Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when "unauthorized usage" is detected

By Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | August 20, 2010, 8:05am PDT

Apple has applied for a patent that some will think is highly beneficial, and others will think that it takes snooping to a whole new level.

Here’s what’s being claimed by the patent:

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.

2 . The method of claim 1, wherein determining further comprises: determining the identity of the current user; comparing the determined identity to the identity of one or more authorized users of the electronic device; and detecting that the determined identity does not match the identity of at least one of the one or more authorized users.

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.

5 . The method of claim 1, wherein gathering further comprises gathering one or more of screenshots, keylogs, communications packets served to the electronic device, and information related to a host device coupled to the electronic device.

6 . The method of claim 1, wherein the alert notification comprises a general message indicating that an unauthorized user has been detected.

7 . The method of claim 1, wherein the alert notification comprises at least a portion of the gathered information.

8 . The method of claim 1, further comprising: gathering information related to the identity of the unauthorized user in response to determining; and gathering information related to the location of the electronic device in response to determining.

9 . The method of claim 1, further comprising: restricting at least one function of the electronic device in response to determining.

10 . The method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting sensitive data from the electronic device to a remote storage; and erasing the sensitive data from the electronic device.

11 . An electronic device operable to detect an unauthorized user of an electronic device, the electronic device comprising: a processor operable to: receive an input from a current user of the electronic device; determine the input is not associated with an authorized user of the electronic device; and record usage information of the electronic device in response to determining; and communications circuitry operable to transmit the usage information to a remote device.

12 . The electronic device of claim 11, further comprising: a microphone operable to record the voice of the current user; and wherein the processor is further operable to: compare the recorded voice with voice prints of authorized user of the electronic device; and determine that the recorded voice does not match the voice print of any authorized user of the electronic device.

13 . The electronic device of claim 11, further comprising: a heartbeat sensor operable to detect the heartbeat of the current user; and wherein the processor is further operable to: compare the detected heartbeat with heart signatures of each authorized user of the electronic device; and determine that detected the heartbeat does not match the heart signature of any authorized user of the electronic device.

14 . The electronic device of claim 11, further comprising: an input device operable to receive an authenticating input for authenticating a user of the electronic device; and wherein the processor is further operable to: determine that a predetermined number of successive incorrect authenticating inputs have been received.

15 . The electronic device of claim 11, further comprising: a camera operable to take a photograph of the vicinity of the electronic device; and positioning circuitry operable to determine current location information of the electronic device; and wherein the processor is further operable to: geotag the photograph by associating the photograph with the current location information.

16 . The electronic device of claim 11, further comprising: an accelerometer operable to record a vibration profile of the electronic device; and a signal processor operable to compare the recorded vibration profile with a library of vibration profiles to determine a current mode of transportation of the electronic device.

17 . A system comprising: an electronic device comprising; an input device operable to receive a password provided by a user; a camera operable to take a photograph of the user; a processor operable to: determine that a predetermined number of incorrect passwords have been successively received; direct the camera to take a photograph of the user; and generate an alert notification in response to the processor determining, wherein the alert notification comprises information related to the identity of the user and the photograph of the user; and communications circuitry operable to transmit the alert notification to a remote device.

18 . The system of claim 17, wherein: the camera is operable to take a plurality of photographs of the surroundings of the electronic device; and wherein the processor is further operable to: analyze each of the plurality of photographs to identify distinguishing landmarks in the photographs; and determine the location of each photograph based on the identified distinguishing landmarks.

19 . The system of claim 17, wherein the alert notification is transmitted via one of text message, facsimile, VoIP application, instant messaging application, on-line profile application, on-line blog application, and a cloud server.

20 . Machine-readable media for identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device, comprising machine-readable instructions recorded thereon for: 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 authentication; and transmitting an alert notification to a responsible party in response to gathering.

