devices, to prevent the device to been stolen and used by the "thief", the original owner can track and recover the device, I dont think that Apple implement this feature on old phones. Let's calm down, this is a far future.
-
'm not reading through all the comments but I would think it'd would be through a update to itunes for the whole checking if it's jail broke or not. i mean wouldn't that be the easiest way?
i don't use itunes you say? hell what about the new people to this game that seem to think they need to sync 5 times a day?
they program itunes to check a few things in the programing structure of your phone while it's "backing up", if anythings off BOOM no more jail break. -
Thats it.
I had it with Apple and their monopolistic practices. Is it legal for a car dealer to hold the keys of the trunk of your car and only allow you to open it when he seems fit? NO, Then why is legal for apple to prevent doing whatever I want with MY PROPERTY?
Is it legal for a car dealer to remotely turn off your car because you might have void the warranty? NO! Then how can it be legal for Apple to brick your phone if you don't do their bidding.
If this happens, we should all join a class action sue against Apple. After all the phone is not rented. IS OUR PROPERTY, and is us, NOT APPLE who decides how to use it.
In the mean time I WILL NOT SPEND A SINGLE DIME AGAIN of this FACIST COMPANY. Doing so makes me an accomplish to their practices.
-
Snowbreeze is coming with a new update :)
-
When you buy something its yours, not Apple's. The fact they want the right to disable your phone because they don't like what you are doing? I wouldn't like that at all, Even distributed under the guise "security and safety". They have given the users the right to do this themselves, which is where it should be.
-
No you can't sue for invading privacy! Cuz Apple is smarter than you. If they do such a thing they will of course have you sign off on a lot of fine print etc. What a dickweed u are!
-
Yes its urs, but they made it! duh! They can make you do whatever the hell they want you to do! After all you have to buy it, and they can make you sign fine print that allows them to do all the **** they ever want! Either that or no iphone! Duh!
-
There might have been a time when i would give myself away oh once upon a time i didnt give a damn but now, here we are, so what do you want from me what do you want from me
-
Chooo! Chooo!
-
F*** apple!!! Check out this video that shows you how to jailbreak iphone 4.0.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5g888h-kKg
-
its a phone wake up lets throw it away before its to late. f apple and any other rights taking bullshit.
-
Actually what you said there is simply retarded. When you buy it, it's your property. No one else has the right to tamper with it unless you give them a go ahead. You, sir, need to shut up and go cry in a corner somewhere.
-
Absaf**kinglutely. In Canada Apple would have the whole country in arms as this would definitely contravene a persons privacy. I mean the phone belongs to me not Apple. I own it and apple may own the RIGHTS to the operating system but they do not own the phone. The day this comes into being (if it ever does) I will NEVER buy or use anything manufactured, owned, operated or otherwise by Apple. Steve Jobs needs to join the real world and stop trying to become Big Brother.
-
Looking forward to android devices. Apple creates product for pussy's
-
I think Jobs is a bit eccentric these days..
I think he's totally lost the plot and will eventually be removed from his post as CEO.
I won't be buying another iphone or apple product again. I'm looking towards Android as it matures. I've heard they're going to make an Apple to Android emulator so you can have the best of both worlds.. Minus the Apple.. -
I completely agree as well. If Apple controls this tech, and not the end user, then they are essentially acting as Big Brother and watching your every move. Major Major Lawsuits! Other companies have tried this. Game manufactures, microsoft, to name a several... all shot down for invasion of privacy.
-
I don't think Apple cares as much about dev_team and jailbreaking as much as everyone thinks. We buy their products and we buy their apps.... Most likely the Big reason Apple puts so much effort into preventing/combating jailbreaking is because of "****". If Apple wasn't losing money in their app store because of this single jailbreak app, most of the issues would be null and void.
-
It would also be probably be unlawful for Apple to use that invention without the consent of the owner of the device.
Because it would probably violate the anti Computer break-in statutes passed in almost every jurisdiction in the world.
People have spent years in prison hacking into slower computers than your average iPhone or iPod Touch.
Especially with the iPod Touch where there is a warranty but no service contract or subsidy it would be very hard for Apple to try to point to a contract and say that the contract authorized their intrusion onto your device.
And *even if* they could convince a judge somewhere that the warranty authorizes that kind of activity legislators would probably amend the law to make it clear that this kind of shenanigans are not permitted.
Not to mention the bad press that would come out of it.
Also people would then start asking questions like if they can remotely disable a device for doing something they don't, What stops manufacture from disabling devices that are just plain old and the manufacturer is a little short on cash and has a new CEO that has no scruples.Or a more likely situation a dim witted employee at the manufacturer wants to get back at someone so they remotely disable all the stuff belonging to the person(s) they don't like.
It would be like Automakers putting in clauses in their warranties allowing the cars they make to be remotely disabled or seized if used or third party parts on the car's they make are installed.
