When do you stop owning Technology?
If you are ever curious, yes the handlers do participate in events that do not include keyboards, packet analysis tools or malware reverse engineering. At an event here in Phoenix, AZ, USA it was clear that a piece of technology in development deserves some attention. As a lead in to the discussion the event clearly posted, no filming. The Security staff were very helpful in taking photos of folks during intermission and when the event was not taking place but vigilant in telling participants to stop during the course of the event.
This may seem like a soft subject for a diary piece but each of the handlers is entrusted with access to information that our readers post. In turn we all hold each other and ourselves to a high level of professional and personal ethics. but ... Not everyone has the same opinion on what is right or what is wrong. That brings me to the technical piece of this entry that is relevant to the above topic.
Fox News [1] is running a story about how Apple has filed patent for technology that can disable iPhones from filming at live events. After some searching I found a good source for explaining the patent in more detail [2].
In summary, the device will be able to receive commands through the infrared receiver. Keep in mind, Apple has several patents that never seem to surface as technology but this one, due to events last night, strikes as a concept to follow.
At what point do you stop owning your technology? Opposite of that where is the line to cross when it comes to protecting intellectual property?
Considering the world of extreme disclosure we are in, technology like this could be greatly useful in classified spaces and in areas of high sensitivity. For security operators that control sensitive spaces this is a technology that could be excited and useful but be aware that this could be a sign of the times to come.
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/16/new-apple-technology-stops-iphones-from-filming-live-events/?test=latestnews
[2] http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2011/06/apple-working-on-a-sophisticated-infrared-system-for-ios-cameras.html
Richard Porter
--- ISC Handler on Duty
email: richard at isc dot sans dot edu
twitter: packetalien
Comments
Moriah
Jun 18th 2011
1 decade ago
I doubt this technology will ever be good enough to protect classified information. They're trying to stop casual recording.
David
Jun 18th 2011
1 decade ago
Moriah
Jun 18th 2011
1 decade ago
Jan
Jun 18th 2011
1 decade ago
Keith
Jun 18th 2011
1 decade ago
Moriah
Jun 18th 2011
1 decade ago
The second issue is that of retro-fitting features, or taking them away. Sony has already lost in court on the removal of their "Other OS" menu option in the PS3. This amounted to selling a product with a documented set of features and then removing those after purchase, which in some countries is a clear violation of trade description laws. It's like buying a car with alloys, and getting it back with steel rims after you bring it for a service..
I think Apple is on a dangerous slope here as there is more and more reaction to their opaque approach to approval, and they seem to have learned nothing from their iTunes DRM event - it got too hard to maintain so they forced suppliers to drop that requirement so it could be phased out. Apple needs to start thinking about what they are: a supplier who protects the quality of their goods, or an extension of law enforcement with all the associated liabilities, variables and changing-of-minds by politicians who are in need of new scary things now the "terrorist" thing is no longer working..
Thirdly: its a patent. The unintentional side effect will be that if others implement it, Apple still gets the blame as they must have supplied a license..
In summary - whoever came up with the idea of patenting this concept needs a course in public relations. Apple did itself no favors here at all IMHO.
Peets
Jun 19th 2011
1 decade ago
Moriah
Jun 19th 2011
1 decade ago
Moriah
Jun 19th 2011
1 decade ago
Barmar
Jun 20th 2011
1 decade ago