21 . The machine-readable media of claim 20, further comprising machine-readable instructions recorded thereon for: determining the identity of the current user; comparing the determined identity to the identity of one or more authorized users of the electronic device; and detecting that the determined identity does not match the identity of at least one of the one or more authorized users.

Pretty wide-reaching stuff.

Authorized users can be determined using facial recognition, voice recognition, heartbeat sensor or by monitoring for suspicious activity. Once unauthorized usage is detected, a mass of logging mechanisms could be bought into play:

When an unauthorized user is detected, various types of information can be gathered (e.g., information related to the identity of the current user, information related to the current user’s operation of the electronic device, information related to the electronic device’s location, or any combination of the above) and a responsible party can be notified with an “alert notification”. In some embodiments, the alert notification can be a general message conveying that the electronic device is not in the possession of an authorized user. For example, a message such as, “Warning, your cellular phone may have been stolen” or “Your electronic device may be in the possession of an unauthorized user” can be sent to the responsible party. In some embodiments, the alert notification can include any of the information gathered when an unauthorized user is detected (e.g., photographs of the “thief,” voice recordings, screenshots of the electronic device, keylogs, a listing of communication packets (e.g., Internet packets) served to the device, the electronic device’s location, geotagged photographs, photographs of the surrounding area, or mode of transportation of the electronic device).

This could be far more useful than the current security mechanisms and remote wipe offered to iPhone/iPad owners currently.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

HP to launch webOS tablets in 2011

What do buyers look for in a new computer? A short history ...

Topics

Method, Device, Notification, Apple Inc., Photograph, Identity, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Cybercrime and the problem of online identity verification

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

111

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

Thank god Apple is a benevolent dictator though..

Raid6 26th Aug 2010

It is very reassuring that through the wisdom flowing from all the Apple and Steve Jobs Zealots we all can rest assured knowing deep down that is Apple as a company is a good, well run, honest, and ethical. And we can finally just accept the superiority of Steve Jobs as a human, scratch that, as a deity (and no minor one at that).

Apple does not try to control behavior or limit consumer options. The process of getting app aproval, the truth about why they deny so many apps in the app store, the reason that iTunes is required to activate an Apple device, the litigation preventing low budget bums from trying to offer a more affordable option for consumers who cannot quite afford that mighty Apple computer, and the limitations placed on iPad users from using Flash is really for yours and my benefit.

Why can we all not just understand that this is not about limiting competition, increasing profits and controling behavior?

Apple while seeking to make a profit does so with a sense of compassion and understanding not seen in the corporate world by and large.

No, Apple is just a fabulous company with a long history of being above the fray, not seeking litigation to bully its competitors, to dominate and control any competition. Stupid Cisco and their pathetic claims to the 'iPhone' name, after all if they don't defend their patent every single time some pimple faced kid uses it then they really do not desire to own it...Apple was well with in their right to just take the name.

Yes, we can all agree that Apple is as pure as the wind driven snow and so as a final statement we should all just accept that this patent attempt is meant to help us, not hurt us.

After all, if Apple wants it, if Apple thinks it, then it must be good and it must be right.

Gotta run, Steve needs his shoes tied...

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

Yeah, who determines "unauthorized"?

terry flores 20th Aug 2010

The only things that are missing are the ankle or wrist shackles and the self-destruct explosive. Maybe a new function for the lithium battery?

I guess it's not surprising, except in the extent of how much spying is contemplated and what kind of data could potentially be collected. I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds turned around to the other cellphone makers and demanded all of these "features" be included across the board. Of course if Apple turned on this kind of data collection, the AT&T network would instantly collapse.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Johnaltha 20th Aug 2010

@terry flores
So very true, AT&T would fall apart the moment they turned it on. Its really sad actually, because years back AT&T used to be the top - notch carrier then the iPhone missile hit, and where here now.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Maybe more importantly: uses vs users

Economister Updated - 20th Aug 2010

@terry flores

The title says "uses" while most of the patent text seems to refer to "users".

If I asked to borrow your phone to make a call and you let me, would I be an unauthorized user from Apple's perspective?

