Arizona Police Told To Search Arrestee iPhones For Anti-Police Apps

Privacy

from the unreasonable-search-and... dept

Last week’s big LulzSec (pre-disbandment) dump of Arizona police info apparently included some documents telling police to search the iPhones of arrestees for specific apps, including OpenWatch, a simple app for recording people (targeted at authorities) without it displaying on the phone that they’re being recorded. The police were also told to look for speed trap identifying apps and an app that lets people spoof caller ID numbers. As we’ve discussed a few times, there are some legal questions about whether or not cops can just search your iPhone during, say, a routine traffic stop, but tragically a few courts have said it’s fine. That seems rather troubling, as the cops can search your phone after just a routine traffic stop… and then potentially get you in more trouble just because they don’t like the types of apps you have?

Separately, the article notes that the Justice Department has been sending around notices to local law enforcement, telling them to be aware that iPhone users have a feature that lets them remotely wipe their phones. This is part of the mobile me service, and the wiping has a perfectly legitimate purpose: to let someone who has lost their phone or had it stolen, to wipe the data from the phone. It’s pretty useful, really. But, to police who are seizing phones and want to search them later, they’re scared that evidence can be destroyed this way, so the Justice Department is telling them to store the phone in Faraday bags to keep them disconnected from any network, so they can’t receive the “wipe” signal.

Filed Under: apps, iphones, lulzsec, police

Did Cheap Chinese Knockoff Phones Lead To The Arab Spring?

Surprises

from the butterfly-effect dept

Last year, we wrote about how companies in China were creating really innovative mobile phones and devices, in large part because they were ignoring intellectual property laws, and could mix and match the best of everything out there. I didn’t quite know what was behind the scenes as the “guts” of such phones, but Fast Company has a fascinating story, about how the massive revolution in cheap Chinese knockoff mobile phones is a result of a Taiwanese firm called MediaTek, coming out with a “mobile-phone-in-a-box” single chipset that anyone could use to make mobile phones. Buy the chipsets, build a case around it, throw on some software, and you’ve got a phone. What’s interesting is the suggestion that this device may have eventually contributed to the Arab Spring.

Basically, the quick version of the story is that the MediaTek chipsets made it easy for “shanzai” to become massive mobile phone makers and sellers overnight. They would take the chipset, knock off features from other phones, or add a few features themselves, and, voila, a phone. As one person quoted in the article notes, you used to need a giant company to build a mobile phone. “But now, a company with five guys can do it.” In fact, these firms would make small batches of all different kinds of phones to see how the market reacted. Talk about rapid prototyping and rapid innovation based on direct customer feedback…

However, with MediaTek not supporting more modern 3G mobile networks, it faced growth limits in China, and moved on to India and eventually to the Middle East, where cheap Chinese knockoff phones apparently became quite popular. The story does appear to be missing any direct evidence that the phones were used in the Arab protests, but does point to reports about such phones flooding into the region in the months before. There’s certainly a correlation there, though that doesn’t mean a causal relationship by any means. Either way, though, it is a fascinating story about how such a “gray market” came into being and changed markets over time.

Filed Under: arab spring, china, india, knockoffs, middle east, mobile phones

Microsoft To US Gov't: Hey, Only We Should Be Able To Use Patents To Shakedown Other Companies!

Patents

from the ain't-that-always-the-way dept

When former telecom giant Nortel was reduced to just a pile of questionable patents, we knew there would be a fight over who got them. Google made a lot of news a couple months back, by placing a $900 million stalking horse bid on those patents. The company has made it pretty clear that it’s mainly looking to buy those patents to keep them out of the hands of someone else who might shake down innovation in the mobile ecosystem. Obviously, Google would prefer that the Android ecosystem not be slowed down by patent trolling.

However, there is one company that’s quite worried about all of this: Microsoft. Even though it’s not clear who will win the bid for Nortel’s patents (and many expect Google to be outbid), Microsoft has officially objected to Google’s attempt to buy the patents, saying that it has a perpetual royalty-free license to those patents, and under the terms of the sale, any buyer could end that deal.

And here’s why Microsoft is a steaming pile of hypocrisy on this subject: Microsoft has ramped up its own anti-Android patent trolling efforts, lately. It’s been demanding licensing fees and/or suing all sorts of companies who use Android. In fact, some reports suggest that thanks to all this effort, Microsoft makes significantly more money from Android phones than from its own mobile platforms. Clearly, shaking down others with patents is good money.

And Microsoft doesn’t think it’s fair that someone else could do the same thing to it:

For Microsoft to complain is pretty rich, of course. Here it is, using patents to attack companies employing Android in an attempt to slow down the uptake of that rival to its own Windows Phone smartphone system. That’s a clear abuse of the patent system to dissuade companies from signing up with a competitor (which, interestingly, it doesn’t attack directly), rather than to protect real innovation (an aim that was thrown out of the patent system long ago.)

After all, those deeply innovative ideas that Microsoft is claiming that companies are infringing include ?natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need, surfing the Web more quickly, and interacting with documents and e-books?. Tabbed screens – yeah, right.

