Thieves' heartbeats to reveal stolen iPhones

They really are going round the twist

So, I'm driving in my car without hands-free. My wife answers the phone for me - the phone self-destructs.
Quality again from Apple.

By AndrewBaines1 on 23 Aug 2010

1984

George Orwell never imagined such power.

Are Apple going to take photographs and have the new customer declare their likely area of movement when they buy a new iPhone?

Are Apple ever likely to implement this software onto their devices?

By greemble on 23 Aug 2010

If the Soviets had Steve Jobs we'd be all calling each other 'commerade' by now :>

By Josefov on 23 Aug 2010

LAWL

"Once it's determined the user isn't authorised, the phone's owner can be notified via "subtle" ways such as text"

Anybody else spot the flaw in this plan?

By PaleRider on 23 Aug 2010

So once they determine your phone is stolen they'll let you know via text. It's genius! A bit like online help for router problems

By TimoGunt on 23 Aug 2010

Online Help

What's the problem with online for help for routers? Many households have more than one PC and you don't need a router to connect to the Internet, so not sure what the problem with that is? But yes, this proposal seems kind of self-defeating.

By GillsMan7 on 23 Aug 2010

Well it doesn't matter how many PCs you have. They all connect to the same router. Unless you have a computer with 3G you can't look at the online help. Why do I have to explain this????

By TimoGunt on 23 Aug 2010

Apple Spin

It doesn't take Einstein to work out the agenda here. This is'nt about security. Its about giving Apple total control. It lets them stop you using anything you havn't bought from their shiny istore if you've jailbroken your (yes your not their) phone. Lets face it - they need to think up as many ways as possible to recoup the millions of $ they've lost over antennagate.

By barrada on 23 Aug 2010

Apple Spin

It doesn't take Einstein to work out the agenda here. This is'nt about security. Its about giving Apple total control. It lets them stop you using anything you havn't bought from their shiny istore if you've jailbroken your (yes your not their) phone. Lets face it - they need to think up as many ways as possible to recoup the millions of $ they've lost over antennagate.

By barrada on 23 Aug 2010

BS Reporting?

Funny how a single patent application can be 'spun' to fit any story by any publisher. I'm surprised you've not run with the 'Apple patent to switch off Jailbroken iPhones yet'.

By mbassoc on 23 Aug 2010

@barrada

Persoannly, given the choice between trusting the integrity of Apple Corp and placing my personal information in their systems and on their iPhones, and giving the same amunt of trust to the thousands of programmers who are develop Android, and trusting the community to look after my persoanl data and my security, I'll go with Apple. It's safer and they are more trustworthy.

I couldn't say the same about their computers, but then I have a PC and a laptop and I trust that if i keep paying Kaspersky they will keep on top of their game.

The point is, you cannt permanently and continually run antivirus on a smartphone, continually keep it updated every day, and trust it will keep your data safe, without a major detremental impact on the phone's memory, processing power, data bandwith etc.

Apple's closed business model, whilst maybe orwellian and certainly dictatorial, is currently trustoerthy and safe.

By mbassoc on 23 Aug 2010

proof...

Do you have any actual proof that Apple are in any way trustworthy?

By PaleRider on 23 Aug 2010

Can you imagine the battery life of a device with that spying software?

And the scandal when it starts taking pictures of users (including minors) in various states of undress?

By seagull on 23 Aug 2010

Proof?

I have no proof that Apple as a company are more trustworthy than a system that is open to everyone to deconstruct, but then I have no proof that a my bank is any more trustworthy than the guys playing cards in my local pub, yet I trust my bank with my pay packet and my bills and not the guys playing cads in my local pub. That's becasue I'n not a f"cking idiot. I will take it as read that Apple are more secure and trustworthy than a bunck of thousands of open source programmers until there is evidence to the contrary.

I'd say, four trojans uncovered in Android apps in the last month alone tells me that Google are not doing anything to make sure their system is secure and safe for its users.

By mbassoc on 23 Aug 2010

Is it a built in upgrade function?