If you perform unauthorized use (unauthorized by whom?) on YOUR phone, will Apple disable your phone.

Thanks, but no thanks. I think I would take my business elsewhere, and Apple can keep their patent.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

As if there was any doubt Economister...

i8thecat 20th Aug 2010

@Economister

Yes, we get it, you hate Apple and everything Apple... Yawn...

You would have to be pretty stupid to think this patent applies to regular consumers... It is incredibly obvious that this patent is for enterprise/government IT. And from an enterprise/government perspective, having that kind of control over your devices is very attractive.

0 Votes

+ -

Pretty stupid

Economister Updated - 20th Aug 2010

@i8thecat

Well, the history of Apple's conduct makes it VERY likely that you are wrong. Currently, they are trying very much to control their consumer customers.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

richardw66 Updated - 20th Aug 2010

@Economister

You're a conspiracy theory nut aren't you?

This patent specifies collecting the data and sending the data only in case of the device detecting unauthorised use, and the responsible party being notified first.

So the phone first doubts the user is authorised.

A party selected by the phone's owner gets notified.

That party decides that there is a problem and turns on the surveillance.

Then the phone starts sending data.

As far as surveillance goes this is not really new - it is the detection methods that trigger the alert that are new. Also some of the proposed analysis of the collected data is new.

But sending back pictures from stolen devices has been reported in the news already.

Apple already will provide location data of stolen devices.

So why do you think that Apple offering this detection feature is control?

If you perform unauthorized use (unauthorized by whom?) on YOUR phone, will Apple disable your phone.

Unauthorised by the owner - stupid!!!

Apple will disable your phone if the party that you give that control to says to - again they will do this now!!!

Motorola phones will blow a fuse if you hack them BTW - and they won't ask anyone first!!!

Google collects location data and internet surfing data already. Google even collects iPhone location data.

Well, the history of Apple's conduct makes it VERY likely that you are wrong. Currently, they are trying very much to control their consumer customers.

No - there is no real evidence of this - they control what they sell on their site.

iTunes will load pretty much any content onto the device, drag and drop. Legal or illegal.

Web Apps do not go through the App store and are not at all under Apple control at all, and you do not need any agreement with Apple to develop them, and the tools are free from Apple.

0 Votes

+ -

Irrational and delusional

Economister 20th Aug 2010

@richardw66

Some of the posts in this blog must have really gotten to you. I will not waste my time on you except to point out a few obvious facts:

1. If you start with my original post, basically pointing out a simple contradiction, your post is quite over the top.

2. "i8thecat" called me stupid for not getting that the patent is for corporations and governments only, but you claim it is useful for any phone owner. So which one is it, Mr. oracle.

3. Look up "conspiracy" in the dictionary. It is hard for Apple to conspire by itself.

4. "Unauthorised by the owner - stupid!!!" Well, I think there is substantial evidence to show that "unauthorized by Apple" has consequences. But being an obvious Apple fan boy, your rose colored glasses do not let you see that. happy

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Master Skywalker 21st Aug 2010

@i8thecat No, "WE" don't get it. There's a valid serious concern for privacy there...You're the one that doesn't get it. Basically, Apple can decide how we use our devices, where and when. That approach is closer to Steve Job's dream of us not being owners of the stuff we buy from him, we would only own a license. Now it turns out my iPad, that I bought with MY money, that I got from doing MY (totally legal and honest) job isn't mine to do with it whatever I please, it's his and he'll tell me what to do with it! ROTFLMFAO!!
And you're so naive if you think this is only for gov. employees LOL Corporations always try to abuse technologies, until someone freeze them in their tracks.
Information is power and all those corporative a**holes (Google, Facebook) are trying to get as much info as they can from us. They are trying to tell us what to do, when and where. If you don't believe it, read what google's CEO said in an interview not long ago: "People want us (google) to tell them what to do". I don't need another corporation telling me to "Think Different" (that means think like them) or what to think, buy or do. I don't need them to spy on me more than they already do.
Oh, and for the record, I don't hate Apple.but I'm not a FANBOI either.

