Apple Seeks to Patent Highly Invasive Spyware

[INRM]

Steve Jobs is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware
Author: Julie Samuels (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
URL: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08...eking-patent-0

Quote:

It looks like Apple, Inc., is exploring a new business opportunity: spyware and what we're calling "traitorware." While users were celebrating the new jailbreaking and unlocking exemptions, Apple was quietly preparing to apply for a patent on technology that, among other things, would allow Apple to identify and punish users who take advantage of those exemptions or otherwise tinker with their devices.

Quote:

This patented process could be used to retaliate against you if you jailbreak or tinker with your device in ways that Apple views as "unauthorized" even if it is perfectly legal under copyright law.

Here's a sample of the kinds of information Apple plans to collect:

* The system can take a picture of the user's face, "without a flash, any noise, or any indication that a picture is being taken to prevent the current user from knowing he is being photographed";

* The system can record the user's voice, whether or not a phone call is even being made;

* The system can determine the user's unique individual heartbeat "signature";

* To determine if the device has been hacked, the device can watch for "a sudden increase in memory usage of the electronic device";

* The user's "Internet activity can be monitored or any communication packets that are served to the electronic device can be recorded"; and

* The device can take a photograph of the surrounding location to determine where it is being used.

I don't know about you, but I think this is completely and totally invasive, and a horrifyingly bad idea.

I'd like to hear what your opinions are.


INRM
"No matter how I die, it was murder"

[Ausmerican]

My opinion? You need to change your reading habits. As soon as I saw the thread title I said to myself, "Self, I bet you INRM started this thread." I was right.

[Alan]

Here is the actual text of the patent. http://www.patentstorm.us/applicatio.../fulltext.html

Quote:

US Patent Application 20100207721 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING UNAUTHORIZED USERS OF AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE

It's not like how it was being portrayed, but I still would rather not have that.

EDIT: USA Politics?

[Puppycow]

Sounds like an anti-theft device.

Here is the patent application:

http://www.patentvest.com/console/re...100207721.html

Quote:

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

People often possess and carry around a variety of electronic devices, such as, for example, cellular phones, PDA's, personal e-mail or messaging devices (e.g., a Blackberry™), and handheld media players (e.g., an iPod™). Many of these electronic devices are used frequently by their owners, and the electronic devices may contain personal or sensitive information stored within them. For example, the electronic devices may contain information such as credit card numbers, passwords, social security numbers, bank information, contact lists, or calendar information. Accordingly, if the electronic device is lost or stolen, the loss of the electronic device can be exceedingly disruptive to the owner's peace of mind and security. Thus, the owner may desire to find out where the lost electronic device is located or who may have gained possession of or stolen the electronic device.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Systems and methods for identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device are provided. In particular, systems and methods for detecting an unauthorized user, gathering information related to the electronic device, the unauthorized user, or both, and transmitting an alert notification to a responsible party for the electronic device are provided.

In some embodiments, an unauthorized user can be detected by comparing the identity of the current user to the identities of authorized users of the electronic device. For example, a photograph of the current user can be taken, a recording of the current user's voice can be recorded, the heartbeat of the current user can be recorded, or any combination of the above. The photograph, recording, or heartbeat can be compared, respectively, to a photograph, recording, or heartbeat of authorized users of the electronic device to determine whether they match. If they do not match, the current user can be detected as an unauthorized user.

I could imagine something similar for cars. That way, only the owner of the device/car or someone authorized by the owner could operate it.

[davefoc]

Interesting example of my own confirmation biases at work here:

I have thought for awhile that Jobs has gone overboard on some of the restrictions imposed on IPAD users, most notably his unwillingness to allow the use of Flash software. So I was up for a little Jobs bashing and noticed that I was predisposed to believe an anti-Jobs screed.

Alas Puppycow's post seemed to present such a plausible description of the actual situation that with disappointment I was forced to abandon at least some of my anti-Jobs enthusiasm. Then there is the whole thing where I consider Jobs to be one of the greatest entrepreneurs of all time so maybe I just believed Puppycow's version because it was consistent with my confirmation biases based on an earlier view of Jobs.

[Alan]

I linked to it first!

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

I could imagine something similar for cars. That way, only the owner of the device/car or someone authorized by the owner could operate it.

I read a fiction short story once in which a couple of thieves stole a shining new sports car, only to be thwarted by its safety system, which, among other things, allowed the owner to track its location and remotely shut down its engine, leaving the thieves stranded in the wilderness until the cops picked them up. Nifty stuff.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but I think this is completely and totally invasive, and a horrifyingly bad idea.

If my phone is stolen, allowing me to use a preset user name and password to remotely access it and track its exact position with GPS, in addition to shutting it down so the thief can't use it, to be an incredibly good idea, but to each his own.

The idea of taking pictures to determine where the phone is sounds fishy to me, though. Why do that when most phones today come with GPS devices?

