back
13 comments
No it won't. Just like a billion other research patents Apple has filed for, this won't see the light of day.
Interesting. While recording police activity has certainly exposed many atrocities the few times I have seen police making legitimate arrests recently they are being recorded by a handful of on-lookers who are crowding the situation. I would imagine it is very difficult for police to perform their job under those conditions. There is certainly a benefit that comes at a cost.
There are seriously more important things we should be dealing with as a society than preventing the filming of police. Like disarming the police.

Edit: Categorical imperatives which require the cessation of global human killing -- arguably the only categorical imperative that makes any social sense whatsoever at this crucial juncture for our planet's social history -- require the disarming of everyone. Other categorical imperatives are arguably subservient.

Deal with it.

Sorry, I do not know of any balm for this burn.

What about being filmed makes it difficult for police to do their jobs?
It's easy, imagine your friend is being arrested by speed over-limit. It's what the police has to do, isn't? The thing is, imagine, that you record it, and then show the face of the police to your friends and you go to fight him. It's well known that sometime police should be recorded, but don't forget there is people out there which is hateful. Police, in general also need security. It's by that, so hard to find the best rule for all the cases.
You could have said it was easier to mine the video for technicalities to exploit, or edit the video, making your friend look like the victim and posting it on youtube, or you could go around harassing police officers, then playing the victim while recording it.

But you went with having a picture of the officer so your angry mob knows who to go after with their torches and pitchforks.

What happens if the patent gets granted and then, suddenly, it become mandatory by law that all new phones have this tech? Would all other producers have to pay some sort of the patent fee to the patent owner or would the patent become invalid?
Sensationalist title, the existence of the technology doesn't mean it will be used by police. Flamethrowers exist and they are seldom used by police.
If this technology is rolled out, won't that just encourage people to buy Android devices instead?
Killswitches: the killer app. Coming soon to a self-driving car near you.
Every GM vehicle made in the past few years has a killswitch via OnStar, it's an advertised feature that law enforcement can use it to remotely disable a vehicle (even in motion) if it reported stolen, nothing stopping them from using it for more nefarious purposes.
Wow, that makes OnStar sound even creepier than it already did. How hard is it to rip the system out?
Depends on the model, seems the common 'fix' is to find and remove the cellular radio module or a fuse - but who knows how long (or even on what models) this will continue to be possible, after all, it defeats the purpose of this 'feature' if it can be easily disabled.

This expands beyond GM as well, Toyota has "Safety Connect" now (though it's thankfully a purchasable option last I checked, I don't have a Toyota vehicle new enough to have it) and even if your car doesn't have a similar feature most newer vehicles have telematics devices connected directly to the CANBUS - which, due to any lack of authentication can be used to do anything to your car if there is either a security vulnerability or a adversary capable of compelling the manufacturer to use it against you.

Modern vehicles really are scary things to be in if you are worried about potential state-level adversaries as part of your threat model, vehicle manufacturers are already horrible at writing software for ECU's and attaching cellular modems directly to a network without any kind of authentication or authorization should scare the shit out of anyone.