0 Votes

+ -

Another view

Economister 21st Aug 2010

@Master Skywalker

I don't know what Apple will ultimately use those patent for, but I share your concerns. Here is a link:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/20/apple_jailbreak_patent/

0 Votes

+ -

Do you know how to read Economister??? Master Skywalker, grow a brain...

i8thecat Updated - 23rd Aug 2010

@Economister said, "2. "i8thecat" called me stupid for not getting that the patent is for corporations and governments only, but you claim it is useful for any phone owner. So which one is it, Mr. oracle."

Where did I say it was useful for any phone owner brainiac???

Master Skywalker...

Apple sells computers and devices.. you are free to hack them however you like... Yes tard boi, you can load anything you want on them, do anything you like with them, stuff them in any orifice you please... But like any company, Apple also says, if you do, it voids your waranty and don't cry to us if by doing so, you brick or hose your device. There isn't a company is existance who does it any different and I challenge you to prove me wrong...

Apple doesn't decide how or when, you do, you always have, you always will.

Have you done any research on the iPhone Configuration Utility??? Do you even know what it is or what it does???

Here.. curb your ignorance... http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/

And then tell me this patent doesn't fit like a glove for Enterprise/Government IT...

At a consumer level, ask yourself this... Who is going to admin this security feature???

Apple (only for thier own employees).

AT&T, like they care if you lose your phone, they would rather sell you a new phone and re-up your contract for another 2 years..

So who is left to admin this security feature??? (you do realize this all has to be set up before you lose the phone???) Who issues the remote wipe, who issues the command to take a photo with a geotag and upload it to what server? Or do you think Apple will be selling a magical iPhone with an AI that will self protect and somehow find you by dialing the person sitting next to you in a restaurant and tell you where it is??? You obviously have zero grasp on reality and technology.

Oh, and for the record, I'm a Mac, and Windows 7 was my idea...

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Pete "athynz" Athens 23rd Aug 2010

@i8thecat And why is it you keep on with the insults when someone does not agree with your point of view?

What we are seeing here with this patent is another part of the war of Apple vs jailbreakers. Apple likely knew that they would lose the ruling about the legality of jailbreaking and so filed this patent to essentially hose those jailbreakers who refuse to go with the vision of the iPhone as Apple intended.

Oh and i8thecat - here's a link to the patent for you:

http://www.patentvest.com/console/reports/docs/app/20100207721.html

Tell us exactly where this patent says it is applicable to just enterprise/government IT.

0 Votes

+ -

Your stupidity no longer suprises me athynz....

i8thecat 24th Aug 2010

@athynz

You inability to grasp the obvious is getting kinda old and boring... OK.. So I'll try to explain it so even a paranoid tard like you can understand...

What we are seeing here with this patent is Apple doing some CYA by patenting their intellectual property so that the rest of the wannabes can't blatantly steal it... We are talking about some beefed up security features that both Enterprise and the Government would find attractive.

But where does it specifically state that this is for business in the patent you ask???

Well moron, patents don?t specifically state marketing and applicable demographic information? But with a little common sense, it is painfully obvious? (for everyone but you athynz)..

The term "responsible party" is key... That would be the owner of the device(s) (you know.. the person(s)/ company legally responsible for the devices being controlled... The owner)... Since these security methods also requires administration and equipment, including a publicly facing server, that pretty much excludes consumers (and lets those with more than 2 brain cells know this is aimed at Enterprise / Government IT)... Granted a consumer can download the Enterprise Deployment Guide along with the iPhone Configuration Utility and admin their own iPhones.. Providing they wanted to?

http://www.apple.com/iphone/business/

There is no war on Jailbreakers you paranoid little freak... Apple never went after the dev team (whom you don?t know, have never met, but yet foolishly claim you trust) nor anyone else who wrote SW to jailbreak a iPhone? Apple never took legal action against anyone for Jailbreaking.. They only claimed it wasn?t wise to do so... Jailbreaking is legal (granted it?s also extremely stupid), if Apple was to use this to brick consumer phones on purpose, it would leave them open massive class action lawsuits... Apple doesn't strike me as being that incredibly stupid... No war doofus, just paranoid delusions?

