Apple Patents Remotely Disabling Jailbroken Phones

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?"

Comments

Just because it's patented...

[jornak]

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

Re:Just because it's patented...

[WrongSizeGlass]

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).

Re:Just because it's patented...

[ArsenneLupin]

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

On the contrary, because it's patented, it is now illegal for anybody else to do this, which is a good thing :-)

So, from now on, as long as you avoid the iPhone like the plague it is, you should be safe against the threat of your phone manufacturer spying on you...

Re:Just because it's patented...

[beelsebob]

The headline is massively misleading, they've patented remotely disabling devices that the device has detected has been stolen, not jailbroken phones.

Stupid slashdot is stupid^H^H^H^H^H filled with anti-apple trolls.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[digitalchinky]

There is indeed a ton of prior art. There are quite a few Symbian applications that enable the 'owner' to do pretty much what the apple patent describes. Also my N900 has a fairly sophisticated script that sets up a reverse tunnel over 3G automatically if the SIM card is changed - once logged in I can do sudo rm -rf /* if I feel destructive - though in reality I'd grab a few good GPS fixes and then retrieve my property.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[Low Ranked Craig]

Mod parent up. I read the patent (shock!) and he is right. http://www.patentvest.com/console/reports/docs/app/20100207721.html This whole post is a flamebait post.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[oldspewey]

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.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[Low Ranked Craig]

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.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[T Murphy]

Maybe there is a legitimate use for this patent, but I'm sure Apple would love to make people believe their iPhone will get disabled if they jailbreak it. I wouldn't be surprised if this patent is in part for scare tactics like this.

Re:Just because it's patented...

[idontgno]

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).

It's probably

[geekoid]

a security measure for stolen iPhones.

FUD

[ViViDboarder]

Reading this it becomes instantly apparent that "unauthorized use" is referring to users of stolen devices.

Jailbreaking is already legal. What use would it be to take a photo of a jailbroken user?

Theft is not legal. It would be VERY useful to have a photo of the user of a stolen device.

Re:FUD

[bsDaemon]

Jailbreaking is already legal. What use would it be to take a photo of a jailbroken user?

If someone broke out of jail and got their hands on an iphone, I imagine having a picture and location information would be very useful to the police. But that's probably not what you meant.

Re:FUD

[ViViDboarder]

Key points from TFA backing me up...

• Claim 4 mentions jailbreaking but looks like they refer to it as a method of potential vulernability
• Claim 10 refers to transfering sensitive user information to a remote site and then clearing the device of said information
• Most glaring is claim 13 which refers to comparing heartbeats of the current using a heartbeat sensor and comparing it with a library of AUTHORIZED USERS

This whole post is straight FUD.

Stolen phones

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Sensationalism at its best?

[Java Pimp]

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.

Re:Just don't buy Apple products anymore

[lxs]

I tried that, but due to this new technology I can't successfully steal them anymore.

No, but thanks for playing

[sammy baby]

"Apple yesterday applied for 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 that 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?"

This is why we should be able to rate stories -1 Troll.

Nothing in the linked article references jailbreaking. This looks way more like remote disabling for stolen phones - the same way that OnStar customers can call to say that their car has been stolen.

The specific means of identifying whether or not the current user is the one who is supposed to be operating the device is discussed, and in that context:

The method of [identifying a particular activity indicating a suspicious behavior], wherein the particular activity comprises one or more of hacking the electronic device, jailbreaking the electronic device, unlocking the electronic device, removing a SIM card from the electronic device, and moving at least a predetermined distance away from a synced device.

So in other words, if someone steals your iPhone, they won't be able to thwart anti-theft devices by jailbreaking your phone or yanking the SIM.