And yet when there is the prospect that Google might be able to threaten in exactly the same way, by pulling existing licences – not, admittedly, a very nice thing to do, but all’s fair etc. etc. – Microsoft suddenly wants the government to intervene to protect it from this bullying.

I mean, let’s be consistent here: if you want to abuse the patent system, expect to be on the receiving end of similar abuse. On the other hand, rather more laudably, why not stop abusing, in which case you can take the moral high ground when others start abusing the system to attack you?

Filed Under: mobile, patents, telecom
Companies: google, microsoft, nortel

Dumb Arguments: AT&T – T-Mobile Merger Would Be Good For The Children

Say That Again

from the say-what-now? dept

In the typical push to get big mergers approved, we often see particularly dumb arguments. Sometimes these involve astroturfing attempts or lobbyists signing arguments for others (or sometimes forging the letters entirely). And then, sometimes, the companies just get people to push crazy arguments on the off chance that someone might believe them. Take, for example, this absolutely bizarre claim from the executive director of the Texas Rural Education Association, Don Rogers, that allowing AT&T to buy T-Mobile would be good for Texas schools:

The proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile will be a giant stride toward providing ALL Texas children quality educational opportunities and experiences. Every Texas student, whether they attend school in inner-city Houston or in rural West Texas, should have access to modern technological advancements, including high-speed wireless Internet.

The resources made available by the merger would make high-speed wireless available to many Texans, both rural and urban. This is vitally important for schools in rural Texas that will finally have the ability to access a high-speed wireless broadband network and all it brings.

He doesn’t explain much further. He does explain the importance of wireless broadband, which is great, and we agree that there should be more of it, especially for schools. But what does allowing AT&T and T-Mobile to merge have to do with that at all? The real answer is nothing whatsoever. Nothing in the merger will make it any more or less likely that Texas schools will get mobile broadband. But, Rogers is sure of it:

I know of what I speak when I say that Texas–in particular our rural schools–will benefit substantially from this merger. To deny the educational opportunities this merger would provide to students living in rural areas would do our children a disservice. This merger will ensure that every young Texan will be learning and performing to the best of their abilities.

I know of what I speak when I say the above is pure hogwash. Whether or not you think the merger makes sense, it has nothing whatsoever to do with broadband in schools. And it certainly would not “ensure” that “every young Texan will be learning and performing to the best of their abilities.” It’s incredibly disingenuous for someone supposedly heavily involved in children’s education to suggest that some totally unrelated corporate merger will somehow “ensure” that kids are learning to the best of their abilities.

Filed Under: broadband, children, merger, schools, wireless
Companies: at&t, t-mobile

Music Service Simfy Files Complaint Over Apple Blocking Its iPad App

Legal Issues

from the no-competition-allowed dept

We’ve talked in the past about Apple’s quite arbitrary approval process for apps via its walled garden, noting at times that Apple just likes to keep out competitive apps. At least one company is questioning whether or not this is legal. Via Hypebot, we learn that Simfy (often called the Spotify of Germany) has complained to German regulators that Apple has not yet approved its iPad app, despite having submitted it months ago. The company pointed out that Apple has already approved an iPhone app from the company, and it seems strange that it’s been stalling so long on the iPad app. Of course, given the timing of the announcement of Apple’s new iCloud music service, Simfy certainly seems to feel that this move was anti-competitive. Of course, on the flip side, that’s what you get for relying on a mostly closed platform. Time for Simfy to see if it can figure out a way to make an HTML5 web app instead.

Filed Under: apps, competition, gatekeepers, music, phones
Companies: apple, simfy

Apple Caves In, Bans DUI Checkpoint Apps For No Good Reason

Politics

from the isn't-the-point-deterrence? dept

We’ve noted that a bunch of senators were on a silly and uninformed grandstanding mission against various apps for the iPhone and Android phones that alert people to the locations of various police DUI checkpoints. Of course, all the grandstanding really did was to massively pump up the sales of those apps. However, it looks like Apple has caved in and banned such apps from the iOS app store. Nick Gillespie does a good job explaining why this doesn’t make much sense. First he points out that most of the data for these apps is crowdsourced, meaning that the app maker really shouldn’t have any responsibility or liability here, but even more to the point, he notes that (as we pointed out originally) police themselves regularly make this info available as a deterrent:

Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads! Somehow, I’m thinking that Steve Jobs circa 1984 (both the year and the ad) would have told U.S. senators sending threatening letters about computer-based info sharing to take a hike. Or at least to spend time on, I don’t know, creating a freaking budget for the country rather than worrying about regulating something that helps reduce impaired driving.

Filed Under: apps, dui checkpoints, grandstanding
Companies: apple

While Sony Sues Modders, Samsung Sends Them Devices To Mod Faster

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the different-approaches dept

We’ve talked plenty of times about Sony’s long history of trying to block tinkerers and modders, culminating in the company’s absolutely ridiculous lawsuit against Geohot (George Hotz) for jailbreaking the PS3. It appears that Samsung is taking an extremely different approach. Rather than trying to restrict or hinder modders, the company just sent a bunch of free smartphones to some of the top modders:

Four members of the CyanogenMod software team on Monday received Galaxy S II smartphones in the mail, direct from the company at no charge.

