# More Apple dodginess?



## ska invita (Sep 17, 2012)

What do you make of this?



> http://www.naturalnews.com/037220_iPhone_recordings_patent.html
> 
> Apple granted patent [that has the potential] to disable iPhone recordings near government buildings or political events


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

Think this has already been posted about elsewhere. Have a feeling that originally there was also talk of disabling e.g. video functions in gigs / concerts.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

It'll be great for suppressing news from a protest. Governments will love it!


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

From the patent (apparently):



> According to the patent:
> 
> _*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._


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

Ah.

And here's the story I was originally thinking about (this newer patent apparently only appeared at the arse-end of August):

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/06/03...to-show-system-for-disabling-camera-remotely/


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Ah.
> 
> And here's the story I was originally thinking about (this newer patent apparently only appeared at the arse-end of August):
> 
> http://www.petapixel.com/2011/06/03...to-show-system-for-disabling-camera-remotely/


The author sums up my feeling on the matter:


> I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a camera that could be disabled remotely by a third party…


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2012)

BTW, the patent is a red herring.  A patent doesn't give the owner the right to do anything - only to stop others something.  So the fact there is a patent is useful for finding out what Apple's up to, but even without the patent they could still do this.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

It's worth remembering that this is coming from the company that can't bear to see the word 'Vagina' anywhere. They like to control and censor things.


> Apple doesn't like vaginas. Or at the very least, the people controlling the censor buttons seem to think the word is too explicit.
> _New York_ magazine recently discovered that customers attempting to purchase Naomi Wolf's newest book, "Vagina," were told the book in question was in fact called, "V****a."
> This has happened before with iTunes, which has tried to ban books for foul language as well as for language it just didn't seem to like. The store also blanked out the anatomical reference that plays a key role in the title of a British podcast called "The Vagina Monologues."
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...s-vagina-penis-references-okay_n_1879197.html


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

editor said:


> The author sums up my feeling on the matter:


I'm going to go out on a limb here in suggesting that, for so long as this is wrt iPhones, it's unlikely to impact too greatly on your all-round smartphone picture-taking experience.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

editor said:


> It's worth remembering that this is coming from the company that can't bear to see the word 'Vagina' anywhere. They like to control and censor things.


If only there were a way of checking these things!


















For certain values of "can't" and "anywhere," ay


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> If only there were a way of checking these things!
> 
> For certain values of "can't" and "anywhere," ay


Ah, the Apple apologist is in the house, right on cue!

So are you actually, really, honestly insisting that Apple hadn't censored the word originally? They might have put the word back in now under pressure, but what the fuck where they doing censoring it in the first place?

Apple have a long and shameful history of moralistic censorship - and here's the proof of their last attempt, even if they have now backtracked:


> *Vagina by Naomi Wolf covered up by Apple iTunes*
> 
> The title of Naomi Wolf's new book, which explores why the vagina is still thought of as "slightly shameful" even today, has been censored by Apple.
> 
> ...


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

editor said:


> Ah, the Apple apologist is in the house, right on cue!
> 
> So are you actually, really, honestly insisting that Apple hadn't censored the word originally? They might have put the word back in now under pressure, but what the fuck where they doing censoring it in the first place?





editor said:


> the company that can't bear


^^^ present tense. If you're not talking about things in the present tense, it's traditional not to use the present tense. Not using the present tense indicates that you're talking about something that isn't happening in the present.

Btw, I wasn't the one who took this thread off topic to how apple "can't bear to see" vagina "anywhere". I was the one who posted details of original and directly related patents, directly related to remotely cutting off phones' functionality. Specifically, curtailing iPhones' functionality. Given its an apple patent. 

In additional ways to those cited in the op.

Picking you up on your off-topic fanboyism after posting directly related posts on similar withdrawals of iphone function is "apologism"?

Can you see why I think you're a bit fucking deranged with this stuff? 

Nope. Thought not.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 17, 2012)

Cunts


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> Can you see why I think you're a bit fucking deranged with this stuff?


It's not me posting up page and pages of screengrabs with the word 'vagina' in them, squire.  

This thread is about Apple dodginess. I think a corporate going out of its way to censor the word 'vagina' is pretty dodgy. What do you think?


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

editor said:


> It's not me posting up page and pages of screengrabs with the word 'vagina' in them, squire.


You would be amazed by how quick & easy that is on an iPad  And well worth it, IMO, given the range and diversity of vaginas!



editor said:


> This thread is about Apple dodginess. I think a corporate going out of its way to censor the word 'vagina' is pretty dodgy. What do you think?


I think it's futile engaging you on a point of principle, because your principles vary depending on the platform you're talking about, usually accompanied by the (irritated) disclaimer that "that's different," usually with no additional in-depth explanation of why & how it's different. And then, potentially, proceeding to state that pointing out apparent inconsistencies in your principles are either trolling or "editor bashing."

Hence my focus on a clear point of fact, with several screenshots with some titles that tbh I found passably amusing. 

I think you're agreeing that they no longer censor the word.

If so, fantastic!  

This is the company that once censored the word vagina, perhaps.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> This is the company that once censored the word vagina, perhaps.


What do you think of them censoring it in the first place?


mrs quoad said:


> I think it's futile engaging you on a point of principle, because your principles vary depending on the platform you're talking about, usually accompanied by the (irritated) disclaimer that "that's different," usually with no additional in-depth explanation of why & how it's different.


I'd find it equally indefensible if it was Android, Microsoft or any other huge tech company censoring the word, so you're argument's a bit of a hopeless non-starter there.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> This is the company that once censored the word vagina, perhaps.


And, hearkening back to the OP, which *does* have >1 patent centred on the remote disabling of >1 phone function.


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2012)

editor said:


> It's worth remembering that this is coming from the company that can't bear to see the word 'Vagina' anywhere. They like to control and censor things.


 
Sorry Ed, but you've been pwned.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2012)

Winot said:


> Sorry Ed, but you've been pwned.


How's that then? Apple did censor the word and only took away the asterisks after their moral censorship received widespread negative publicity. Even the book's author commented on their actions.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 17, 2012)

mrs quoad said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here in suggesting that, for so long as this is wrt iPhones, it's unlikely to impact too greatly on your all-round smartphone picture-taking experience.


 
It's a huge deal for those who don't own an iPhone, think of all those poor Samsung owners who'll have to put up with this oppression once Samsung skanks Apple again!


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2012)

> Apple has banned a politically charged iPhone game that tackles human rights issues associated with mass-produced electronics.
> http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/12/...jectionable-iphone-game-about-foxconn-workers


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 13, 2012)

Here's hoping he makes an Android version available soon.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 13, 2012)

So can we say "cunt" in thread titles now?


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Here's hoping he makes an Android version available soon.


Me too because then I'll be able to play it. These issues need publicising.

Thankfully, Android doesn't appear to ban apps that criticise the industry.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/09/phone-story/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/...i5vcmcubW9sbGVpbmR1c3RyaWEucGhvbmVzdG9yeTIiXQ..


----------



## emanymton (Oct 13, 2012)

Am I reading the Wired article right, one of the reasons given my Apple for its removal is that the money was going to charity?


----------

