EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware [LWN.net]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has sent out a release regarding a new patent application from Apple involving some interesting antifeatures. "Essentially, Apple's patent provides for a device to investigate a user's identity, ostensibly to determine if and when that user is 'unauthorized,' or, in other words, stolen. More specifically, the technology would allow Apple to record the voice of the device's user, take a photo of the device's user's current location or even detect and record the heartbeat of the device's user. Once an unauthorized user is identified, Apple could wipe the device and remotely store the user's 'sensitive data.'" The patent claims list jailbreaking explicitly as an "unauthorized" use.

to post comments

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 13:53 UTC (Tue) by marduk (guest, #3831) [Link] (19 responses)

This sounds like a joke. Is this real? Sounds like some major PR fail. Hasn't Apple had enough of that as of late. Are they taking the "even bad publicity is good" angle?

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 24, 2010 14:43 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (18 responses)

Apple has shown multiple times that it doesn't care what anyone thinks about its disgusting behaviour (not even its customers.)

Apple arrogantly (and alas, probably correctly) believes that its core constituency is zealous enough and stupid enough to forgive Apple for almost anything. There's no fanboi like a Mac fanboi, so Apple knows it can run roughshod over its customers with impunity.

Unfortunately, until Apple-purchasing sheep wake up and vote with their wallets, Apple will continue to get away with evil stunts like the one described in the patent.

I'm really disappointed every time I go to a FOSS event and see the hordes of Mac laptops. People just don't seem to get it.

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 24, 2010 17:42 UTC (Tue) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link] (4 responses)

convenience trumps ideology.

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 24, 2010 18:06 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (3 responses)

laziness trumps thinking.

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 10:22 UTC (Wed) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link] (2 responses)

marketing trumps awareness

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 26, 2010 2:07 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

Hearts trump spades.

Unless this is spades.

Donald Trumps...

umm....

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Sep 8, 2010 9:00 UTC (Wed) by jtc (guest, #6246) [Link]

"Hearts trump spades.
Unless this is spades.
Donald Trumps...
umm...."

or:

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix;
Angel-headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection
to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howl#Rhythm ]

or - whatever...

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 24, 2010 19:28 UTC (Tue) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link] (1 responses)

> I'm really disappointed every time I go to a FOSS event and see the hordes of Mac laptops. People just don't seem to get it.

Don't they buy it for hardware only?

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 24, 2010 22:47 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

I see many FOSS attendees running Mac OS X.

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 24, 2010 23:18 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (10 responses)

"I'm really disappointed every time I go to a FOSS event and see the hordes of Mac laptops. People just don't seem to get it."

To be fair, Mac laptops are pretty open - they run on an OpenSource kernel. Only the GUI part is closed.

Apple, n: 1. Arrogance Personified. 2. Object of cult-like worship.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 0:38 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (9 responses)

To be fair, Mac laptops are pretty open - they run on an OpenSource kernel. Only the GUI part is closed.

You cannot run any Mac OS X applications on only the open-source bits, so the kernel is a curiosity, nothing more.

But what upsets me is that every Mac laptop means more money for Apple, and that's a crying shame. Apple is no more deserving of FOSS advocates' money than Microsoft (maybe even less so.)

There is more than one cult here.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 16:19 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (8 responses)

You can be a FOSS advocate without that being the only thing in the world that's important to you. Any purchase is going to be a balancing of many concerns, from environmental impact to how the physical design makes you feel about the device. FOSS hygiene is just another input to the equation.

Unless, of course, you've chosen the FOSS cult instead of the Apple cult. Most of us prefer to avoid cults.

There is more than one cult here.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 17:49 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (7 responses)

You can be a FOSS advocate without that being the only thing in the world that's important to you.

Yes, of course. However, it's my opinion that Apple has swung so far to the dark side that it's a contradiction to claim to be a FOSS advocate and to purchase Apple products.

Unless, of course, you've chosen the FOSS cult instead of the Apple cult. Most of us prefer to avoid cults.

Freedom is not a cult.

There is more than one cult here.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 18:52 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

Freedom cannot be a cult; worship of freedom can.

