Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patents Remotely Disabling Jailbroken Phones

Posted by Soulskill on from the trying-to-put-the-break-in-jailbreak dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Apple yesterday applied for a patent to allow remotely disabling electronic devices when 'unauthorized usage' is detected. The patent application covers using the camera to take pictures of the unauthorized user and using GPS to determine location, and it involves ascertaining whether the phone has been hacked or jailbroken, using those as criteria for detecting 'suspicious behavior.' The patent would allow the carrier or any other 'authorized' party to disable or restrict the functionality of the device. Is this Apple's latest tool to thwart jailbreaking?"

16 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Just because it's patented... by jornak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...doesn't mean it's legal, right?

    1. Re:Just because it's patented... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They applied for a patent, they weren't granted one. I'm sure there is plenty of prior art on this type of thing (the cable monopolies come to mind with disabling set-top boxes or the like).

    2. Re:Just because it's patented... by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm rooting for apple on this one. If apple is able to successfully patent remote bricking of products that people own and have paid for, then the consumer electronics universe becomes significantly simpler and easier to navigate.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Just because it's patented... by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they're trying to patent methods for determining when to disable something remotely. Jailbreaking was just one of the clues they would look at, along with other things that might indicate that the phone has been stolen... something the anonymous submitter either didn't understand, or chose to misrepresent.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Just because it's patented... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jesus there are a lot of people out there that think they are freaking experts on this stuff.

      let's start with your first sentence

      No, it means that it's illegal for anybody else to do it without paying apple royalties.

      1. It's not illegal, it would be a civil issue. 2. If Apple is granted the patent they may license it or may not, and they may or may not charge royalties. Since you are an expert in this area you surly realize that the majority of these filings are defensive, right? That the primary purpose of most of these is so that when a patent troll comes after the deep pocket company like Apple that Apple can say we have patents in this area as well?

      Since this isn't a feature that sane or rational consumers would actually want on their phones

      Really? Since I'm certain that you read the application as I did, then you will see that this is a feature that a lot of people would like to have, including myself. I want them to be able to figure out who douche bag is who stole my phone, where they are and brick the device

      Maybe it's because I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but there is something irritating about sitting down to read /. in the morning and first thing reading a bunch of posts by people that clearly haven't bothered to read the article (I know, this is /. and I shouldn't really expect anyone to read anything) and spouting off bullshit as if it were the gospel.

      Now, RTFA and get off of my lawn.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    5. Re:Just because it's patented... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      B.S. No operator better determine that my phone has been stolen without me reporting it so. Unless apple retains ownership of the device, I suggest they stick their patent where the sun doesn't shine.

    6. Re:Just because it's patented... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't sound any more privacy invading than what On-star advertises that they will do with your Cadillac if you report it stolen.

      Well, other than the part where GM remote disables your Escalade and dispatches SWAT to your location because you installed non-AC/Delco(tm) spark plugs. Because, you know, only a dirty hippy commie car thief would perform maintenance on a high-end luxury device anywhere but a GM Goodwrench (tm) service center using genuine GM Parts (maybe tm).

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:Just because it's patented... by m2shariy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taking your pic might be novel.

      Nope. There is a prior art, remember that Pennsylvania school principal taking pictures of students at home? http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/23/2030207/Federal-Judge-Orders-Schools-To-Stop-Laptop-Spying

  2. It's probably by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a security measure for stolen iPhones.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Bad Summary? by mark72005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't say the countermeasures would be used BECAUSE the phone is jailbroken, just that this is one of the data it could ascertain. Right?

  4. Stolen phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ummm, isn't this probably intended for stolen phones?

  5. Oh please, what a lame title by hsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'unauthorized usage' means a lot of things. It *could* mean jailbroken, but - to those with a brain - it means the ability to remote wipe your phone, find it if it is stolen, etc. Remote wipe is crucial on the enterprise. While I question the validity of the patent (how long has RIM had remote wipe?), the actions are valid. Jailbreaking is legal, there is nothing Apple can do to that, so get over it.

  6. Sensationalism at its best? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with Jailbroken phones. Where did the "anonymous reader" come up with that crap? From the first sentence in the abstract "This is generally directed to identifying unauthorized users of an electronic device." And nowhere in TFA does it say anything about Jailbroken phones. This is simply a twist on lojack.

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!
  7. Re:Unauthorised by whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no, the feds decided not to prosecute, which is not the same thing.

    The civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy, taking picutures of semi-clothed teenagers in their bedrooms is proceeding.

  8. Re:Since you did not point it out... by timster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, the items you keep quoting are obviously merely members of a long list of example techniques for evaluating the likelihood that a phone has been stolen.

    There's no conspiracy theory here. Imagine that you were a phone. Someone enters the wrong unlock password a dozen times? Maybe your owner forgot it. You haven't been back to your home a couple days? Maybe your owner is on vacation. But when, IN ADDITION to all that, someone starts trying to unlock you, you'd have a pretty good notion that you're about to be hawked on ebay.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  9. Re:Legal implications.... by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't that kind of action be in violation of the recent ruling that made such actions as jailbreaking legal on personally owned devices? I understand its a warranty violation, but that shouldn't mean that it should allow apple to restrict usage, etc.

    It is completely legal for you to use your credit card today in Moscow, tomorrow in Sidney, and they day after in Tokio, each time buying a 50 inch TV. Completely legal. But the credit card company will lock down your card, because it is much more likely that there is fraud going on and it isn't actually you buying the TVs.