ETA

Quote:

My opinion? You need to change your reading habits. As soon as I saw the thread title I said to myself, "Self, I bet you INRM started this thread." I was right.

So agree.

[Upchurch]

Not to worry. There is already a work-around for this problem available: Android.

You're welcome.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Not to worry. There is already a work-around for this problem available: Android.

You're welcome.

Yeah, 'cause they've had something like it since at least April:

http://www.cyrket.com/p/android/com....mobiledefense/

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What would be the benefit to Apple to take pictures of people who jailbreak?

They are a business, and they didn't survive for so long by creating weird and pointless programs.

[tyr_13]

(slightly off topic)

Apple does have a 'strange' corporate community and ideology which is why I wouldn't put this past them, although I don't see this as strong evidence. For example, yesterday I was doing some of my backlog of 'cyber scholar' modules at work. These are little 'tests' where they give a question, then the next page has a bunch of information on the product or service including the answer to question you were asked, then a page asking you for your answer to the question as well as the next question to look for on the next info page. The companies themselves write these for us, as opposed to our computer based learning modules. I had previously done a bunch from Sony, and they were good. There was basically nothing that I didn't already know, but they were good, and even included limitations the devices. Even the ones from Monster were accurate and direct without much of they hyperbole that Monster normally includes in 'informational' materials.

The Apple ones I did yesterday were just nuts. First of all they were more than three times the length of any of the other module. If you get more than one wrong answer you have to retake the entire thing. However, you have to complete the entire thing before retrying even if you know you've failed. That's bad enough, but the 'information' they were putting forth was like propaganda. It wouldn't have been so bad if the four answer choices had not always included a much better answer along with 'correct' answer.

For example, the very first question about selling the Ipad (there are two modules on this of extraordinary length) before any information was given was, "How would you describe the Ipad?"

-The Ipad is Apple's answer to the netbook. (A fairly accurate description as if you wanted a 'Apple netbook' the Ipad is what you would be given.)

-A type of tablet computer. (Accurate besides most people expect even tablets to have a disk drive or at least an SD card slot and USB.)

-Basically a big Ipod Touch or Iphone. (Completely accurate. It's bigger and has a different processor than the Ipod Touch, but exactly the same one as the Iphone 4. This would be my real answer. Note that I wouldn't call this an insult.)

-A completely new and revolutionary experience yet familiar. (The least accurate description.)

Guess what answer was the 'correct' one? This is just one example, it was truly crazy how stupidly cultist they want sales people of their product to be.

I hate Apple's cult-mimicking ideology, but will continue to recommend their products when it best fits people's needs.

[Ausmerican]

I was happy indeed with the rise of the iPad for one reason. It means that within a year there will be a plethora of similar types of devices that DO have capacity for external memory, disk drives, and are not chained to Apples iTunes store and App store.
Also more affordable.

The lack of external memory, whether it is a USB port or two or sD slots, or something is the total dealbreaker for me with an iPad. It just seems inexusable in this day and age and a way for Apple to say, "You will put nothing into this device you dont get online, probably through us!"

ETA: Why the hell is this in U.S Politics?

[elbe]

Originally Posted by INRM

Steve Jobs is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware

What makes you think the owner's of the device wouldn't be aware of it? It would, if put into effect, likely be advertised as an anti-theft feature. If people are willing to have their device take a picture of them when they use it then what's the problem? You would likely not buy it, and that's cool too.

I think a good question to ask yourself when you find a new article you're worried about is "will people think I'm paranoid?" If you think the answer is yes, then you might be overreacting.

[applecorped]

Whew! I'm glad it's not Apple Corp.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by INRM

Steve Jobs is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware
Author: Julie Samuels (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
URL: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08...eking-patent-0






I don't know about you, but I think this is completely and totally invasive, and a horrifyingly bad idea.

I'd like to hear what your opinions are.


INRM
"No matter how I die, it was murder"

I wonder why Cnet is not reporting it this way?

http://news.cnet.com/1770-5_3-0.html...earchtype=news
http://news.cnet.com/1770-5_3-0.html...earchtype=news

It looks like one report on the EFF and that was it, why not in the trade journals INRM?

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Yeah, 'cause they've had something like it since at least April:

http://www.cyrket.com/p/android/com....mobiledefense/

Looks like thats optional dlc though, as opposed to the implied obligatory nature of the software in the OP.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Yeah, 'cause they've had something like it since at least April:

http://www.cyrket.com/p/android/com....mobiledefense/

Would it have been too much to ask for them to have named this "Paranoid Android"?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Looks like thats optional dlc though, as opposed to the implied obligatory nature of the software in the OP.

Its not like it adds any features to the Android, and I doubt the iPhone has anything the Android does not. I think I have seen more than a few Android ads touting new security features as well, but the non-Apple ads tend to blur together in my mind.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by stokes234

Looks like thats optional dlc though, as opposed to the implied obligatory nature of the software in the OP.

