Because the users are clamouring for this ...

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,257
Reaction score
2,693
Apple has been granted a patent to disable the camera on your phone in certain areas.

Having a patent for something that users don't want sounds like a stupid idea but maybe Apple is just seeing which way the wind is blowing - Apple will make big licensing fees if some law requires this functionality in all new phones - which will make old phones and old cameras a big market for activists. Perhaps having an old phone will become one more of the identifying features of terrorists like owning a copy of the constitution or talking about your rights or growing your own food...
 
myself, I've just got myself an android tablet and google is really pissing me off. If yo want google to have all your data that seems easy but setting up other mail accounts and figuring out where you contacts are being stored ... how do I know what is local and what google gets ...
Guess I'll just have to sniff packets.

The tablet is fine so long asyou have network but without it not so much. I very much prefer my netbook with ubuntu. At least I know where my data is and Iknow how to get it.
 
Not overly impressed with the Android tablets I've messed with but then again the iPad doesn't exactly impress me either. My ICS based phone is great as a communication device, don't really use it for much else. I guess I'm just over the whole control thing that seems to be an ever growing mess, this kind of "innovation" does nothing to further us.
 
since I use Goggle Voice because I need it, I know exactly where my contacts are. :D
 
The Google Contacts app merges your contacts in real time when you view them. So, if you have Skype installed for example, viewing your Contacts on your phone seems as though your skype contacts have been merged into your phone's address book, but really it's an illusion. Remove skype and those contacts will be gone. There may be ways to actually move that data across, and I know Google does allow you to export that data (unlike Facebook which does all it can to keep it proprietary). If you have a Picasa account, your Picasa images are merged into your phone's gallery in a similar manner. It's all done through Google's "Content Provider" API.

ContactsDataFlow.png


I've been contemplating using it to make songs on a user's PC, via Ampwifi, to appear as local media when scanning for music on your device, then stream them over when you play them. Not sure I'll have the time to do it though. :(

Overall, your best bet is to turn of syncing for all your accounts, and turn off backing up your data. There are other settings you'll also want to disable like your Search history and if you have Android 4.1, turn off Google Now. But for the most part, you do have pretty good control. If it's still not enough, there's always the 3rd party mods you can run. And no need for a packet sniffer, you can just download the source code and even run it under debugger.

Honestly, your biggest worry isn't Google, but any apps you may install that may have access to contacts and the internet. However I'm sure you're likely to check permissions before you install.
 
As for Apple's camera patent. Well, maybe they want to finally put an end to iPhone users who are obsessed with photographing their food and posting it to Facebook! ;)

But seriously, I think Apple is far worse than Microsoft. Their recent case against Samsung was a fiasco, but a profitable one. Now they're going after the Galaxy S3 in the same fashion. Apple was never much of an innovator, despite what the Apple fanboys like to say. They used a similar strategy when they attacked Microsoft over the GUI. If that case was conducted today, Apple would be given sole rights of the GUI. Back then the legal system slapped Apple to it's senses, but this time Apple played the system to it's advantage. I know Samsung will appeal and likely win it's appeal, but I'm still pissed off at Apple for taking it to this level.
 
I never sync my Facebook contacts - that is just a pain. same with most other apps. It's really not that difficult. Frankly, the big problem is that people don't bother to actually LOOK and READ.

many of my gmail contacts are various doctors for my mother and aunt. As I change phones it's way easier to simply log onto gmail and Voilà, contacts appear in the phone. Also incredibly convenient is automatic upload of pictures to picasa. This allows me to organize albums by whatever phone I may need to write an article about. It simply saves me time.

and as to lawsuit: as someone else pointed out Apple just showed customers that Samsung is a "similar" product that is more affordable. derp!
Apple pays Samsung to put hardware inside their Apple devices. that isn't going to change. this suit only benefits the lawyers
 
Glaucus said:
But seriously, I think Apple is far worse than Microsoft. Their recent case against Samsung was a fiasco, but a profitable one. Now they're going after the Galaxy S3 in the same fashion. Apple was never much of an innovator, despite what the Apple fanboys like to say. They used a similar strategy when they attacked Microsoft over the GUI. If that case was conducted today, Apple would be given sole rights of the GUI. Back then the legal system slapped Apple to it's senses, but this time Apple played the system to it's advantage. I know Samsung will appeal and likely win it's appeal, but I'm still pissed off at Apple for taking it to this level.
Click to expand...
Jury finished quickly by ignoring prior art There is clearly sufficent evidence to establish many of the patents in this case were not fairly owned by Apple. I think Samsung has their work cut out for them.

Clearly Apple was a company staked out by Jobs ego. Supposedly they have the next ~2 years staked out for them. It'll be interesting to see where they take it from here. Overreaching lawsuits is a recent 'legacy' we should be wary of. Talk about ego Jobs died because he was too proud to seek a cure and believed his will would heal his body. Jobs took from the world - keeping his money for himself. Heck he even refused to pay paternity and his child raised in a single mother household was forced to live on welfare.