There is more than one cult here.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 21:52 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (1 responses)

Are you attempting to discuss an issue, or see who can come up with cuter sound bites? :)

Apple has increasingly become the antithesis of everything FOSS stands for. To call yourself a FOSS advocate while sending money Apple's way is akin to a Vegan subsidizing the local beef marketing board.

There is more than one cult here.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 22:37 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

Sorry, my line was meant to be a nice line, but it really was in response to yours.

There is only a disconnect if one views FOSS, or veganism, as a philosophy or ethic. I have a friend who is a vegan and has been for years, but it's not a philosophical choice - he just prefers it. He doesn't feel guilty if he sometimes accidentally eats meat, he just prefers not to.

I support FOSS as a "Good Thing" and contribute money to some FOSS-related activities; I run a FOSS OS on one of my laptops. I think it's a good way to develop software. It is not, however, so central to me that I guide my life by its principles or feel guilty when I don't observe them. I have no moral/ethical objection to proprietary software or hardware, though there are some applications where I would insist on going FOSS.

So, I consider myself an advocate of FOSS while conceding that there are others who are much more fervent about it.

There is more than one cult here.

Posted Aug 25, 2010 20:43 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (3 responses)

> Yes, of course. However, it's my opinion that Apple has swung so far to the dark side that it's a contradiction to claim to be a FOSS advocate and to purchase Apple products.

Many people still have mac laptops from before Apple swung so far over to the dark side. Back when they were just a company which created some closed source software and some open source software.

When did Apple go rotten?

Posted Aug 25, 2010 21:55 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (2 responses)

Interesting. When do you reckon Apple swung over to the dark side? I think it was when the iPhone came out, which would have been in early 2007. (Actually, they'd been moving darkward for some time before that, but the iPhone developer rules made it starkly clear.)

I see many Mac notebooks at FOSS conferences that look younger than 3.5 years old.

When did Apple go rotten?

Posted Aug 26, 2010 0:26 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

I'd say somewhere around mid-2008, when iPhone 3G / OS 2.0 came out, with the restrictive rules. Remember: the original iPhone didn't allow additional apps *at all* beyond what it shipped with. Everyone was expected to write webapps, which of course don't have restrictions on what they do.

And even then, it was somewhat possible to sort of justify it to yourself based on "it's just a phone, whatever, and you know, carriers are evil and stuff they had to, SRSLY!!". But now they've expanded the death grip onto a tablet device (and IMO likely will try to expand it further), I think it's a lot harder to make such a justification.

When did Apple go rotten?

Posted Aug 28, 2010 2:06 UTC (Sat) by AndreE (guest, #60148) [Link]

How about iPod/iTunes and their "Fairplay" DRM rubbish.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 13:56 UTC (Tue) by cjcoats (guest, #9833) [Link] (3 responses)

Other sources have noted "jailbroken" in addition to "stolen".

If Apple uses this against a jailbroken phone, why should it not
be a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 14:04 UTC (Tue) by Randakar (guest, #27808) [Link] (1 responses)

Good question.
It surely feels like abusing the user to me.. straight out of the Bastard Operator From Hell handbook.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 14:40 UTC (Tue) by Frej (guest, #4165) [Link]

But nows it's Corporate Bastard Operator From Hell.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 27, 2010 17:03 UTC (Fri) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]

But then, why would a jailbreaking program not disable this anti-feature?

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 15:48 UTC (Tue) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] (9 responses)

It sounds very much like time people got off the hooked on Apple thing and dumped them all right where they deserve to be in the trash can !!!

Also the US patent office needs to wakey wakey and tell Mr jobs to go rotate on something unpleasent

People used to think MS were the bad boys they are kids playthings compared with this Apple brigade this needs stopping pronto

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 16:41 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (8 responses)

Umm - Apple isn't *doing* anything along these lines, they simply patented the technology. A lot of people react to such patents as signs of impending doom, but they can simply be a side effect of a company encouraging its employees (often with cash rewards) to apply for patents.

Nor is the PTO in the business of deciding whether particular patents are ethically desirable or not; just whether they're innovative and non-obvious and in a patentable domain.

Not that this particular technology is particularly evil - the notion of having technology built into a device that keeps others from using it is hardly new and has often been thought of as a good idea (typically in the context of weapons that work only for the owner).

