No pictures at protests? Police may block mobile devices via Apple

Apple Moves One Step Closer Toward Location-Based Camera Disabling

In June of last year, we reported on an unsettling patent filed by Apple that would allow certain infrared signals to remotely disable the camera on iPhones. It showed the potential downsides of bringing cameras into the world of wireless connectivity, which appears to be the next big thing in the camera industry. Now, a newly published patent is rekindling the fears of those who don’t want “Big Brother” controlling their devices.

U.S. Patent No. 8,254,902, published on Tuesday, is titled, “Apparatus and methods for enforcement of policies upon a wireless device.”

Here’s the short description:

Apparatus and methods for changing one or more functional or operational aspects of a wireless device, such as upon the occurrence of a certain event. In one embodiment, the event comprises detecting that the wireless device is within range of one or more other devices. In another variant, the event comprises the wireless device associating with a certain access point. In this manner, various aspects of device functionality may be enabled or restricted (device “policies”). 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.

If this type of technology became widely adopted and baked into cameras, photography could be prevented by simply setting a “geofence” around a particular location, whether it’s a movie theater, celebrity hangout spot, protest site, or the top secret rooms at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California.

++++++++++++

Apple has patented a piece of technology which would allow government and police to block transmission of information, including video and photographs, from any public gathering or venue they deem “sensitive”, and “protected from externalities.”

In other words, these powers will have control over what can and cannot be documented on wireless devices during any public event.

And while the company says the affected sites are to be mostly cinemas, theaters, concert grounds and similar locations, Apple Inc. also says “covert police or government operations may require complete ‘blackout’ conditions.”

“Additionally,” Apple says,” the wireless transmission of sensitive information to a remote source is one example of a threat to security. This sensitive information could be anything from classified government information to questions or answers to an examination administered in an academic setting.”

The statement led many to believe that authorities and police could now use the patented feature during protests or rallies to block the transmission of video footage and photographs from the scene, including those of police brutality, which at times of major events immediately flood news networks and video websites.

Apple patented the means to transmit an encoded signal to all wireless devices, commanding them to disable recording functions.

Those policies would be activated by GPS, and WiFi or mobile base-stations, which would ring-fence (“geofence”) around a building or a “sensitive area” to prevent phone cameras from taking pictures or recording video.

Apple may implement the technology, but it would not be Apple’s decision to activate the “feature” – it would be down governments, businesses and network owners to set such policies, analyzes ZDNet technology website.

Having invented one of the most sophisticated mobile devices, Apple now appears to be looking for ways to restrict its use.

“As wireless devices such as cellular telephones, pagers, personal media devices and smartphones become ubiquitous, more and more people are carrying these devices in various social and professional settings,” it explains in the patent. “The result is that these wireless devices can often annoy, frustrate, and even threaten people in sensitive venues.”

The company’s listed “sensitive” venues so far include mostly meetings, the presentation of movies, religious ceremonies, weddings, funerals, academic lectures, and test-taking environments.  ~ Banoosh

******

I wasn't going to get a smart phone anyway for various reasons, but this cements me ever reconsidering in the future. I have an older "dumb" phone with a camera that should work no matter where I am...if my battery would only keep a charge in it.--jef

AT&T Wants to Give You an 80s Makeover

Saturday, May 28, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

by Tim Karr

 

If you were around in the 80s, you might be experiencing a horrible flashback right about now.
No, it’s not because legwarmers and spandex are in style again. It’s because AT&T, that monopoly that once lorded over your rotary phone, has resurfaced with a scheme to rule your mobile phone as well.

Back in the 80s, AT&T’s power was near absolute. That’s why antitrust authorities stepped in to break up the monopoly and protect the American people against abuse.

Now, with AT&T’s planned $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile, we’re reaching the danger point again. And this time control over one of the most vital forms of communication is at stake.
If regulators allow AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile, we would be left with a wireless market that is far more consolidated than the markets for oil, banking, automobiles and air travel.