Now for the second part of your moronic paranoid stupidity... You think Apple is going to administer this security feature for regular consumers??? Do you have any friggin clue as to how many employees they would have to hire??? Alternate emergency contact information for every customer, configuring all that info into a management console? (Do you even realize how many iPhones are sold every minute?) Yeah? Apple isn't in the business of throwing money away... (Or perhaps you think Apple has perfected the computer AI and that it will eventually grow and become Apple/Skynet and launch an army of robots to kill all humans and in the future, only Apple robots will walk the earth)... Yeah.. I know.. Thinking isn't your strong point athynz...

P.S. I don't insult you because you disagree with me athynz... I insult you because you are a total idiot and a tool... And you never take the time to think... Basically, you are a moron, and I hate morons...

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Agnostic_OS Updated - 20th Aug 2010

The second-user market for iDevice just died. And don't lend/give your old iDevice to your kids or anyone else.
Remember the "Big Brother" Apple ad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

richardw66 20th Aug 2010

@Agnostic_OS

This will obviously opt-in and be configurable by the user.

Also this specifies that the detection of unauthorised generates an alert to someone you nominate to decide what to do.

So why would this stop any use of your phone that you think is OK?

It just wouldn't unless you give someone control and they misuse it - which is exactly what is possible now.

The remote disable is there right now and has been for a while.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Lerianis10 23rd Aug 2010

@richardw66

Opt-in until Apple makes it mandatory, which they are want to do lately.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Banned From Apple 20th Aug 2010

Did anyone else see the movie "1984"? Is it just me or does Jobs look like the supreme leader dude?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

No, but I read the book

HypnoToad72 20th Aug 2010

@Banned From Apple - albeit a long time ago.

And it is amusing, but the irony of their own "1984" ad versus strongly endeavoring to become it 26 years later...

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Bill4 20th Aug 2010

@HypnoToad72 The movie was pretty true to the book, but the book was still a lot better. You did the right thing, IMHO.

0 Votes

+ -

IMHO, the movie was TERRIBLE, book was great (nt)

NonZealot 20th Aug 2010

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

richardw66 20th Aug 2010

@HypnoToad72

What BS

This is a service to alert the user or someone they nominate to unauthorised use.

It then gives remote disable options and remote find options.

The remote disable and remote find are there now.

There are quite a few products for laptops that offer some of these features.

There is nothing in this that adds any level of sending data to Apple that would be spying on the actual user. Only in case of a detection of potentially unauthorised activity does anything get sent.

Then what gets sent is at the request of the user or someone they have asked to have this control.

So the spying argument is completely bogus.

Learn to read

And stop looking for conspiracies so hard that you fail to understand the words!!!

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Master Skywalker 21st Aug 2010

@richardw66 Learn to read between the lines dude... this means they will get info about everything you do normally to set a base line to compare against the so called "suspicious activity". That's the kind of thing Google does with Google analytics. The same stuff Facebook is doing adding to that your personal data and your friends.
So, who determines what is suspicious and what's not? If they can pull this off, it should be an "opt in" decision.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Master Skywalker 21st Aug 2010

@Banned From Apple I didn't see the movie, but I read the book. Between Jobs, (Apple) Facebook and Google there's a dispute about who's gonna be the ultimate ruler of the world XD XD But I guess Google and Facebook are more dangerous. About Stevo, we just stop buying devices from him.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

2 things of note

NonZealot 20th Aug 2010

First off, Apple is patenting a system where unauthorized activity is detected and someone gets notified of it? Are you KIDDING me?

