Perhaps my question should have been, "what is the motivation for inventing
it". I'm sure that the scientists who invented the atom bomb said to
themselves at the time, that they were just following where science led. But
perhaps there are times when the ethical choice is not to follow where
science leads when it's obvious how mankind may use one's invention. I
suspect, as Snowden indicated, money is the important motivator because its
obvious that if you put a capability in the I phone for someone other than
its owner to turn off the camera, you're doing that at the behest of a
commercial or government entity. You're not doing it to improve the
useability of the product for its owner.
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Ventura
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:40 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: censor: Apple Patents a Remote 'Kill Switch'
for iPhone Cameras
Miriam, I have seen this article before. The reason they got that patent (or
any other patent for that matter) is to keep another competitor from
patenting it. For example if Google had patented if first it could end up on
any Android phone Google chose without any control from Apple. Understand
that Apple (and any other tech company) patents thousands (actually tens of
thousands) of pieces of technology a year. Few actually make it into
products. Most are just to protect market share.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 9:33 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] iCensor: Apple Patents a Remote 'Kill Switch' for
iPhone Cameras
So here's the article. The question is, why did they get that patent?
Miriam
Truthdig
iCensor: Apple Patents a Remote 'Kill Switch' for iPhone Cameras
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/icensor_apple_patents_remote_kill_switch
_for_iphone_cameras_20160714/
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterMore AddThis Share optionsShare to Email
Posted on Jul 14, 2016
By Nika Knight / Common Dreams
"Free speech rules don't apply to Silicon Valley," a civil liberties
advocacy group has observed. (Ian Higgins / flickr)
This piece first appeared at Common
Dreams(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/30/icensor-apple-patents-rem
ote-kill-switch-iphone-cameras) .
Owning an iPhone could someday mean being blocked from recording anything
that someone in power doesn't want you to record.
That's the potential ramification of a patent
granted(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/apple-iphone-came
ra-disable-remote-sensors-patent) to Apple earlier this week for technology
that remotely disables iPhone cameras by infrared sensors.
While Apple's patent application uses the example of a rock band preventing
audience members from recording a concert, since the application was first
submitted back in 2009 observers have
noted(https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/20/apples-infrared-camera-kill-switch
-patent-application-hits-a/) that the technology could also be used by
police(http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/apple-latest-approved-patent
-disable-camera-article-1.2693262) , repressive governments, and anyone in
power to stop citizens from recording abuses of power and other injustices.
The patent was approved despite thousands of signatures on a
petition(http://act2.freepress.net/sign/stop_apple_camera) seeking to block
the technology from being developed.
"Here's the rub. The First Amendment and Article 19 of the U.N.'s
Declaration on Human Rights don't really apply to the corporations that
build these cellphones and run these social networks. Free speech rules
don't apply to Silicon Valley,"
wrote(http://www.freepress.net/blog/11/06/22/apples-pre-emptive-strike-again
st-free-speech) the civil liberties group Free Press back in 2011, and
Apple's "cellphone camera kill switch can be used as a pre-emptive strike
against free speech."
Approval for the patent was also granted amid increasing use of smartphone
technology to record abuses of power, whether that is everyday citizens
recording police brutality(https://vimeo.com/124336782) , House Democrats
recording their sit-in for gun control
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHZvFMRdi9A) after Speaker Paul Ryan shut
off C-SPAN cameras, or peaceful protesters recording
assaults(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4) by police.
Critics note that it's not hard to imagine police officers disabling all
iPhone cameras in the vicinity before taking any action-whether legal or
illegal-against people.
Technology website Engadget
illustrated(https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/20/apples-infrared-camera-kill-
switch-patent-application-hits-a/) the argument with a potential situation:
"Picture this: You're out for a stroll on the streets of Vancouver when
suddenly you find yourself caught up in a depressed mob of hockey fans. Riot
police are striking a young man with their batons near a squad car. You pull
out your iPhone to capture a video of this seeming abuse of force-only to
see a flashing message on the screen that says 'Recording Disabled.'
It's also not hard to imagine Ryan having disabled all iPhone cameras in the
House to subdue media coverage of the sit-in: "If the Speaker of the House's
office controls when C-SPAN's cameras are live, it's not a stretch to assume
it would control when iPhones can work," as the Guardian writes.
(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/apple-iphone-camera-disa
ble-remote-sensors-patent)
And critics observe that it's much more difficult to pursue justice when no
record exists of an injustice happening in the first place.
While Apple garnered praise from privacy activists for its
stance(/news/2016/02/18/privacy-activists-rally-around-apple-most-important-
tech-case-decade) against the FBI when the government agency sought its
help in unlocking a phone owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters, it's
also been pointed out that technology companies don't have a spotless record
on civil liberties.
Indeed, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden(/tag/edward-snowden) "is skeptical
of the motives of tech companies,"
according(http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/edward-snowden-life-a
s-a-robot.html) to a recent profile in New York Magazine.
"Corporations aren't friends of the people, corporations are friends of
money," he told the magazine.
Nika Knight is a staff writer at Common Dreams.
Neither Snow Nor Rain
Hooked on Fossil Fuels Forever
UK Could Warm By 4 Degrees Celsius This Century
New Poll Shows Hillary Clinton Tied With Donald Trump
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
C 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
