Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Patent Application on Detecting 'Unauthorized' iOS Device Usage Causes Controversy

they're going to be able to secure all those iPhones, iPads, and other gizmos if they get lost or stolen
Click to expand...

cute choice of words .. sounds like they might be looking for a way to track down people who pick up loose prototypes in bars, sell them to online electro-glamour sites, or take them apart

it's the next natural step after the remote wipe .. I'd expect fingerprint sensors, eye-scans, etc .. this sort of thing can go a long way in winnning certain government business :)
 
roundobi said:
This looks more like an anti-theft system that could be built into mobile-me and find my iPhone. Register your phone as stolen and when the unauthorized user comes along, it restricts the device.

Perhaps!
Click to expand...

I, somewhat, don't dislike this idea. I hate all the "google-esque-all-my-personal-info-is-in-the-could" type of things but I'm starting to have a bunch of personal information on my device (facebook auto-login, non-auto login bank app, mails, etc.) Nothing too critic (yet) but still, I think I would feel better knowing that these information could be restricted when I'm not in control of my device...
 
Nothing to worry about

It wasn't long ago when the back door to remove Apps was widely talked about, but Apple has yet the need to use it. Even when Apps that have been purchased legitimately off the Apple store that allows users to do things they shouldn't be able to do. Like the "Flashlight" app.

I see this as a way for Apple to help control issues like hackers taking advantage of iDevices and potential security flaws. Also if something gets out of hand from a "corrupt" app that does get leaked thru, that is malicious, gets lock so it becomes an "unauthorized" user/app. Not removing the App but just disabling some of the functions.

There are lots of reasons why Apple could be using the methods they are implementing and as of this moment I see no reason to worry about Apple's intentions. If Apple tried to use this as an Anti-Jailbreak then Apple will instantly be sued as jail breaking is now a legal right.

I am not naive to think people can't abuse power, including Apple, so being aware is great, but being negative doesn't help either. I have not seen Apple abuse personal privacy yet, only the opposite. Apple has, in my opinion, gone to extremes when you start looking at what other companies are doing with our personal information. Facebook is so unsecure it is scary yet I don't see people raising arms about them.

I see this move as another way Apple is protecting me and my personal information.
 
Our government and military are using iPhones and iPads, and they are doing App development as well. On the non-military side, even my wife's law firm requires her iPhone to be passworded after only 5 minutes of nonuse. I set mine at 4 hours, so it's not that big a deal.

It's a pain in the ass to have to repeatedly type your password in every time you want to use your iPhone.

This solves that problem. Your iphone's camera could just do facial recognition or whatever and identify you as the user, rather than having to type in a password every freaking time you use the phone. That doesn't seem like big brother. It seems like the individual user saying, "I want nobody but me to be able to use my iPhone, and I don't want it to be a pain in the ass".

Of course it is also more secure than a password, unless someone steals your face.

I'd love this feature, and I hope it's available soon.
 
Auchron said:
I see this move as another way Apple is protecting me and my personal information.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe. Can't tell since it's not shipping.

But it's DEFINITELY Apple protecting their intellectual property/research.

(Also, it occurs to me that this is double edged technology. While it can be used for ill, there is definitely potential for good uses here. And there's value in developing multiple methods of security, not all of which are rolled out into production. And, of course, they may not be rolling it out until there are methods to assauge consumers' legitimate concerns--this is a patent, you know).

(Edit: to clarify, if they're developing a way to use this method in a way that there's no privacy concerns, then they HAVE to file this patent in order to stake their claim, NOW, without any ameliorating safeguards).
 
This is why my next phone is going to be a wm7 or android, because apple cares more about dumb jailbreaking than adding features. Apple needs to care more about what customers want than what there DOING!!! Who cares apple add some damn features.
 
This will be a good thing for security. If it gets to be a bad thing for consumers, they'll dump the product. So it's a win, if it's ever used.

What would be worse is Apple don't patent it and someone else with a worse agenda does then forces Apple to pay to be able to do even the unquestionably good parts of it (like blocking out-and-out malware that gets past the app store).

This patent, if granted, would be a tool at Apple's disposal, not a requirement they act like jerks. I say go nuts if and when they use it negatively, not before.
 
Yeah, as usual...

...the fools without any knowledge of business or law are running around like chickens with their heads cut off.

sigh.
 
Not thinking about Orwellian ideas, I find the anti-theft possibility intriguing as such functionality could render a device (iPhone, iPad, macbook, etc) useless for a thief as it becomes unsellable. Which, in turn, might result in less theft. Also your personal data is more secure as the device will be able to know if it's you or not. Another obstacle however will be how to deal with allowing someone to handle your device ("Hey, have a look at the photo's on my iPad" or "Here, use my phone to make a call")
 
4np said:
I find the anti-theft possibility intriguing as such functionality could render a device (phone, macbook, etc) useless for a thief, hence limiting the actually theft value of such a device as it becomes unsellable.
Click to expand...

The question is why Apple needs to to check the user pulse for that. Could not they just brick the phone when reported stolen by user? Or are they going to brick the phone without user report? What if I get too excited and my pulse jumps? Will this cause Apple to brick my phone?
 
What's the big deal?

I'm sure the jailbreak of "that time" will disable that feature, just like the current one disables the "kill switch".
 
aristotle said:
I think this is an anti-theft patent, not anti-jailbrake. As much as Apple does not want people to jailbreak, I don't see them remotely bricking jailbroken devices because that would cause a massive class action lawsuit or possibly an angry mob with torches and pickforks knocking on the door of Apple HQ.
Click to expand...

velocityg4 said:
If this is a setting I have control over and the ability to choose what is suspicious then this seems a good feature. As long as I can set it to only report to me when my defined suspicious activity is encountered.

On the other hand if it is just built into the iOS and reports surreptitiously to Apple without my consent then I would never use an iOS device again. There may also be legal issues with flagging jailbroken/unlocked devices since those activities are legal to do on a device you own.
Click to expand...

maflynn said:
So now apple is not only dictating what applications that can be sold, they may employ a policy that they will remotely kill an iPhone because it has applications that they have not employed.

Way to go apple, that's one great way to win consumers.
Click to expand...

h1r0ll3r said:
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...

OnTheZone said:
This is why my next phone is going to be a wm7 or android, because apple cares more about dumb jailbreaking than adding features. Apple needs to care more about what customers want than what there DOING!!! Who cares apple add some damn features.
Click to expand...
You guys have never actually jailbroken an iDevice, right? apixel beat me by a moment:
apixel said:
I'm sure the jailbreak of "that time" will disable that feature, just like the current one disables the "kill switch".
Click to expand...

Duh.
 
maflynn said:
This used to be apple
1984a.png


This is now apple.
1984b.png


So now apple is not only dictating what applications that can be sold, they may employ a policy that they will remotely kill an iPhone because it has applications that they have not employed.

Way to go apple, that's one great way to win consumers.
Click to expand...

you, sir/madam, are a f________________________t.

Fill in the blanks as you please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back