Apple Patents Remotely Disabling Jailbroken Phones 381
An anonymous reader writes "Apple yesterday applied for a patent to allow remotely disabling electronic devices when 'unauthorized usage' is detected. The patent application covers using the camera to take pictures of the unauthorized user and using GPS to determine location, and it involves ascertaining whether the phone has been hacked or jailbroken, using those as criteria for detecting 'suspicious behavior.' The patent would allow the carrier or any other 'authorized' party to disable or restrict the functionality of the device. Is this Apple's latest tool to thwart jailbreaking?"
Just because it's patented... (Score:4, Insightful)
...doesn't mean it's legal, right?
Unauthorised by whom? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Unauthorised by whom?
2) Didn't a school district try this recently and get some bad press for it?
It's probably (Score:5, Insightful)
a security measure for stolen iPhones.
Just don't buy Apple products anymore (Score:2, Insightful)
Just another reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
... to hate on Apple and never purchase any of their products on principle.
Bad Summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Legal implications.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't that kind of action be in violation of the recent ruling that made such actions as jailbreaking legal on personally owned devices? I understand its a warranty violation, but that shouldn't mean that it should allow apple to restrict usage, etc.
Stolen phones (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm, isn't this probably intended for stolen phones?
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats for lawyers to spend 4 or 5 years deciding. By then it wont matter because even
if Apple loses they'll get fined a few thousand in money off vouchers. Easily worth it
to stop jailbreaking for a few years.
Oh please, what a lame title (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unauthorised by whom? (Score:2, Insightful)
Library of Congress just ruled on the DMCA that there is no "unauthorized" use of a damn smart phone...
Dont you love it when companies try to re-write laws and claim they are in the green?
Sensationalism at its best? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with Jailbroken phones. Where did the "anonymous reader" come up with that crap? From the first sentence in the abstract "This is generally directed to identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device." And nowhere in TFA does it say anything about Jailbroken phones. This is simply a twist on lojack.
Re:A new low (Score:2, Insightful)
It gets even funnier when you remember their old '1984'-based campaign, they've come full circle.
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unauthorised by whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
no, the feds decided not to prosecute, which is not the same thing.
The civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy, taking picutures of semi-clothed teenagers in their bedrooms is proceeding.
Re:Since you did not point it out... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the items you keep quoting are obviously merely members of a long list of example techniques for evaluating the likelihood that a phone has been stolen.
There's no conspiracy theory here. Imagine that you were a phone. Someone enters the wrong unlock password a dozen times? Maybe your owner forgot it. You haven't been back to your home a couple days? Maybe your owner is on vacation. But when, IN ADDITION to all that, someone starts trying to unlock you, you'd have a pretty good notion that you're about to be hawked on ebay.
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they're trying to patent methods for determining when to disable something remotely. Jailbreaking was just one of the clues they would look at, along with other things that might indicate that the phone has been stolen... something the anonymous submitter either didn't understand, or chose to misrepresent.
Re:Since you did not point it out... (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not doubt that the system could be used to detect theft (in the normal sense of the word) and disable stolen phones. However, I would not be so quick to assume that the system will only be used to do that. Neither Apple nor AT&T (nor any other cell network) is particularly friendly toward consumers, so why would you doubt that they would try to disable jailbroken phones (particularly since they can no longer claim it is illegal)?
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's more worrying is if they actually have implemented it or are going to.
This means that it's possible that persons with malicious intent can also intentionally disable the devices if such functionality exists.
And another issue - vendors can now remotely kill devices that they consider to be too old to force users to buy a new one.
Re:Holy shit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, you know, the headline and summary is wrong.
Re:A new low (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had gone full circle they would anti 1984. They've gone 180 degrees.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus there are a lot of people out there that think they are freaking experts on this stuff.
let's start with your first sentence
No, it means that it's illegal for anybody else to do it without paying apple royalties.
1. It's not illegal, it would be a civil issue. 2. If Apple is granted the patent they may license it or may not, and they may or may not charge royalties. Since you are an expert in this area you surly realize that the majority of these filings are defensive, right? That the primary purpose of most of these is so that when a patent troll comes after the deep pocket company like Apple that Apple can say we have patents in this area as well?
Since this isn't a feature that sane or rational consumers would actually want on their phones
Really? Since I'm certain that you read the application as I did, then you will see that this is a feature that a lot of people would like to have, including myself. I want them to be able to figure out who douche bag is who stole my phone, where they are and brick the device
Maybe it's because I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but there is something irritating about sitting down to read /. in the morning and first thing reading a bunch of posts by people that clearly haven't bothered to read the article (I know, this is /. and I shouldn't really expect anyone to read anything) and spouting off bullshit as if it were the gospel.
Now, RTFA and get off of my lawn.
Re:Sensationalism at its best? (Score:3, Insightful)
The article doesn't expressly mention jailbroken phones. The patent does. It lists methods for distinguishing authorized users from unauthorized users.
The patent does not equate jailbreaking with "unauthorized user".
It is listed as one of several methods for "comparing the determined identity to the identity of one or more authorized users of the electronic device". Also listed among the "suspicious" activities is "removing a SIM card from the electronic device" which an authorized user is also allowed to do.
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking your pic might be novel. Detecting an operating system breach might be novel. Imagine your ISP coming into your machine, determining you have a virus, and wiping you.
Sigh.
Perhaps only Apple could think this one up. It's comforting to know that they're trying to save me from myself. Not.
Re:Unauthorised by whom? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you sold it.
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:4, Insightful)
B.S. No operator better determine that my phone has been stolen without me reporting it so. Unless apple retains ownership of the device, I suggest they stick their patent where the sun doesn't shine.
Re:Legal implications.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't that kind of action be in violation of the recent ruling that made such actions as jailbreaking legal on personally owned devices? I understand its a warranty violation, but that shouldn't mean that it should allow apple to restrict usage, etc.
It is completely legal for you to use your credit card today in Moscow, tomorrow in Sidney, and they day after in Tokio, each time buying a 50 inch TV. Completely legal. But the credit card company will lock down your card, because it is much more likely that there is fraud going on and it isn't actually you buying the TVs.
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't sound any more privacy invading than what On-star advertises that they will do with your Cadillac if you report it stolen.
Well, other than the part where GM remote disables your Escalade and dispatches SWAT to your location because you installed non-AC/Delco(tm) spark plugs. Because, you know, only a dirty hippy commie car thief would perform maintenance on a high-end luxury device anywhere but a GM Goodwrench (tm) service center using genuine GM Parts (maybe tm).
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking your pic might be novel.
Nope. There is a prior art, remember that Pennsylvania school principal taking pictures of students at home? http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/23/2030207/Federal-Judge-Orders-Schools-To-Stop-Laptop-Spying [slashdot.org]
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet my sister wishes this had been implemented for laptops already, seeing as some douchebag broke into her car and stole her 1 year old laptop containging all of the data from her masters degree. She lives in Manhattan, she'll never see that laptop or the unbacked-up data again.
P.S. This entire thread is based on a blanatant misrepresentation of what the patent is for. I can understand not reading the patent, but it appears as though Mr. "Annonymous Reader" didn't even read the article that he submitted. OTOH, I find it more likely that someone with a
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly!! This isn't Big Brother for your phone, but LowJack for your phone.
Location and bricking on customer request = Good. Location and bricking on jailbreak = Bad.
Re:Just because it's patented... (Score:3, Insightful)
He's either juvenile or has some sort of sense self determination and independence.