Second, anyone notice this?
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.

Apple has come right out and said that jailbreaking an iPhone is a suspicious behavior. Using technologies covered by this patent, a jailbroken iPhone could notify Apple and then shut off the device.

Welcome to 1984, brought to you by Apple.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Indeed

Pete "athynz" Athens 20th Aug 2010

@NonZealot Apple has come right out and said that jailbreaking an iPhone is a suspicious behavior.

They have always been against it - the official line is that they are concerned about the security of the device but I think at the end of the day it's just that Steve Jobs wants to have all of the iPhones/ iPods/ iPads as he envisioned them not how the users want them...

Using technologies covered by this patent, a jailbroken iPhone could notify Apple and then shut off the device.

And this is pure steaming bullsh1t IMHO! Not that I disagree with you but that Apple is essentially giving themselves the right to brick a jailbroken device even though it is now been ruled legal to be able to do so. While I love the hardware tech the one running the show is really p1ssing me off right now...

How does that sound from someone you and others have labeled as an Apple Fanatic? LOL

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

It would be a change of roles

NonZealot 20th Aug 2010

@athynz
Imagine if I had to start convincing you to like your iPhone!

PS Still liking my iPhone even if I don't like what the company behind it is doing. Still refuse to call myself an Apple user and prefer to refer to myself as a user of Apple products. Apple users are iDiots. Users of Apple products are smart. happy

0 Votes

+ -

It's a patent not a right.

aeriform 20th Aug 2010

@athynz

If the patent was accepted, it would be a hurdle for other companies to develop software that has this functionality. So I hope it gets accepted!

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

lelandhendrix@... 21st Aug 2010

@athynz Look, I agree with you--up to a point.

From a security perspective, their schema as just described is thr ONLY way to harden thins from a physical access point of view.

Otherwise, if jail breaking activity wasn't considered suspicious, anyone to grab my phone or possibly replace it with a clone long enough to confuse me, could plug into the dock connector and immediately zombify the device.

An extra layer that is USER-OPT-IN, including ANY firmware tampering, is highly desirable in my world.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Pete "athynz" Athens 23rd Aug 2010

@NonZealot - Indeed it would... although right now that patent is not in use and definitely not on my iPhone - I guess there is a good reason to stick with the older hardware...

@aeriform true - at this particular point it is just a patent but this patent will allow Apple to set themselves up as judge, jury, and excecutioner of anyone who jailbreaks their iPhone which they purchased. THAT is what concerns me.

0 Votes

+ -

Resistance may be futile

klumper 20th Aug 2010

@NonZealot
Welcome to 1984, brought to you by Apple.

iBorg resistance may be futile. See Agnostic_OS below for more.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

richardw66 20th Aug 2010

@NonZealot

If someone took my phone and jailbroke it I would want to know.

It has to be in there or the rest isa complete waste of time.

Let's say what happened to a friend of mine happens:

1. lend iPhone to friend for 20 mins.
2. Friend disappears for hours.

- now say they friend was a bit smart.

3. Friend takes iPhone and jailbreaks it - without telling anyone.
4. Friend installs spying software since the phone's security is disabled.
5. Friend returns phone.
6. Friend steals banking info.

The phone if borrowed for 30 only mins could have been jailbroken.

The owner would not know.

With this detection then the use by a third party might have resulted in an alert - which would have been ignored as it was authorised.

The jailbreaking would have resulted in a further alert that the phone was jailbroken - which would have resulted in the owner or whomever they nominated turning on the detection feature and disabling the phone.

This would have been extremely useful and necessary.

And not detecting the jailbreaking would have made any security measure useless as jailbreaking is the removal of security measures and allows all other security to be bypassed.

@athynz
but I think at the end of the day it's just that Steve Jobs wants to have all of the iPhones/ iPods/ iPads as he envisioned them not how the users want them...

They key phrase is 'But I think' - clearly you can think anything - the choice is up to you what to think. The reality does not match.