Compare this to Gates. A family man respecting his agreements. He is giving a couple million to his children. Most of his millions he's committed into returning to the world. He's working on sanitary conditions of the 3rd world to improve life. Vaccinating kids and preventing malaria, to improve life. Treatment and cures for AIDS, again to improve life. So far over 1/3 of his total wealth has been given to this causes and he keeps giving.

Both men tried to revolutionize the fields and world. They both succeeded in their own ways. Though how they lived their life after that is clearly different. Out of the two I respect Gates commitment to the care of his fellow man more. An atheist who is morally good because it's the right choice -- Thank you Bill!
 
I would think that the Apple patent for disabling the camera would be useful to get iPhones into areas where they are currently not allowed because of the camera. I have worked at several facilities that do not allow any camera devices. If your phone has a camera, you can't bring it in. Having a proven way to disable the camera may mean these locations will be able to allow compliant devices on-premises.
 
groklaw.net has had good commentary on the Apple vs Samsung trial. Apple gets very little respect there. Samsung is no saint, that's for sure, but what happened in this trial is very bad not just for Samsung or even Android, but for the entire technology field. Suddenly prior art is too complicated a concept for a viable defense and obviousness is in the stratosphere. I really don't understand what the jury was doing for those 50 hours but it seems they were awake only for the first 25 (the judge gave each side 25 hours to present their case).
 
Glaucus said:
Who do you believe? Apple? The FBI? Or the Hacker?
Click to expand...
I tend to believe the Hacker for the following reasons:

If it was acquired by the FBI from Apple apple would, for business reasons, not disclose and further, the FBI would likely have required Apple be gagged as part of the order to turn over the information. Either way - Apple must deny whatever the truth.

The FBI is similarly in the position that they must deny because it would be a public relations debacle, it would be information germane to an investigation that they cannot comment upon, it would be a matter of national security, it would reveal methods, etc.

No information content in statements from either of those parties - leaving only one source that contains information. The hacker.

Are the UDIDs actual and real? Could they have been faked? Would they have been? Is there enough information content to say that the source is really a list of UDIDs with personal information? If so then they either came from Apple, or a trusted partner of apple or a massive scouring of net traffic or an FBI laptop. If they are real they came from somewhere. Wherever they came from, if the hacker announced the true source they would receive all the cred they care about. If they breached Apple, they would boast about how Apple security sucks. If they gathered the information from public networks they would crow about how awesome they were to do this. If they got the info from an FBI laptop they would piss themselves with glee that they found all this on an FBI laptop and tell the world. If they got it from a third party developer they would crow about how third party developers could get all the UDIDs they wanted. If it was a competitor of Apple that just wanted to embarrass Apple by stealing and then leaking the information then they would say they got it directly from Apple.

On balance I would believe the hacker.

There is another possibility: the data may or may not be genuine but the hacker actually acquired the laptop from the FBI but the guy they acquired the laptop from actually IS an FBI agent and the FBI just wants to see where the information leaks out from. If that is what is going on then why use real Apple UDIDs and would Apple have agreed to use their information for a sting?

Basically - if the information is real then I believe the hacker.
 
Well, the article does suggest that the UDIDs are valid. It also states that UDIDs are no longer to be used. But most importantly, and this is something I don't think you considered, AntiSec is in a full scale war with the FBI. AntiSec has infiltrated the FBI before, and the FBI is going out of it's way to arrest as many as they can from the group. Now, would AntiSec do something to embarrass the FBI, or even a particular agent (they actually did name the agent who owned the laptop they supposedly hacked into)? It is conceivable that they got the UDIDs from another source and are doing their best to pin it on the FBI (or a particular agent that they don't like). It's also possible they hate Apple (a company that has profited the most from and returned the least to the open source community). This way they attack two birds with one stone.

So I'm still not sure who I believe. I certainly see no reason to swallow Apple's story. Let's see who changes their story first.
 
Glaucus said:
It is conceivable that they got the UDIDs from another source and are doing their best to pin it on the FBI (or a particular agent that they don't like). It's also possible they hate Apple (a company that has profited the most from and returned the least to the open source community). This way they attack two birds with one stone.
Click to expand...

Not saying it's not possible but it could be but sounds awfully convoluted for hackers - they tend to be fairly lose collectives with lots of infighting and competition between groups. The big payoff is hacker cred for most of them. Making up a hack would be "lame", and they'd still have to get the data from somewhere.

Targetting the FBI because they hate the FBI, yes, I can see that, but they'd probably want to embarass the FBI with something real not something they made up. The FBI would deny they were hacked but the FBI WOULD KNOW.
 
For the record, I still consider the hacker's story the most likely one, but I'm also quite skeptical and feel there's more to this story. Heck, it might not even really be AntiSec (no way to really confirm it although if it's not them they'd probably deny it as well - unless the FBI actually did arrest them all).

As for the FBI would know, yes they would, but that wouldn't matter if your objective was to make the everyday person ask questions about the FBIs authority. It's also possible Apple was the real target. I wouldn't be surprised if more than one gangster tossed his iPhone after reading that.
 
cough cough... in order to get the chief of police job in victoria, our local guy had to dispense a local charge of getting drunk and discharging his service revolver, nephew took the blame.... corruption is as corruption does...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top