If you have "no place to go," come here!

Well, so much for the iPhone

Daily Mail:

The days of filming a live concert or sporting event on your iPhone may soon be a distant memory.

Apple is developing software that will sense when a smartphone user is trying to record a live event, and then switch off the device's camera.

Anybody holding up their iPhone will find it triggers infra-red sensors installed at the venue.

These sensors would then automatically instruct the iPhone to shut down its camera function, preventing an footage from being recorde

[T]he real reason Apple is developing the technology is to placate broadcasters upset that members of the public are posting footage of events on websites including YouTube when they have bought the exclusive rights. Many of these firms sell their own recordings of high-profile events, including Glastonbury and Wimbledon, and dislike being pipped to the post by reams of amateur footage online.

Assisting record companies in this manner is likely to help Apple secure more favourable terms with labels when negotiating deals to place music for sale on its iTunes website.

It could also potentially provide Apple with another source of revenue by charging people to film live events.

Technology is liberating!

NOTE Hat tip for link: Vast Left.


jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

Goddamn touchscreens. I've never liked them. I need buttons.

Submitted by dirac on

iPhones are also increasingly able to be jailbroken. My prediction is that Apple won't make it difficult to disable this feature by jailbraking. Mods will always be available. That or people like Lulzsec will DDoS music companies!

Submitted by jawbone on

events or police riots, police violence? I can't see Obama et al not being thrilled to implement such a control on citizens. Recording might become a state right, not a private right. Be sure to get your child's birthday recording paperwork in well ahead of time to be able to record his or her first birthday party!

Seriously, how long before these little infrared sensors are put up along with traffic cams and CCTV cameras? I imagine Britain will be on that ASAP. As part of police cameras?

This is beyond acceptable.

Would the young Jobs have permitted anything like this on his early Apple PCs??

This does fit nicely with the new coverage of miniaturized drones.

And this, from PC Magazine, a prediction that all these news reports on hacking are part of a campaign to make gov't control of the internet seem "necessary" and part of "national security": No more anonymity for anyone.

.... By making any one of these hackers appear to be a horrendous threat to public safety, a number of initiatives can be rushed through Congress. All sorts of onerous laws will be passed, which probably will not affect the scene at all but will allow more government intrusion into the Internet. It will become illegal to sell any programming tools that can be used by a hacker, despite the usefulness of these tools to security experts. It will also become a felony to attempt to deconstruct a password or enter a system for whatever reason.

I have predicted for years that at some point people are going to have to be registered and licensed to use the Internet at all. You can see it coming as clear as day. These hackers, of course, have to be stopped, and this is how they'll do it.


.... [A]s far as I know, nobody has ever really considered the fact that any number of hacker attacks could be false flag events or, in other words, fake. The way the news is covering hacking lately, I suspect we are about to see a big one soon. A whopper that will upset everyone.

The end result will be a huge sweep of every hacker and would-be hacker with a grateful public cheering on the government. The hackers will not know what hit them, as they are arrested in a huge sweep. Give the possibility of this scenario about a year and see if I'm right. (My emphasis)

Submitted by cg.eye on

Wouldn't stars pay big dollars to disable all paparazzi cameras? Burglars, to disable panopticons at will?

The only limitations would be on changing the codes as users change passwords -- and the creation of a hacker race which will only be stopped by outlawing hacker tools.

Submitted by cg.eye on

of national intelligence agency flunkies. Those hackers aren't so much for freedom as for calling those less powerful than they, as suckers, and their tastes for torture and cruelty certainly fit.

The only problem with this hypothesis is aim -- how will their eventually undisguised authoritarian owners crack down on those who truly want a free Internet? My tip -- watch for public wholesale purges of /b/, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, etc. Not on the microlevel of rape charges, but international pr0n rings and trafficking.

When we start seeing more disguised whistleblowers on our screens, the leveraged buyouts will have begun....

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

is and always has been "for the lulz." You understand it a bit better if you've ever spent time on 4chan. It's really kind of utopian in a twisted sort of way: people of all ages and means and circumstances from every corner of the world get together to mock and deride and belittle.

Submitted by cg.eye on

Despite their rhetoric, they would be the last to support democracy, and most likely see themselves as the epitome of meritocracy, which we know doesn't exist in the real world.

Their whole existence is based on knowing everyone else without their power is beneath them. Does that remind you more of a freedom fighter, or Dick Cheney? They torture others on the Internet, then brag about it. You really want these people on your side? And if you do, isn't it out of fear?

And who, historically, profits the most from a culture's acceptance of torture? Not those who support freedom, but the state. Doesn't matter if they get small victories that help security or net neutrality -- the trend, in their actions and governmental response to their actions, is fascism.

Submitted by JuliaWilliams on

Like HBGary? US Chamber of Commerce? I prefer the assymetric "bullying" of Anon against the all-out warfare of our corporatocracy, and in those types of actions, I see some real value. I don't think one can attempt to paint the "Anonymous" movement as some monolithic culture of bullying, there are many factions and splinter groups (see "luzsec") with various motivations. The principle of internet freedom, greater transparency and prying open the secret and nefarious doings of the various repressive regimes and corporate violations of our commons is an important one, IMHO, and I haven't seen a better answer to this problem than Anon as yet.