Using technologies covered by this patent, a jailbroken iPhone could notify Apple and then shut off the device.

In reality this could in many cases be done now - Apple doesn't do this.

Offering security protection to the users that detects jailbreaking - which by necessity it must or it is pretty useless - does not mean that they are going to use it without the user's approval.

Right now they can brick an iDevice - they can also check if it is jailbroken. They don't do this now.

Right now they and every other OS vendor can check if you have pirated content on your systems - and do whatever they like - they don't.

the one running the show is really p1ssing me off right now...

So you are pIssed off about something that is technically feasible - but not actually something that is being done?

Are you OK?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Master Skywalker 21st Aug 2010

@richardw66 HMmm... in what Federal Prision did you say you meet that friend? I jailbroke my iPhone, as matter of fact, I asked a technician to do it for me. I just want to do with the device I paid for whatever I want, not what Steve wants.
If that's really a concern for you, get better new friends, but that's not a good reason to let Apple spy on me.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

none none 21st Aug 2010

@richardw66

6. Friend steals banking info.

That seems to me to be a highly laborious way to get info. Anyone you'd let borrow your phone, and then let leave the room with it, would have to be someone you're pretty familiar with. You're not going to have your guard up around a friend. If they're going to stab you in the back and steal your money, there are easier ways.

happy

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Pete "athynz" Athens 23rd Aug 2010

@richardw66 @athynz
but I think at the end of the day it's just that Steve Jobs wants to have all of the iPhones/ iPods/ iPads as he envisioned them not how the users want them...

They key phrase is 'But I think' - clearly you can think anything - the choice is up to you what to think. The reality does not match.

At this point and time you are correct - I'm more concerned about what will happen once this patent is in use... right now if I jailbreak my iPhone it is my choice to do so and Apple does not have to support it as my jailbreaking has voided the warranty. But once this patent is in use Apple will have set themselves up as judge, jury, and excecutioner over a device I paid for. How is that right?

Using technologies covered by this patent, a jailbroken iPhone could notify Apple and then shut off the device.

In reality this could in many cases be done now - Apple doesn't do this.

If Apple could do this now then why do the need this patent? I doubt they can do this now - or if they can they want to make sure all of their ducks are in a row on this one prior to doing as I suggested above.

Offering security protection to the users that detects jailbreaking - which by necessity it must or it is pretty useless - does not mean that they are going to use it without the user's approval.

Right now they can brick an iDevice - they can also check if it is jailbroken. They don't do this now.

Again I doubt that... I could be wrong in this but I don't think I am.

Right now they and every other OS vendor can check if you have pirated content on your systems - and do whatever they like - they don't.

the one running the show is really p1ssing me off right now...

So you are pIssed off about something that is technically feasible - but not actually something that is being done?

Are you OK?

I'm ticked off about this whole inane war between Apple and jailbreakers - Apple should focus less on them and more time on putting the things in the iOS that people are jailbreaking their iPhones to get.

0 Votes

+ -

Rather have a different phone just in case

fnash 20th Aug 2010

I'm neither a apple fan or hater. I like and use whatever works best for me. I really don't care who makes it. I have an iPhone currently, and other than the same old things everyone else has complained about (cough, cough, AT&T), I like it. When my 2 year contract is up in 4 months, I won't be renewing it and will go to a droid phone simple because I just happen to like them better at the moment. 2 years from them I may like the iPhone better and think about coming back, especially if they are offered on another carrier. One thing that will absolutely prevent me from paying for service on ANY phone is one that monitors my usage to see if I'm really me. To me, that just takes me out of my comfort level. Yes, I know GPS and Google logging could allow me to be tracked just about any where and any way I use my phone now, but to me, that is different. I am comfortable with that. I suspect may others would be uncomfortable with this as well if it does indeed find it's way into mainstream phones. Now, the iPad on the other hand, I think this could potentially be pretty useful for.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

talamakara 20th Aug 2010

WOOHOO Steve Jobs is showing just how much of a tyrant he can be, next you know he'll be installing a feature that lets him turn off you idevice cause your looking at por n!

