EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 26, 2010 2:46 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
In reply to: EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware by sepreece
Parent article: EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

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,

1. It's not just an anti-theft device (unless apple will no longer let you purchase them)
2. it goes far beyond any other anti-theft device
3. It incorporates wiretapping
4. It incorporates electronic eavesdropping
5. It incorporates electronic surveillance
6. It incorporates monitoring
7. It even with one's health data (the heartbeat)
8. it can wipe your data from your phone if Apple decides to
9. It can remotely grab your data (a good thing if it's remotely wiped, but bad in every other way and bad if they aren't good stewards of your private data)

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 ends

Same 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

1. It's perhaps a decent point
2. I never said it was "quiet", so it's not my point
3. It's completely orthogonal to the points above

---

(Log in to post comments)