Is Apple Launching a Pre-emptive Strike Against Free Speech?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Is Apple Launching a Pre-emptive Strike Against Free Speech?

Timothy Karr
Posted: 06/22/11 08:33 AM ET

So you think you control your smartphone? Think again.

Late last week reports uncovered a plan by Apple, manufacturer of the iPhone, to patent technology that can detect when people are using their phone cameras and shut them down.

Apple says this technology was intended to stop people from recording video at live concerts, which should worry the creative commons crowd. But a remote "kill switch" has far more sinister applications in the hands of repressive governments. And it further raises concerns about the power new media companies hold over our right to connect and communicate.

Imagine if Apple's device had been available to the Mubarak regime earlier this year, and Egyptian security forces had deployed it around Tahrir Square to disable cameras just before they sent in their thugs to disperse the crowd.

Note to fanboys: I own a Macintosh 128K, a Mac 512K, a 512Ke, newer Macs, external drives, a QuickTake camera, OSes that can run that 128K all the way up to OS X, and on and on. I do not "hate Macs." But I am really getting extremely wary of the current incarnation of Apple, especially as the company is becoming the entity it warned us against in its "1984" commercial. Its recently awarded patent in which it claims, basically, to own all smartphone touchscreen technology doesn't help much.

[trumad]

1. somebody will jail break this as well

[tridim]

4. At least until Apple disables jail broken iPhones.

Big brother needs to be stopped, not worked-around.

[obxhead]

24. What are the percentage of "broken" phones out there?

My guess is somewhere in the ballpark of less than 1 percent.

This is a dangerous direction to be going, regardless of company leading it.

[vi5]

2. Agreed....

I'm a heavily mac invested user. But I'm not going to pretend this is anything other than incredibly shitty.

[AndyTiedye]

3. Put the Phone in "Airplane Mode" and It Won't Receive Any Such Shutdown Signal

"Airplane mode" shuts down the radios on the phone. No radio, no shutdown signal.

[emulatorloo]

5. Try to be rational. You aren't supposed to record concerts

We don't have a "freedom to record concerts and put them on YOU TUBE."

This isn't a freedom of speech issue.

You may not like it, it may be an issue for those who want to illegally record concerts.

[TheWraith]

7. Right. So to stop that, someone else should have total control over your phone?

That's right up there with the idea that if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind anyone tapping your phone calls.

[emulatorloo]

12. No, it isn't parallel at all. It protects those who have the copywrite to film and broadcast a

concert.

You may not like the notion of copyright, that is a different issue entirely.

[TheWraith]

22. No, it's not.

Preemptively trying to force people under your control, because they MIGHT commit a crime, one which--in reality--has no real negative impact on you? Hell no.

[KittyWampus]

49. Apparently, the termination of recording will be triggered by infra-red sensors installed at events

Which adds a wrinkle to the whole issue.

[ejpoeta]

10. really? so what about when they decide that you shouldn't record police beating people in the

streets? because i could see that application too.

[emulatorloo]

13. Let me know when somebody does that.

Then I will get upset about it.

[TheWraith]

23. Too late--you've already approved of it.

Because after all, it's okay to do it for copyright reasons--and taping the police is already illegal in many states.

[emulatorloo]

31. Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not "approve" it by the govt

[TheWraith]

33. You did, whether you like it or not.

If you approve of a private entity remote-controlling your phone to comply with civil laws that you can't even be arrested for, you really don't have any leverage to prevent the government from doing the same thing, with the same technology, to enforce criminal laws against taping the police.

[bigmonkey]

36. You refuse to try to prevent it.

You will just lament it when/if it happens. How effective will that be in correcting the problem. The track record is that complaint will be shut down with "it's too late for that".

Do you see yet?

[emulatorloo]

39. nothing in my posts that says I "refuse" to do anything

That is in your head.

[bigmonkey]

43. I wish there were a simple term for your point of view.

Focus determines where the energy goes. The consequence of your presentation is ineffectiveness in the face of potential threats.

[EOTE]

28. Yeah, you just want them to have the ability to do that now.

When they decide to enact further measures, it will already be too late. You might be upset about it then, but there will be nothing you can do about it.

[emulatorloo]

32. I said nothing of the sort, so stop lying about what I said.

[TheWraith]

34. How about you address what EOTE said?

The fact is, letting this happen now, for ANY reason, means that you do not get a second chance to choose when the police start using it.

[emulatorloo]

38. Why should I address someone who is willing to misrepresent/lie about what I said?

What would prevent him/her from lying about my new statements?

[EOTE]

46. I did no such thing. Now it's you lying about me.

You said you weren't upset by them having this ability. Those were your words, not mine. So when they decide to use this technology for other means, it will be too late because people like you never gave a damn.

