I'm sure they do. That is what Capitalism is all about. It is not about the
welfare of a majority of people. It is about profit for a company and
accumulation of wealth for the individual.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Driscoll
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:39 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: censor: Apple Patents a Remote 'Kill Switch'
for iPhone Cameras
Miriam:
Having spent nearly 50 years in product and process development I make the
following comment based upon my opinion. The basic objective of all of my
work was the financial improvement of the firm in which I was employed.
As a secondary objective it was my fervent hope that such efforts would
improve my financial position wtihin the firm. By and large this occurred.
I do not know if these motivators apply in the case of Apple.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrTccQJOolXwg8Ar7cPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByM3V1YTV
uBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1468639881/RO=10/RU=http%3
a%2f%2fwww.patentlyapple.com%2fpatently-apple%2f2015%2f01%2fibm-granted-most
-patents-in-2014-with-apple-in-eleventh-place.html/RK=0/RS=SZWFvQscJAkxlPZ69
qSiCJ7d4AM-
Thia reference states that IBM was issued 7,534 patents in 2014 while Apple
was issued 2003 in 2014. Data for 2015 is not available at this time.
Richard
On 7/15/2016 9:56 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Perhaps my question should have been, "what is the motivation forits owner.
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
Switch'
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
for iPhone Camerasinjustices.
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-paten
ts-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-iphon
e-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
situation:
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
"Picture this: You're out for a stroll on the streets of Vancouver'Recording Disabled.'
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
Guardian writes.
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
(https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/30/apple-iphone-camer
a-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-impo
rtant-
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
