Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras

[KamaAina]

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-patent-could-remotely-disable-protesters-phone-cameras-7000003640/

Isn't it a shame you can't take a photo of the police officer beating a man in the street because your oppressive government remotely disabled your smartphone camera?...

What that means in real-terms is "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."

But the patented technology may also be used to restrict protesters' right to free expression in oppressive regimes around the world -- if you haven't checked recently, there's plenty of them -- by preventing camera images and video being taken at political rallies and events....

This sort of 'feature' would not bode well for journalists taking photos and citizens recording acts of state violence or police brutality in areas where ordinary people are facing increasing crackdowns on civil and human rights.

[onehandle]

1. Article from a year ago. Note date. Google, Samsung, Microsoft and Blackberry have similar patents.

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 06:03 PM - Edit history (2)

And yet, nothing like this has happened.

[krispos42]

17. Yet.

If it comes to fruition that wireless carriers can sell, rent, or lease some sort of beacon that instructs smartphones to not send or receive data, nor to record images or audio, within range of the beacon, then this will most surely be used by the police to enforce a media blackout.

It does not matter the original intent… keeping phones quiet during movies or college classes or weddings or funerals or church…

You protest, the police will cut off the ability of the protesters to communicate just before taking action.

Remember how often the news helicopters vanished during the OWS protests just before the police moved in?

[woo me with science]

2. How convenient for authoritarians.

Imagine what kind of country we would have, if our resources were going toward making life better for people, rather than authoritarian crap like this.

[kentauros]

8. That's true for almost everything we (the US) spend our money on.

If any one of us here was in charge, 99% of the republicans would be in prison, the NSA would be shut down, and the Pentagon would be getting a tenth of the current budget. The money "saved" would go to the science- and technology-based agencies, and the world would see a renaissance of knowledge and tech geared toward helping people and the planet, instead of bigger and "better" ways of killing them.

[Recursion]

10. See, that mindset is the problem, IMO

If any one of us here was in charge, 99% of the republicans would be in prison, the NSA would be shut down, and the Pentagon would be getting a tenth of the current budget

Well, no. Nobody here would be able to accomplish those things as President.

[kentauros]

11. However,

"In charge" doesn't necessarily mean only president

[Recursion]

13. Thank you, citizen Marat...

and there lies the other problem.

[kentauros]

14. So, not killing people and spending our money on progressive things

is a "problem"?

[Recursion]

15. I was referring to what happens when well meaning people start fretting

that they aren't sufficiently in charge of things.

[kentauros]

16. Okay, but I wasn't talking about that.

I was talking about what our massive spending could do for all people, unlike how it gets spent now, as woo-me-with-science was also talking about. But, the authoritarians in charge don't appear to want any of that.

[Robb]

3. It's an interesting argument.

But it's a bit like saying the wifi at the library has the potential to restrict protesters' rights to free expression because they have a surge suppressor on the router with a big on/off switch on it.

Sure, there's the good use of that thing to protect the equipment in a storm, but they could also switch it off to disable protestors in the area from uploading video to YouTube.

Any technology with the ability to enhance rights can also be used to restrict them. Technology itself is neither the problem nor the solution.

Twitter will not free the imprisoned or lift the downtrodden; we people still have to do that.

[Octafish]

4. First Amendment shut off feature.

Nice. Restrict the ability to gather the facts about the government or whatever. Makes it easy to write history Karl Rove's way.

[Heywood J]

5. An old article, but

I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find out that a company whose products are built by mistreated Chinese workers would consider such a thing, much less file for a patent on it.

[MineralMan]

6. I think it would be more likely used to shut down

the phones and their cameras at entertainment venues by the owners of the venues and the performers.

[backscatter712]

7. That's what it was originally for.

To keep people from taking vids of movies at the movie theater, or illicitly taking videos of concerts.

Of course, do these kinds of laws remain within the limits of their originally intended uses?

No, if these "features" are forced into smartphones and cameras, they're going to be used to block filming at protests, and keep people from taking videos of police, and so on.

[KharmaTrain]

18. That's Already Happening...

...I cannot get a signal on my phone when I'm in Chicago's Symphony Center. Walk 10 feet out the door and the signal is golden. I'm sure other venues have similar technology.

Cell systems can overload easily if there's a surge in usage. On 9/11 cellphones in Manhattan were useless...not because of the government shutting things down.

This article seems like more woo about big brother...

Cheers...

[kentauros]

9. So, don't take that kind of camera to a protest.

Use one of these, instead:

[Recursion]

12. I blame Michael Faraday