Apple Helps Cops Hide Police Brutality

[Origanalist]

I can't read the damn article because of a *&*(&*ing ad blocks half of it but here is the video there. Maybe you will have better adblock and can read the article.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/app...ice-brutality/

[helmuth_hubener]

That is not what the patent says.

In fact, the idea she presents may actually be patentable! At least, it would have been before she disclosed the idea in public with this video. It certainly was not one of the use cases presented in the patent. The use cases they present in the patent are things like movie theater access points presenting certain policies, which the phone or device could then accept or reject.

So allowing law enforcement to turn off people's phone cameras is a creative idea, but one that does not seem to have occurred to Michael Bell and Vitali Lovich.

[Origanalist]

That is not what the patent says.

In fact, the idea she presents may actually be patentable! At least, it would have been before she disclosed the idea in public with this video. It certainly was not one of the use cases presented in the patent. The use cases they present in the patent are things like movie theater access points presenting certain policies, which the phone or device could then accept or reject.

So allowing law enforcement to turn off people's phone cameras is a creative idea, but one that does not seem to have occurred to Michael Bell and Vitali Lovich.

I'm sure I'm just being typically dense, but where do you see that the phone can accept or reject what this device does?


"this policy enforcement capability is useful for a variety of reasons, including for example to disable noise and/or light emanating from wireless devices (such as at a movie theater), for preventing wireless devices from communicating with other wireless devices (such as in academic settings), and for forcing certain electronic devices to enter "sleep mode" when entering a sensitive area."

". A base station apparatus comprising: a transceiver module adapted to communicate with a client wireless device; a first module adapted to detect that the client wireless device comprising a first set of functions is within a first range; a second module adapted to identify one or more modifiable portions of the first set of functions; where the identification of the one or more modifiable portions of the first set of functions is based at least in part on received client wireless device information relating to the one or more modifiable portions; and a third module adapted to cause at least one of the first set of functions to be modified based at least in part upon the first module detecting that the wireless device is within the first range and the identified one or more modifiable portions, and to cause notification for a user of the client wireless device to be provided via the client wireless device; and wherein the modification of the at least one of the first set of functions is performed after said notification. "

Does being notified equate to consent?

[helmuth_hubener]

For example, in one variant, a template for a movie theater ("Movie Theater") might contain the following policies: (i) disable audible ringer; (ii) vibrating mode enabled (low); (iii) no wakeup for incoming calls or text messages; and (iv) display enabled for "dim" mode only. In the case where a user has the option of imposing their own policies, they might simply run down a list of different profiles to pick the appropriate one, and then invoke the polices associated with that profile by selecting the "Accept" function of the GUI of FIGS. 6 and 7 for example. Alternatively, the user might specify in a rule that it is always acceptable to utilize or accept the "Movie Theater" policy set, thereby allowing the AP at the movie theater to automatically configure their mobile device upon association or coming within a prescribed range of the AP.

In another variant, the user-prescribed rules or templates can be transmitted from the mobile device to a requesting AP (such as upon initial association), in effect telling the policy controller 516 of the AP what policies the user is willing to accept. If the mandatory policy set for that AP is satisfied by that user, then an association will be permitted. If not, the user may be alerted as to the one or more offending restrictions/selections, and given an opportunity to correct it/them.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm sure I'm just being typically dense, but where do you see that the phone can accept or reject what this device does?

It's not a device exactly. It's a policy management concept (which must obviously be embodied by physical devices to be useful).

[Origanalist]

For example, in one variant, a template for a movie theater ("Movie Theater") might contain the following policies: (i) disable audible ringer; (ii) vibrating mode enabled (low); (iii) no wakeup for incoming calls or text messages; and (iv) display enabled for "dim" mode only. In the case where a user has the option of imposing their own policies, they might simply run down a list of different profiles to pick the appropriate one, and then invoke the polices associated with that profile by selecting the "Accept" function of the GUI of FIGS. 6 and 7 for example. Alternatively, the user might specify in a rule that it is always acceptable to utilize or accept the "Movie Theater" policy set, thereby allowing the AP at the movie theater to automatically configure their mobile device upon association or coming within a prescribed range of the AP.

In another variant, the user-prescribed rules or templates can be transmitted from the mobile device to a requesting AP (such as upon initial association), in effect telling the policy controller 516 of the AP what policies the user is willing to accept. If the mandatory policy set for that AP is satisfied by that user, then an association will be permitted. If not, the user may be alerted as to the one or more offending restrictions/selections, and given an opportunity to correct it/them.

Ok, what I get from that is that you would have to go in and fine tune your phone to what kind of restriction you are willing to accept.

[Origanalist]

That is not what the patent says.

In fact, the idea she presents may actually be patentable! At least, it would have been before she disclosed the idea in public with this video. It certainly was not one of the use cases presented in the patent. The use cases they present in the patent are things like movie theater access points presenting certain policies, which the phone or device could then accept or reject.

So allowing law enforcement to turn off people's phone cameras is a creative idea, but one that does not seem to have occurred to Michael Bell and Vitali Lovich.

I'm sure LE won't care if it occurred to them.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ok, what I get from that is that you would have to go in and fine tune your phone to what kind of restriction you are willing to accept.

Something like that, yes. In order to connect to the access point. If you don't want to connect, if you don't want to have the access point make the policy happen, then the access point doesn't affect you.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm sure LE won't care if it occurred to them.

It is just unlikely that such a capability as the woman is envisioning will ever be built into an Apple device. There is no evidence that Apple is or was ever planning it. There is not even any evidence that anyone at Apple ever thought of the idea -- that it ever even grazed their cranium! This is an idea the woman came up with on her own. It is a disturbing idea, and a bad idea, but it is not Apple's idea.

[LibForestPaul]

PRO-45 is one of the most powerful cell phone jammers which are currently presented on the market. With 45W of output power this blocker is able to disable all GSM, 3G, DCS and CDMA frequencies in the radius up to 150 meters

But jamming remains strictly illegal for state and local agencies. Federal officials barely acknowledge that they use it inside the United States, and the few federal agencies that can jam signals usually must seek a legal waiver first.

[helmuth_hubener]

Another course of action would be for the chief of police to simply ask all the local towers to turn off.

That doesn't prevent the videos from being made, though, just live streamed.

And it doesn't even prevent that for satellite phones.

[presence]

The rapid emergence of smart phones with high definition cameras leads to consequences for law-breaking cops.
Recently, law enforcement throughout the country has been trying to pass laws that would make it illegal to film them while they’re on duty.
But Apple is coming out with a new technology that would put all the power in a cop’s hands.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/app...wdtRiBdStY5.99

..

[helmuth_hubener]

But Apple is coming out with a new technology that would put all the power in a cop’s hands?

Seriously, presence, Apple is not "coming out" with any such "new technology." This press release makes it sound like it's a new product they just unveiled. It's not. They didn't. Nor are they going to unveil such a thing on Sept. 9th or sometime in the near future. While no one knows what Apple, or any other secretive tech company, may do in the far-off future of two or three years from now () the so-called "Free Thought Project" offers no evidence that they have any such product conceived, much less in the pipeline. Apparently she does not believe in things like evidence and facts constraining her thoughts from being free. I do not believe the girl has any technical expertise.

Look, I think her heart is in the right place. It's just that there's no truth to the story. I think she just figured out how to do a patent search for "Apple" and "police". I'm surprised she figured out even that much, actually.