Just wondering if, when the phone owner's heart skips a beat at news of the latest version. Will it self-destruct, clearing the way for it's replacement?

Now, that's a cunning upgrade system.

By Tomble2 on 23 Aug 2010

@TimoGunt

Well, I don't know about your home, but in mine the Internet comes into the modem. The modem connects to the router. The router connects to my computer and other devices pick up the wireless signal. If I had a router problem, I'd just plug the modem directly into the computer to look up online router help. Why do I have to explain this??

By GillsMan7 on 23 Aug 2010

So no proof then.

Thought not. Banks are about as trustworthy as they are forced to be. That is all.

Your argument suggests that you are indeed that which you have so carefully self-censored.

By PaleRider on 23 Aug 2010

No Proof Then...

The problem is that Android cannot be a safe platform to operate a mobile phone from because there is no credible antivirus, there are organisations and people intent specifically in attacking the platform, and Google couldn't give a F if their platform is unsecured.

The way I see it, you have two choices. The first is to use a platform and then go and find out which applications are safe and which are corrupt or exploitative, and if you don't have that expertise yourself, to but an antiviral program and run it permanently on the phone to tell you what it's doing and warn you when it's transmitting data you may wish to know about. That's a hell of a lot more power hungry than any mobile phone is currently capable of dealing with, hense the increase in virus attacks on Android users.

The second is to decide you do not have the expertise to make those decisions and leave that decision making to another organisation who will say this program is safe and this one is not and only allow you to install safe applications on your phone. No need to run any software permanently in the background, and a big gatekeeper to telp prevent viral attacks and trogans getting into your phone's software.

It's not a matter of proof. It's just a matter of not having the expertise myself to know which programs contain viruses and shich ones dont, and I have no means of defending myself against them, so I'd rather pass that responsibility to the phone provider and make it there problem.

By mbassoc on 23 Aug 2010

Besides...

If at soem point a mobile phone user discovers they have been harmed by an application, they have no recourse and no claim against anyone. And it's their own fault for installing it without going through the code and checking it was virus free.

At least if there was a corrupt app passing data to a third part on the Apple site, users would have a legitimate claim for damages against Apple Corp and the writers who are corroberated peoples and not anonymous eastern programmers.

By mbassoc on 23 Aug 2010

but why...

are you talking about Android? The article is about Apple, as was my question about trust. No mention of Android. I am purely interested to know why someone would regard Apple, who have a track record of treating their customers with a degree of contempt, as being trustworthy.

By PaleRider on 23 Aug 2010

but why...

are you talking about Android? The article is about Apple, as was my question about trust. No mention of Android. I am purely interested to know why someone would regard Apple, who have a track record of treating their customers with a degree of contempt, as being trustworthy.

By PaleRider on 23 Aug 2010

Some people are annoyingly picky aren't they

By marklitt on 23 Aug 2010

corrupt app... claim for damages against Apple Corp

*Ahem*
http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/appstore/uk/term
s.html
In particular:
Third-Party Sites and Services.
and
LICENSED APPLICATION END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT, e. NO WARRANTY:...and in particular does not warrant that:
(ii) the Services will be free from loss, corruption, attack, viruses, interference, hacking, or other security intrusion.

Of course, they might settle a claim as a 'good will gesture', if it gets enough publicity - And have done so before - However, It's still a big corporation with a share price to consider before anything else.

By greemble on 23 Aug 2010

@PaleRider

When you only really have three possible choices to make, you have to draw a comparison between them and make your decision based on those comparisons. When it comes to smartphones that can actually perform the tasks I require, I have three options: RIM, Android and iPhone. One of the deciding factors in my choice of which handset to go for is security, and who I trust to provide me with a secure system, or whether I wish to take on that security myself. I made the decision based upon the available data that I trust Apple Corp more than I trust myself to be able to debig and detect viruses within software.

It is a simple preposition. You cannot judge anything without comparing it either to recognised benchmark or a comparable analogy. As we were talking about Phones I elected Android. Does that explain it better?