What does that mean? To achieve comparable consolidation in the oil industry, ExxonMobil would have to merge with BP, Shell, Chevron-Texaco and Citgo. And to make the comparison even more acute, these oil giants would not only merge under ExxonMobil, but you would be required to buy only ExxonMobil gas for the next two years, or pay a steep termination fee.

It means that a service that is becoming as critical to Americans as affordable, reliable water and electricity will be under the thumb of two companies that place their narrow profit incentive above the interests of everyone else.

The problems with this mega-merger are glaring and obvious enough. The real issue is whether Washington regulators are going to muster the courage to speak out and stop it.

If the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice decide to rubber-stamp this deal, you’ll likely end up paying more to have AT&T drop your calls; and access to popular applications like Skype, Slingbox and Google Earth will be limited even further … if AT&T lets you use them at all.

Thousands of mobile phone users have already flooded the FCC with comments since news of AT&T’s mega-merger became public. (The deadline for public comments is next Tuesday, May 31.)

Fortunately, some in Washington are catching on. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, on Wednesday said that such mergers "always eliminate more jobs than they create. There is every likelihood that the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T could lead to both higher prices and decreased consumer choices." (Rep. Conyers' committee was convening a hearing on the issue later Saturday.)

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) who sits on the House Commerce Committee recently said the merger be a “historic mistake.”

They understand what the Justice Department knew in 1984, when it broke up the old Ma Bell: AT&T has gotten too big.

We can’t go back to the bad old days of legwarmers and AT&T. Washington must do its job and stop this merger.

Mobile Phones and Risk of Cancer -- A 10-Year Study

My British friends have told me that the Daily Mail can be a rather dubious source for news, so take this story with the required amount of salt needed per individual...

-~+#x0x#+~-

Mobile phones can increase risk of cancer, suggests 10-year study

Prolonged use of mobile phones over many years could increase the risk of cancer, scientists have found.

However, a landmark study by the World Health Organisation into the safety of mobiles is expected to stop short of concluding that they definitely cause cancer - because the evidence is not conclusive enough.

And, despite spending £15million investigating handsets over the past decade, the authors will admit there is a need for further research into their health effects before definitive advice can be given.


The WHO's report will not be released until later this week, but two national newspapers reported yesterday that it will quote evidence saying people who use mobile phones for at least 30 minutes a day for 10 years have a greater risk - perhaps as much as a third higher - of developing brain cancer.

The 'Interphone' research has been carried out over the past 10 years in 13 countries, and is the largest of its kind.

Although it is known that radiation emitted by mobiles is absorbed by the head when it is held to the ear, it has not been proved that frequent use damages health - mainly because mobile phones have not been widely used for very long.

Between 2000 and 2004, researchers interviewed almost 13,000 people - both tumour sufferers and those in good health - to see if their mobile phone use differed.

Some of these studies have been published individually and have shown an increased risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - for those who talk on their mobile for 30 minutes a day for 10 years.

Many saw the tumour develop on the same side of the head as they use their phone.

A summary of these results concluded: 'Pooling of data from Nordic countries and part of the UK yielded a significantly increased risk of glioma related to use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more on the side of the head where the tumour developed.'

But there are huge question marks over the reliability of the data. For example, its definition of 'mobile phone user' includes people who only made one call a week.

And there are also questions over how much can be gleaned from asking people years later how often they used their phone and what ear they held it to.

Another possible flaw is so-called 'recall bias', in which people who have a brain tumour retrospectively decide their cancer must have been caused by something - such as their handset.

There is also huge scepticism about another of the findings of the study: that short-term mobile phone use actually protects against cancer. Even the authors believe this is highly unlikely.

The report will call for more research, especially among the young.

The Interphone study is eagerly awaited by governments across the world and also by the mobile phone industry, which funded a quarter of the costs of the report.

The Department of Health has not updated its guidance for more than four years. It suggests children should be 'discouraged' from making 'non-essential' calls - while adults should 'keep calls short'.

Other countries go further: urging people to buy hands-free sets, sending texts rather than making calls, or banning the advertising of phones at children.