This can only be judged as good or evil in the context of how (and whether) they choose to use it. I wouldn't call this "spyware" unless they deployed it in a way that reported information to another party (Apple, the police, etc.) or acted against the owner's interests.

The practical issues with actually using this technology in a product make it very unlikely that they would configure it to act in a draconian way (like wiping and disabling the device automatically) - more likely is that whey would have it trigger a request for a password or special code.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 17:24 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (7 responses)

the notion of having technology built into a device that keeps others from using it is hardly new and has often been thought of as a good idea

This is a pretty galling, facile, and disingenuous reframing of what's actually going on there, blithely ignoring salient details in order to reform it as "just another anti-theft" device (which isn't even the only use covered in the patent).

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 19:21 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (6 responses)

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"?

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 21:59 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] (3 responses)

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 (guest, #19270) [Link] (2 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #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 (guest, #56877) [Link] (1 responses)

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,

It's not just an anti-theft device (unless apple will no longer let you purchase them)
it goes far beyond any other anti-theft device
It incorporates wiretapping
It incorporates electronic eavesdropping
It incorporates electronic surveillance
It incorporates monitoring
It even with one's health data (the heartbeat)
it can wipe your data from your phone if Apple decides to
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

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

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 26, 2010 22:57 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #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.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 16:22 UTC (Tue) by Aliasundercover (guest, #69009) [Link] (8 responses)

Apple is a sharp outfit. The virus, spyware, crapware situation on Windows is so bad many people welcome Apple's apparently benevolent dictatorship with open arms. So what you can only install from their app store? You can install from there and your risk of malware is limited. The app meets at least some standards enforced by Apple. The patented methods would be used to protect Apple customers from thieves, a genuinely useful benefit.

Never mind that an app store with standards for quality and taste could exist without it being enforced. It could be just as good business, buy this brand and you never get crapware. That is worth money.

The thing is people are so sick of the battleground which is Windows software they are willing to trade freedom for safety. Perhaps they are enough afraid of thieves to want their computers watched over with the power to remotely disable them.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 16:50 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

The thing is people are so sick of the battleground which is Windows software they are willing to trade freedom for safety.

And the safety is temporary and ephemeral at best (see the fact that it's still possible to jailbreak the phone and exploit vulnerabilities in individual applications). Therefore, perhaps it's never in recent history been so apropos to quote the full-on Franklin quote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 16:51 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

Crap. Quotation source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

There we go.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 17:20 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

(glad to see that it looks like I used "aprops" correctly; the downside of a system where you can't go back and edit your posts is that it preserves your idiocy for all those in the future to go back and see how much of an idiot you truly are. ;)

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 19:17 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] (4 responses)

Nobody shops on the App Store because it's more secure. They shop on the App Store because that's the only place to get apps on the phone.

That's like saying that users just love being routed into a Linux distro's central repository after already finding some software's website and a download link because the repository's safer, and not just because the Linux installation story is a user-hostile pain in the ass that saddles everyone with an artificially limited and out-dated set of packages unless you happen have the time and know-how to compile everything from source.

Or it's like saying that Windows users love viruses and malware and that's why they keep downloading Paint Shop Pro 9 Cracked!!~!! from DipshitForum.com and its ilk and then wonder why their computer is so slow and "needs replacing" every year.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 23:31 UTC (Tue) by dilinger (subscriber, #2867) [Link]

Wait, what? The point of the distro's central repository is so that one can simply do "apt-get install $foo" and obtain a $foo that's been integrated with the system, and at least tested by someone other than the software's author. You're not required to use the central repository; you just can't expect to be able to mix-and-match software from the central repo and external sources. This isn't user-hostile, this is by design; see examples of "rpm hell" and "dll hell" for reasons why you'd want to stick to software from one source. Also note that you're not required to use the distribution; want stale-but-known packages? Use Debian Stable. Want more up-to-date but less-tested stuff? Use the latest Ubuntu release. Want to be able to compile and customize everything yourself? Use Slackware or Gentoo.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 0:34 UTC (Wed) by nicooo (guest, #69134) [Link]

Most viruses and malware come from "finding some software's website and a download link".

