| |||||||||||||
EFF: Apple seeking to patent spywareEFF: Apple seeking to patent spywarePosted Aug 25, 2010 19:21 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware by Trelane Parent article: EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware
As noted, *nothing* is "going on here". Apple patented a technology that it may or may not decide to incorporate wholly or partially in a device someday.
I don't see anything galling, facile, or disingenuous in what I said, which was a simple statement of fact.
There is nothing in this patent that is inconsistent with the stated goal of allowing the device owner to be notified and protected if somebody steals or hacks the device. While sequestering the user's data and disabling the phone is one response option, another is just to send a text to the owner. And that while "jailbreak" sounds like something some owners would want to do, a jailbreak initiated by a hacker without the user's permission is maybe not so appealing. This technology could be misused for nefarious ends, but that just puts it in the not-so-exclusive company of essentially every other technology ever invented.
The EFF leaps from a patent describing what a device could do to assuming things about Apple's plans and stating those imagined plans as fact. The article also claims Apple quietly filed for this patent while users were "celebrating the new jailbreaking and unlocking exemption;" In fact, of course, the application was filed more than a year before those exemptions were granted. Talk about disingenuous...
Nor is the assertion that Apple did this "quietly" honest - there is absolutely no reason they couldn't have done all of this (most of which is completely possible with existing mobile phones) without filing a patent, which inherently exposes it to exactly the kind of public attention this one has gotten. How is that "quiet"?
(Log in to post comments)
EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware Posted Aug 25, 2010 21:59 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] As noted, *nothing* is "going on here". Apple patented a technology that it may or may not decide to incorporate wholly or partially in a device someday. LoL! Wow, you are naive. It's all about context. If Linus Torvalds personally had patented the technology, maybe I'd agree with you. If the EFF had patented in an attempt to use the patent as one more tool against spyware authors, maybe I'd agree with you. But Apple? Its actions since the release of the iPhone have shown a pattern of disdain for customers and rapacious suppression of freedom, along with unwavering centralized control. This patent fits perfectly with the already-established pattern.
EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware Posted Aug 25, 2010 22:47 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
You may assume the worst, if it makes you happier to be unhappy. I don't see any reason to.
As noted, large companies have lots of patents that they never use. This could very well be one of them. Of the half-dozen patent applications I've been listed on at two companies, only one is for something the company actually did - the others were just ideas I convinced a committee might be interesting someday.
Even if Apple did use it, they could use it for exactly the purposes described in the patent - to protect the device owner from theft and hacking. I think a lot of owners would actually like that (like my sister-in-law who had a major hassle undoing charges run up by someone who stole her phone).
I dislike the walled garden model that Apple chooses to base its business on, but I honestly don't see evil and conspiracy here. As I also said, they could have done all this without a patent, so getting the patent means nothing, except that they might have a monopoly on this kind of control. That wouldn't be a very useful monopoly unless, say, people find it a selling point.
EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware Posted Aug 27, 2010 0:51 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Even if Apple did use it, they could use it for exactly the purposes described in the patent - to protect the device owner from theft and hacking. "Theft" and "hacking" are two completely different things. Let's take theft first: It's trivial to protect a phone from theft without resorting to spyware and incredible privacy-violating features. Step 1: Secure the phone physically. That's up to the owner. In other words, don't do dumb things like leaving the phone unattended. Step 2: Have a secret lock code. The owner could lock the phone (or set it up so the phone locks automatically after a certain period of inactivity.) Unless you know the lock code, the phone is a brick. If implemented properly, it could prevent the phone from being usable by a thief. You could even allow the phone's owner to borrow another phone and enter some secret thing based on the lock code that tells him/her where the phone is (using its GPS). But at least activation of the "phone home" spyware would be controlled by the phone's owner, because anyone who doesn't know the secret lock code wouldn't be able to activate it. Preventing against hacking is just Applespeak for maintaining complete control over the phone and preventing phone owners from doing what they want with it. It doesn't actually prevent against cracking since the bad guys will always find flaws in any sufficiently-complex piece of software, where "sufficiently complex" means over 100 lines of code.
EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware Posted Aug 28, 2010 3:12 UTC (Sat) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
I mostly agree with you - I never said it was a good idea, just that it isn't inherently evil.
As noted elsewhere, this is all possible today and the patent adds nothing other than some possibility of commercial advantage if the idea became popular.
Note, however, that the idea *could* have some commercial appeal, even if you and I might not want it. One more anecdote. The inventing session I mentioned in the other strand was specifically around things that would enhance security. We took that to include both security from theft of the phone (we considered a couple of the ideas in this patent in that context) but also personal security - car-accident and physical assault detection, survivor location after an earthquake, medical emergencies and health monitoring, etc. None of the discussion was about protecting the phone, our IP, or the carrier from the phone owner.
The point is just that you can come to these ideas without evil intent.
EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware Posted Aug 26, 2010 2:46 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] As noted, *nothing* is "going on here""going on here" is regarding the issues regarding the technology being discussed, not Apple's current behavior. I don't see anything galling, facile, or disingenuous in what I said, which was a simple statement of fact.No, actually, it wasn't a "simple statement of fact;" rather, it was a (perhaps manipulative?) misstatement and omission of fact. Specifically,
Blithely ignoring the above, beyond-1984 points while trying to paint it as just another anti-theft device is so hard for me to fathom that it suggests that you're being manipulative. Maybe you have a decent explanation for it. It'd be nice. There is nothing in this patent that is inconsistent with the stated goal of allowing the device owner to be notified and protected if somebody steals or hacks the device.Well, aside from they may use it to notify you (technically, they notify an "responsible party" which may or may not be the owner.) that's great if you're up for all the constant monitoring and spying as outlined above and in the article. They could also have some guy watch me and my phone 24/7 but I'd also find that excessively invasive. The point is that it's excessively invasive, not that it can be used for something good. Maybe you disagree; you're free to buy such an iPhone if it's ever produced. While sequestering the user's data and disabling the phone is one response option, another is just to send a text to the owner.Same comment as previously. They can do a good thing, or they can do a bad thing that I don't want them to. I object to the bad thing, not the good thing. You're saying they can give me an ice cream cone. I say they can equally give me a rock in my eye and I rather object to that option. And that while "jailbreak" sounds like something some owners would want to do, a jailbreak initiated by a hacker without the user's permission is maybe not so appealing.So they can do something I like. Or they can do something I don't like. I'm sensing a pattern here. (and you're on thin ice here, because they have a pretty clear track record of equating jailbreaking with your "something some owners would want" option above) This technology could be misused for nefarious endsSame comment as the other four times. that just puts it in the not-so-exclusive company of essentially every other technology ever invented.Sure, except for the remote swipe-and-wipe and monitoring. Again trying to paint this as "just another of what we already have." Seriously, what's your motivation here? Why are you (deliberately; you apparently know about the jailbreaking you didn't mention) painting things in a positive frame despite the fact they could be positive or could be horribly horribly bad? We're doing what we customers are supposed to do in a capitalist system: raising our voice and shouting "What the hell do you think you're doing Apple?" and not buying their hardware and software. And you're shouting us down saying "They might be kittens instead of lions they're sending in! They said they could send kittens *or* lions!" The EFF leaps from a patent describing what a device could do to assuming things about Apple's plans and stating those imagined plans as fact.That would be the only real point you've raised, but I personally don't find "Maybe they won't use this to restrict your freedom" a particularly compelling argument when it comes to my freedom (as I've mentioned elsewhere, I also bought a fat PS3 on the presumption that Sony wouldn't remove a feature after the hardware was sold to me, despite the EULA saying essentially that they could do what they want. Oh how wrong I was.). You'll also note that I'll not sign a loan where the rates may increase by large amounts at the creditor's option, or agree to take out your garbage in exchange for you maybe someday raking the leaves on my lawn. Maybe you see things differently and would agree to such things if given the option not to. (If you'd left it at "patented != will use" you'd have had an insightful post and I'd have perhaps agreed, although not found it comforting.) The article also claims Apple quietly filed for this patent while users were "celebrating the new jailbreaking and unlocking exemption;" In fact, of course, the application was filed more than a year before those exemptions were granted. Talk about disingenuous...Ah, the "bring up their phrasing to shove their hypocrisy in their face" method of argumentation (regarding "talk about disingenuous"). Lemme just say right here that acting like a 5-year-old mocking someone else is perhaps not the best method of argumentation if you want to work together to think about things and uncover the truth. Rather, it tends to inflame anger and leads to a great flame fest but little rational discussion, so please cease. Regarding this "quietly" bit
EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware Posted Aug 26, 2010 22:57 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
As I said, if it makes you happier to be unhappy, have at it. [Actually, I said that to @dskoll, but it goes to you, too].
My point stands, and I don't think I have said anything incorrect or disingenuous, let alone facile - the patent is just a description of a possible arrangement of technologies, which could be used for good or evil purposes. Until they decide to deploy it, there's no point to leaping to conclusions about their intentions. A patent doesn't disclose intentions, just technology.
I don't like the walled garden. I believe it is better to allow people the freedom to install what they like on their devices. I used to work for a phone manufacturer (not Apple, which wasn't a phone manufacturer at the time) and I argued regularly that free devices would eventually win in the marketplace. I have an Android phone. But Apple's approach is not evil - you're free to accept the walls or go elsewhere. Evil would have been applying some of these techniques without disclosing it.
You say there's no way to see this other than in 1984 terms. I can say that I was in inventing sessions at that company that discussed, I think, every one of the points in the Apple patent, all in the context of providing things users would want, none in the context of spying on the user (car accident detection by listening to ambient noise, fitness monitoring using pulse monitoring, etc.). They were mostly rejected at that time as impractical (monitoring ambient noise costs battery life), unpatentable (pulse monitors already existed) or unmarketable (people might find it creepy, as you do).
My original point was not just rhetoric, though you apparently thought it was - the idea of weapons that work only for their owner goes back as far as fables from ancient cultures. People generally like that idea. So, if you wanted to invent a way for a phone to recognize that it had been stolen, how would you do it, without using some of these approaches? Do you think that's an evil or misdirected goal?
I don't think my complaining about direct misstatements in the EFF announcement is juvenile mocking, but you're free to. I don't believe I have said anything about your style or your comments and I won't start now.
You also haven't responded at all to the central point - Apple could do all this today, if they wanted to. The patent is completely irrelevant to that and to any plans they might have to do it.
|
|||||||||||||