?All four of us involved in the porting process for the first Galaxy S received a new phone,? CyanogenMod team member Kolja Dummann told Wired.com in an interview. ?After the [Galaxy S II] launched in Europe, we just asked about getting some of those phones. Samsung agreed.?

The phones came with one simple directive ? get CyanogenMod working on the phone.

Essentially, CyanogenMod replaces the stock operating system on your Android phone with a customized build, letting you make tweaks and adjustments that you wouldn?t have otherwise been able to before. Customizations range from changing visual details ? like slapping a sleek new uniform skins onto the user interface ? to under-the-hood boosts like overclocking the phone?s CPU.

Think about that for a second. Unlike most device makers, who jealously try to lock down the device, Samsung hasn’t just handed over its devices early, but it’s specifically encouraging them to get their replacement/modded OS working on the phone as quickly as possible. Which strategy do you think is likely to create loyalty, win fans, and lead to greater innovation and value for users?

Filed Under: developers, modding, support
Companies: samsung, sony

Taipei Orders Google & Apple To Offer 7-Day Free Trials Of All Apps Offered Via App Markets

Legal Issues

from the liability-confusion dept

Apparently some regulators in Taiwan’s capital city of Taipei have extended some consumer protection laws such that they’ve ordered Google and Apple to start providing 7-day free trials of every app, in either the Apple App Store or the Google Android Marketplace, or face large fines. The issue is that the consumer protection laws require a grace period for returns, which neither of these services provide to the extent that Taipei regulators would like. Apple and Google, quite reasonably, point out that they should not be liable as third parties, suggesting (implicitly) that it should be developers themselves who are responsible for obeying any sort of consumer protection regulations. However, Taipei regulators aren’t buying it:

“Such a claim is an irresponsible business practice,” Yeh said.

The two companies have been given 15 days to comply with the law, and if they are unable to do so, they could be facing significant fines. It does make me wonder if either company even has the functionality to offer such things across the board, and how various developers would feel about that.

Filed Under: apps, free, taipei
Companies: apple, google

Oh Look, Apple Copies Android, And That's Not A Bad Thing

Innovation

from the copying-is-okay dept

While a lot of the attention on today’s Apple announcements were around the cloud stuff, there were a bunch of changes to iOS announced, too, and what was striking was how many of them really looked like Apple scrambling to play catchup to Android on certain features — with the pull down notifications being a key such feature. That feature is standard on my Android phone and has been for some time, and it looks almost identical to the Apple iOS implementation.

Of course, this is only fair. Google has clearly copied many of the features of iOS, in building up Android. In fact, I think most people would reasonably agree that Android owes a far greater debt to Apple than Apple owes to Google for features. But the point is that this sort of innovation goes both ways. Whenever we hear about complaints about “copying” or “ripping off” features, people seem to ignore the fact that everyone does this, and it pushes everyone to do more in the future. It increases the pace of innovation. If Android didn’t have such a notification bar (which is quite effective), Apple might not have realized what a disjointed mess its old notifications were. Thus, this ends up improving Apple. Not only that, but it gives both parties reasons to think about making the notification effort even better, going forward, to continue to differentiate.

Now, some might claim that if Google had been able to block such copies via patents, Apple would have had to “invent around” this and create something different. But would that really have been useful or efficient? Doesn’t seem like it. Under that scenario, one party is inventing something new for the sake of inventing something new. Under the way it is here, everyone has incentive to create something new, only if it really improves the offering. That seems like a much better path to innovation.

Filed Under: android, copying, innovation, ios, notifications
Companies: apple, google

Apple Tries To Patent A 'Solution' To The 'Analog Hole': Transmitters That Block Your Camera From Working

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the you'll-never-photograph-steve-jobs-again... dept

A few folks have sent over the news of an ongoing attempt by Apple to patent a sensor system that would allow people to set up transmitters that would send a signal to mobile phones that would prevent the camera from working.

By pairing an infrared sensor with the camera already on board, portable devices could receive data from transmitters placed, well, wherever. Beyond simply blasting out text and opening links like a glorified QR code, transmitters could disable certain features, such as the camera, to prevent recording at movie theaters and music venues. If completely shutting off the cam seems a bit heavy-handed, watermarks can also be applied to photos identifying businesses or copyrighted content.

The patent was filed in 2009, which seems pretty late. I remember having conversations about how such things were technically feasible back in 2003 or 2004, just as cameraphones were starting to catch on, and there were a few early moral panics about them. It’s difficult to see how this should be patentable, considering how widespread the idea was (along with discussions on how it could be implemented) way before this patent application was filed. Of course, the bigger issues are that (1) there are always going to be easy ways around that kind of thing, and (2) for theaters it seems like a pretty expensive proposition for pissing off your customers. Of course, it’s not worth reading too much info into patents like this as an indicator of where Apple is going. The company files lots of patents, many of which are never really touched.

Filed Under: analog hole, cameras, mobile devices, patents, sensors
Companies: apple