I'll stick with my artificially limited (tested) and out-dated (stable) packages.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 5:28 UTC (Wed) by PaulWay (guest, #45600) [Link]

Ah, you must be using Debian "Outdated", er "Stable".

I have only rarely needed to use software of a version new enough to require manual compilation. I think for most people this is the case - the packages they get from their distro's repositories are 'up to date enough'. If you need up-to-the-minute packages, use Gentoo and recompile every day if you like. I've had friends who know nothing of programming learn how to build and make because they wanted the bleeding edge version of Inkscape, for example.

The process of making .deb and .rpm packages, and making an apt or yum repository, is now easy enough and well documented enough that it is trivial for any company to distribute their software this way. There is no reason why third-party companies and developers need supply programs as big separate tarballs or shar files that need to be compiled or executed in order to run software. If Adobe can offer a yum repository for their Flash plugin, then I think most other companies can do more to distribute their programs than just supply a tarball and hope the user is clever enough to install it.

But I agree with your thesis. Apple is all about lock-in, and people who believe otherwise are gradually learning the truth. For some of them it will be too late to save their data or their investment...

Have fun,

Paul

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 14:55 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

Your first paragraph is true, and stands firmly on its own truth; the analogies demean it.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 24, 2010 20:07 UTC (Tue) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (1 responses)

Let's hope the royalty will be high enough to discourage potential licensees.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 7:40 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

No kidding! Everybody seems mad at Apple for trying to monopolize this! I say let 'em at it, more cost and hassle, therefore less chance of anyone else doing it! =:^)

And Apple itself never even pretended to be freedomware, so it's not like they're an option I'm interested in anyway. So if someone I wouldn't consider an option in any case is monopolizing something else I find despicable... let em! It's not like anyone that cares anything about freedom's going to have a lot to do with them in any case.

It's sort of like a candidate (today was primaries, here) with policies based on which I'd never vote for him anyway, endorses something else despicable. It does little to change who will vote for or against him; the only factor of concern then becomes which side it motivates more to go to the polls and express their opinion with a vote. Pretty much the same here, only the vote is with the pocketbook.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 25, 2010 21:51 UTC (Wed) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

The so-called "technology" that would allow them to do this is just a timed legal maneuver on their part (the patent) to tax any and all that eventually do this to their customers or to try and monopolize that anti-feature.

In particular, they might already for years have been able to achieve 90% or all of these general/vague effects. The likely stopping point were the absence of sufficient market share, deals, and legal hooks.

It's also possible that they aren't just worried about competitors' threats in consideration of their current improved businesses but see the open source and patent free future getting a little closer and feel now is their best time to try to strike hard and big.

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 26, 2010 1:11 UTC (Thu) by PaulWay (guest, #45600) [Link] (1 responses)

Any detection method like this can be used against its owner.

Imagine if you could merely borrow someone's phone for five minutes and, in that time, convince the spyware that it was under attack enough to cause it to erase the owner's data or report them to Apple. All of a sudden they would be much more possessive of their cute little devices (if that's possible) rather than lending you the phone so you can play the latest cute little game they downloaded.

Imagine if there was a website you could send them to that would trigger the spyware. It'd be the ultimate rick-rolling process.

Many of these kinds of things are going to happen to perfectly innocent ordinary people. Just as there have been plenty of people who've had their Windows license revoked by "Genuine Advantage" because someone else guessed or stole their real license key, there will be people who inadvertently or in the course of their regular life find their Apple device locked, erased or worse because the spyware has triggered. It'll snowball into a class action, and there'll be a costly lawsuit that can only end in Apple losing (as many other companies who have caused damage to customers have done). By then it may be too late for them to reverse their image as the company that told everyone they'd be spying on their own customers.

Just my opinion,

Paul

EFF: Apple seeking to patent spyware

Posted Aug 26, 2010 2:05 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]

oh crap.

All of a sudden they would be much more possessive of their cute little devices (if that's possible) rather than lending you the phone so you can play the latest cute little game they downloaded.

or, alternately,

This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help herbut if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrongsomething that only pirates would do.

Ding! Fries are done!