If you have an HTC desire HD (the non North American version of the EVO) then something like this comes as standard as part of the software, I don't believe that it can operate the camera or record phone calls though. You can lock and wipe the phone, turn it on if it's turned off (really just asleep- you can only really turn the phone off by taking the battery out), turn on GPS and get a location sent to you, as well as making the phone ring at full volume.

Of course you could, if you wanted to, remove these features but they are enabled by default.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Whew! I'm glad it's not Apple Corp.

Remember this?

Apple Corp
Baltimore
Who's your friend?
Me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGNIY...layer_embedded

[INRM]

Puppycow,

Quote:

I could imagine something similar for cars. That way, only the owner of the device/car or someone authorized by the owner could operate it.

That sounds like a terrible idea. This thing would include all sorts of surveillance capabilities that could be used by hackers or by the government for all sorts of purposes including stalking and surveillance.

[deepatrax]

reminds me of that school which handed out laptops with webcams to its students.

if/when a laptop was stolen or lost, the school's IT admin would turn the webcam on to see if it could be located and who took it

Only it turns out, they were turning on the webcam of computers that weren't even lost...and kids were being photographed changing clothes, etc.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ausmerican

ETA: Why the hell is this in U.S Politics?

Seriously, why?

[INRM]

deepatrax,

Quote:

reminds me of that school which handed out laptops with webcams to its students.

Very good point

Quote:

Only it turns out, they were turning on the webcam of computers that weren't even lost...and kids were being photographed changing clothes, etc.

Correct

[elbe]

But how does a publicly known option on a device equal spying?

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

That sounds like a terrible idea. This thing would include all sorts of surveillance capabilities that could be used by hackers or by the government for all sorts of purposes including stalking and surveillance.

Highlighted the key word for you: could. An ordinary cell phone can be used, and in fact, are used, to keep track of your location. Lots of missing people (for example kids running away) have been found and rescued that way.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by deepatrax

reminds me of that school which handed out laptops with webcams to its students.

if/when a laptop was stolen or lost, the school's IT admin would turn the webcam on to see if it could be located and who took it

Only it turns out, they were turning on the webcam of computers that weren't even lost...and kids were being photographed changing clothes, etc.

Yeah. That was in Lower Merion, a suburb of Philly. They just settled the civil suit for some 610K.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by elbe

But how does a publicly known option on a device equal spying?

I don't see where it says it would be 'optional' or if they would tell anyone they are using it.

Not that I think they would do that, or that this speculations is evidence of it. It would be a horrible business move as it would be discovered quickly and turn all but the fanboys off to Apple mobile devices for at least a couple of months.

It would be as stupid as putting out a mouse that has only one button. Apple wouldn't do something that moronic. Wait...

[INRM]

Safe-Keeper,

Okay, could isn't a strong enough word. "Would" would be better, since this "would" inevitably be used for this purpose.

[INRM]

Bump

[elbe]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I don't see where it says it would be 'optional' or if they would tell anyone they are using it.

Optional seems like a good choice, but I dunno. As for telling people, security devices should be considered a selling point.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by INRM

Safe-Keeper,

Okay, could isn't a strong enough word. "Would" would be better, since this "would" inevitably be used for this purpose.

Why? Why "would" it inevitably be used for that?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by elbe

Optional seems like a good choice, but I dunno. As for telling people, security devices should be considered a selling point.

You'd think that. But Apple is the same company that wants to deny that you should use an anti-virus on their OS. That isn't the same thing obviously. However, if they did advertise such a program as a security feature, they have to balance added sales from the feature against those turned off by the potential for misuse, especially from a company that has (not seriously) floated the idea of disabling old Macbooks in software updates so people have to buy new ones because the old ones last too long. (I actually liked my ex girlfriend's old Macbook running Ubunto.)

Would I say it's a no-brainer to advertise such a feature as a security plus? Yes. Can I say that I have any clue what Jobs is thinking and what he will do? Hell no.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Would I say it's a no-brainer to advertise such a feature as a security plus? Yes. Can I say that I have any clue what Jobs is thinking and what he will do? Hell no.

There are plenty of reasons I don't by Mac products, including what appears to be a hatred for their own customers.

I can only say that if I were designing a system like that I'd make it an optional feature on the device and advertise it as a security feature.

That and the fact it's just a patent suggest that once again INRM is tilting at windmills.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by elbe

There are plenty of reasons I don't by Mac products, including what appears to be a hatred for their own customers.

I can only say that if I were designing a system like that I'd make it an optional feature on the device and advertise it as a security feature.

That and the fact it's just a patent suggest that once again INRM is tilting at windmills.

Agreed.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by INRM

Safe-Keeper,

Okay, could isn't a strong enough word. "Would" would be better, since this "would" inevitably be used for this purpose.

As has been explained to you before, all technology can be abused. Ordinary home phones have been tapped, so it's not like this is a new threat in any way.