[EOTE]

45. On edit. Wrong place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. How long do you think until a police

car is equipped with the gear to disable the cameras around it?

THINK!

You are right insofar as the concerts go, and even that one could be argued... but the latter is the dark side of the technology... and you can bet police officers will be glad for that.

[ejpoeta]

37. well considering that so many places have already taken steps to make it illegal to record police

it seems to be a safe bet that something used to prevent the illegal recording of concerts could also be used to prevent the illegal recording of something like say beating of citizens... something like a rodney king like incident or so many that we have seen which is the reason for the steps being taken to make it illegal to record the police. while one may agree with the concept that people should not be recording concerts, one must also understand that the ability to remotely prevent these types of things also allows one to prevent other things remotely. other things that might be important... like say, showing brutality by law enforcement.

[Wait Wut]

11. +1

"We don't have a 'freedom to record concerts and put them on YOU TUBE.'" :thumbsup:

[xphile]

42. Apparently we don't have the right to record the police when they're

possibly abusing citizens either. This technology may be sold as a way to stop copyright infringement but it will end up infringing on our civil liberties which are a lot more important than stopping someone from making a blurry concert video.

[arikara]

27. Who gets the kill switch though?

Concert promoters? the cops? government? Apple? the mob?

[woo me with science]

48. TSA agents? nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

40. Do you believe that my Canon DSLR should have a kill switch?

It's a much, much better camera than the one that comes with the iPhone, and it's capable of taking great concert pictures. Should Canon have a remote kill switch so that they can stop me from photographing what they think shouldn't be photographed?

For that matter, should my PC have a remote kill switch that someone can activate in case I start to browse Bad Places or download music or movies?

Not interested in the kind of world you want, thanks.

[mythology]

44. The argument that a technology could be used to break the law

used to not work as in the example of VCRs.

[MadHound]

6. Buy some other smart phone

Or carry an actual video camera to the concert:shrug:

[Johonny]

9. +1

[emulatorloo]

14. Pretty sure if Apple is able to work this out, other smartphones will adopt

a similar technology.

Yeah I think a video camera would be best, at least for the time being.

[cbdo2007]

19. So go buy a video camera.

[Dept of Beer]

21. Or don't buy a smart phone if you don't like what they are doing with them.

[treestar]

8. The owner of the venue could prohibit phones from being in the place

That would be more of a pain in the neck, I am sure.

Of course the government shouldn't have it.

[emulatorloo]

17. agreed on both points

[nichomachus]

15. Speaking of scary

Yesterday, I was talking with a friend on the phone. He was on his cell and I was on my VOIP line. We had been chatting for about 10 minutes, when suddenly a recorded female voice came on the line and said "This call is now being recorded."

I hung up.

WTF????

[FiveGoodMen]

26. WTF indeed!

[DainBramaged]

16. You don't think Google and Facebook haven't already?

Go out and find areas where there aren't cameras watching everything we do. luckily where I live, the town is poor and they haven't afforded it yet, but where I work, the town is littered with cameras watched 24/7.

[Poll_Blind]

18. --> Just wait till Federal, State and Local governments don't want you recording the police.

Witness:"Well, your Honor- I tried to record the beating but my iPhone just turned off."

Defense:"Your honor, this case has now become the word of a single, unreliable witness against that of five trained officers, including officer Koon who explained in great detail how Rodney King attempted to attack and kill the responding officers."

PB

[emulatorloo]

20. That would require a bunch of those infrared transmitters being put in place

Basically there will be some transmitters in the Concert venue that put out a signal telling the iPhone that it is a copyrighted event.

If something like your scenario happens, it will be technology coming out of the government, not this technology.

[TheWraith]

25. So it's magically a different technology when the police use it?

I'm sure that the police would never think to use the same transmitters used by concert venues. And they would never, EVER do anything like that without formally declaring it, and giving you a full chance to fight it then, the chance you passed up when it was snuck into devices under the incredibly over-broad assertion of "copyright."

[emulatorloo]

29. Sorry, I don't believe I said any of that.

If you have a problem with music and performances being copyrighted, that is a different issue.

If similar technology is being developed by the govt, it is not just going to work just with iPhones.

So yes it would be a different technology.

And if the gov is developing such a technology, I AM PRETTY SURE IT PRE-DATES anything Apple might be experimenting with for concert venues and sporting events.

[Poll_Blind]

30. I don't see the difference. It's about the enabling the technology, not who uses it.

I'm saying the technology is open to a great deal of potential abuse and that potential abuse far outweighs the very narrow spectrum of benefit which the technology is outwardly defined as being used for.

PB

[amborin]

41. K&R didn't Lieberman want some kind of 'kill switch'?

[Shagbark Hickory]

47. Remote stun/kill as it's called has been around for a long time for other radio devices.

I wouldn't worry so much about them turning off the device if they don't like what the discussion is about.