Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither – Benjamin Franklin
Reshared post from +Patrick Beja
This is a little freaky… "New Video Breaks Down How An Apple Patent Stomps All Over The 1st Amendment"Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-patent-government-control-phones-2012-10?op=1
This post has been reshared 1 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog for WordPress.
That quote from Ben is one of my faves…from anyone…ever.
That quote from Ben is one of my faves…from anyone…ever.
Is this related to commonly available remote data wipe programs, e.g., http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57520327-83/samsung-smartphones-vulnerable-to-remote-data-wipe/
Is this related to commonly available remote data wipe programs, e.g., http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57520327-83/samsung-smartphones-vulnerable-to-remote-data-wipe/
This goes way beyond existing data wipe. With data wipe only the owner can command a wipe. This system would allow others to take command of your hardware, enabling or disabling cameras, mics and radios
This goes way beyond existing data wipe. With data wipe only the owner can command a wipe. This system would allow others to take command of your hardware, enabling or disabling cameras, mics and radios
+Sam Abuelsamid I still don't understand. I thought remote data wipe was a commonly available tool for corporate device managers. By extension, that means that anyone with the corporate level permission — including a government agency — could perform the wipe and as a result disable the phone and its ability to compromise a secure network. I'm not arguing I'm just trying to place this patent in the range of functions that are already available to corporate and government agencies for controlling non-Apple as well as Apple equipment. Such remote management is a common requirement, for example, in Federal mobile technology procurement contracts.
+Sam Abuelsamid I still don't understand. I thought remote data wipe was a commonly available tool for corporate device managers. By extension, that means that anyone with the corporate level permission — including a government agency — could perform the wipe and as a result disable the phone and its ability to compromise a secure network. I'm not arguing I'm just trying to place this patent in the range of functions that are already available to corporate and government agencies for controlling non-Apple as well as Apple equipment. Such remote management is a common requirement, for example, in Federal mobile technology procurement contracts.
+Dennis D. McDonald when I say "owners" that includes corporations that provide devices to employees. However, when I walk into my office, no one in the IT department can wipe my personal phone remotely (unless they have my login credentials for the service I use) or turn anything on or off. The only limitations are physical limitations caused by RF signals penetrating the building structure but that's just physics.
What Apple is proposing would allow police or virtually anyone else to remotely access my device without my permission and take control. That's just plain wrong.
+Dennis D. McDonald when I say "owners" that includes corporations that provide devices to employees. However, when I walk into my office, no one in the IT department can wipe my personal phone remotely (unless they have my login credentials for the service I use) or turn anything on or off. The only limitations are physical limitations caused by RF signals penetrating the building structure but that's just physics.
What Apple is proposing would allow police or virtually anyone else to remotely access my device without my permission and take control. That's just plain wrong.