By mbassoc on 23 Aug 2010

@Greemble

Regardless of 'smaill print' disclaimers, companies act in a political manner in the best interests of that company. If Apple sold an App that resulted in provable damages, and that App could be demonstrated to have been evaluated and screened by Apple, and the buyer had neither the ability nor any reason to believe that the software being sold by Apple was not free from viruses and malicious software, Apple would have no leg to stand on. Not under UK law, and I'm sure not under US law either.

By mbassoc on 23 Aug 2010

Trust

I certainly hope you never have to find out, but I would differ in the expected outcome - under both UK and US law. That's exactly what the disclaimer is for - protect the company, not the customer.

By greemble on 24 Aug 2010

Trust

Hey Kids !!! stop arguing...Face facts,you should not trust any company, not just apple....Hey we trusted the banks...and look where that got us.Any company run by humans has the ability and sometimes the will to screw you over,depending on how their bottom line is doing.As for machines.well skynet would nuke you as soon as look at you :-)

By Jaberwocky on 24 Aug 2010

Not arguing. :-)

I am just interested to know what it is about Apple which gives it the sheen of trustworthiness.

Not whether it is more trustworthy than any other development model, since the original statement was made in isolation, and not in a comparative manner.

I have seen Apple at work, and as a customer, you would come very far down their order of priorities. This is not a slating of Apple, it would likely be the same for any other large corp. Would you trust Sony, Orange or Microsoft to have your best interests at heart? If so, why be prepared to fall back on the legal system to seek protection?

Is it that you mean "more accountable" rather then "trustworthy"?

By PaleRider on 24 Aug 2010

Not arguing. :-)

I am just interested to know what it is about Apple which gives it the sheen of trustworthiness.

Not whether it is more trustworthy than any other development model, since the original statement was made in isolation, and not in a comparative manner.

I have seen Apple at work, and as a customer, you would come very far down their order of priorities. This is not a slating of Apple, it would likely be the same for any other large corp. Would you trust Sony, Orange or Microsoft to have your best interests at heart? If so, why be prepared to fall back on the legal system to seek protection?

Is it that you mean "more accountable" rather then "trustworthy"?

By PaleRider on 24 Aug 2010

bloody repeat posts.

Sorry.

By PaleRider on 24 Aug 2010

wot? wot? wot?

Sooo.. eeeeh... the 1984 Macintosh vs Big Brother commercial was actually about showing us Apple would _replace_ BB, not defeat him..
As with all things Apple, it looks and sounds pretty darn good until you start using "thought". After that it's just one endlessly long line of Wot? Wot? Wot?

By Multifarious on 25 Aug 2010

1984 macintosh vs big brother

Ah, for those who haven't a clue what I'm on about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

And it's not even fake or a hoax.

By Multifarious on 25 Aug 2010

Thieves' heartbeats

This will just not work - unless they have wires on it to conect to your chest when you pick up the phone - get real

As with the photo of some one picking up the phone etc - they are so open to class action esp in USA - just look at the class action about the school that had there spy tracking stuff on there computer - they took photos of children etc - this is just not going to work

so it more apple PR over content and ability to do some thing

Mark

By mprltd on 25 Aug 2010

You're missing the big picture ...

The point of large companies like Apple filing impractical and unoriginal patients is not to protect genuine inventions, but (a) to hide the few genuine ones in the flood, and (b) to ensure they have lots of ammunition for counter-suits.

I think we can deduce the process Apple's IPR department uses to generate these "noise" patients: Every so often they throw a party enticing Apple techies on the promise of free drink. Sexy para-legal interns wander round with recorders hidden in their handbags joining knots of mildly inebriated engineers and throw in a seed like "My phone has been stolen again, surely you cleaver boys can come up with something to stop that happening?" She then records the ensuing brainstorming session and, back in the office, transcribes it directly to a patient application form!

Just my little fantasy, but I'm sure it works something like this!

By JohnAHind on 25 Aug 2010

So... will this be known as iSpy? :)

By Faerydae on 15 Nov 2010