Most disturbing and disgusting.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

richardw66 20th Aug 2010

@talamakara

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

MS could do this to your PC now.

Google could do this now!!!

Offering a security feature that sends data only when the owner or the person they give that control to authorises it is fair enough.

This patent specifies giving the user control.

MobileMe already offers bricking the device.

Why oh why are you people so desperate to find conspiracy?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Master Skywalker 21st Aug 2010

@richardw66 Because all the data will go through apple and scrutinized by Apple! Isn't that disturbing enough??
MobileMe offers bricking the device, true, but only if you call them and ask for it, not because they?re spying on your activity on a regular base!

And why are you so eager to show there's no conspiracy here? Do you work for Apple? Are you Apple's Gestapo? or Steve Jobs? XD

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Pete "athynz" Athens 23rd Aug 2010

@richardw66 MobileMe is USER controlled for those who opted (like myself) to pay for the service... this patent gives Apple the same sort of control legally and sidestepping the whole ruling that made jailbreaking legal.

0 Votes

+ -

Time for the tin foil hat idiots to come out of the basement

wackoae 20th Aug 2010

So Apple patents some sort of security system ..... and the idiots come out to complain .....

Just show you how clueless and brain dead people can be.

Now, even capturing the picture of the criminal who STOLE a device is bad.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Bodazapha 20th Aug 2010

@wackoae

No one is worried about the criminal, its the fact that information about the NON criminal can be abused.

Corporations have shown, when given a chance to abuse something they most certainly will.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

richardw66 20th Aug 2010

@Bodazapha

And this patent does not specify collecting any info about the user - so what is your problem?

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Master Skywalker 21st Aug 2010

@Bodazapha but of course they collect personal data! They have to know who is the user and if his/her activity is "normal" or suspicious. Of course they know who you are! You did sign a contract with AT&T to get an iPhone, didn't you? They know who you are and now they pretend to know what you do, every step of the way.

0 Votes

+ -

Not everybody likes

HypnoToad72 20th Aug 2010

@wackoae

D R M

Apple loves it for their own products, but didn't mind dropping it for music purchased via iTunes.

Double standard or legitimate dichotomy?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

richardw66 20th Aug 2010

@HypnoToad72

Apple hardly uses DRM for their own products!!!

Open source OS

Open Source most things.

I have not struck an Apple product with DRM.

Compare and contrast Windows with OS X!!!

The DRM on the iPhone covers apps purchased from the App store - 99.99% of which are not Apple's.

Apple not only does not mind dropping it for the iTunes store, they argue against DRM. They introduced it in the first place because record companies were so scared of putting their content online that they would not sell through the iTunes store without DRM on their content. So Apple had to develop their DRM to start the online music sales industry.

Apple has ever since been trying to remove DRM as they do not like DRM.

Where is this double standard exactly?

Name one Apple product that is DRM controlled?

0 Votes

+ -

richardw66, they do not use DRM?

Mister Spock 22nd Aug 2010

Then exactlly what is the code embedded into OSx that keeps it from running on a PC?

If DRM allows the ability to digitally control the usage of a file, then what is it in OS X that allows Apple to digitally control what computer I can run the operating system on?

Would that not fall under the definition of DRM?
plain

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Master Skywalker 21st Aug 2010

@wackoae Hellooooooooo FANBOIIIII!!!!!!!
Chill out dude! Security is great. Spying on me, not great. That patent allows Apple to do just that. Check my habits to determine if something "suspicious" is going on.
Don't you care for your privacy? a little bit? no? OK.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Apple patents feature that remotely disables devices when

Pete "athynz" Athens 23rd Aug 2010

@wackoae I would actually be okay with this IF Apple did not include jailbreaking as one of those activities that would give them the go ahead to brick the device. THAT is what I'm not happy about - the rest of it is just fine with me.