backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 14 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Jul 31 at 4:01 PM
Apple files patent for system to deny recharging to stolen gadgets

Apple recently filed a patent for a security method that would keep thieves that steal iPod’s and iPhone’s from being able to charge them. The idea is that the Apple gadgets can only be charged by user-approved power supplies.

 

Somehow Apple will make it so that the iPod or iPhone can tell the difference between your charge cable and mine and wouldn’t allow me to charge the gadget. The patent also says that there is a way for users to disable charging if the device gets outside a predefined geographical area.

 

We can safely assume that last one is for the iPhone, since the iPod really has no way of knowing where exactly it is geographically. The part about this system that I don’t get is how exactly the system works if you forget your password. I am also curious as to how exactly you add new user approved devices to the list. For instance, what if I am at a friend’s house and need to charge my iPod. Is it easy to add his charger as an approved item?

 

Apple also says in the patent that this isn’t a method of locking out third-party chargers, that the user can specify any charge systems third-party or not. That certainly brings the question up in my mind of how the system works, at first glance you might think it was a collaboration between the charge cable and the device. Perhaps it is, I guess on devices with this implemented the third-part charger may be required to have some sort of electronics onboard as well.

 

The real question for me is will this really stop thieves from trying to rip off Apple gadgets? Personally, I don’t think so. I think a thief is going to be willing to take his chances on getting a Apple device not configured correctly. I also think it will only be a matter of time before hackers bypass the security mechanisms. After all, the iPhone is barely hit the shelves and already there are gobs of iPhone hacks floating around.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
NICE TRY BUT....
By cbo on 7/27/2007 6:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
It nice to have some comfort that if you get ripped off they will be walking around with a glorified paperweight. But I find two thing creepy about this.
One I don't what my device knowing where and how I am charging it its just a little too big brother for me.
Two Its sounds like a way to lock you in to apple products and accessories even further especially with the iphone.




RE: NICE TRY BUT....
By cbo on 7/27/2007 6:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
my bad it clearly states that aplle will not lock out trid parties.


RE: NICE TRY BUT....
By johnsonx on 7/27/2007 12:28:27 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps not, but if this technology requires some sort of smart electronics in the charger (which they probably have to get and/or register with apple), that will significantly raise the bar of entry for third party accessory suppliers. They won't be able to just whip something up cheap and quick.


RE: NICE TRY BUT....
By Moishe on 7/31/2007 3:56:59 PM , Rating: 3
It puts thieves on notice.... steal the charger too (if you can)!

Gotta admit, it would be pretty hard to get your iPod AND your charger. I'm guessing the chargers will all need a chip with a unique id... But I would think it would be relatively for hackers to make special chargers that would act like any id, even if it's just by brute force. cool that Apple is trying though.


Hard way
By haelduksf on 7/28/2007 1:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that this is the hard way to do it.

Since iPods are so tightly integrated into iTunes, why not just send a kill signal through iTunes if the iPod is reported stolen?




RE: Hard way
By Procurion on 7/29/2007 4:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Note to self";
If I ever get pissed at Apple, hack into mainframe of Itunes and send kill signal to every Ipod in existence.

On second thought, they wouldn't be that stupid, would they?


RE: Hard way
By Moishe on 7/31/2007 3:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think that would do well... It's like a putting a "stop" on a check. You'd still be able to steal it, and sell it to an unwitting victim as long as you don't plug it in. They should just sell one product that does it all and includes a phone so that it can check up on you. Then Apple can rule the world as our favorite big brother. (I for one welc.... eh... nm)


Clever
By 3kliksphilip on 7/26/2007 6:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
No, it probably won't stop hackers for long, but it'll definitely make it harder for thieves. Yes, I know that some people will find it annoying, but how much of the time are you reliant on other people's chargers any way? Why would you even need to charge when at a friend's house? Are they REALLY that boring? Besides, it's not as if the majority of the world will have an IPhone. Yet another interesting idea from Apple. I'm interested to see what other people's reactions are, once this is implemented.




RE: Clever
By Moishe on 7/31/2007 4:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
I've never used someone else's charger... but then I don't own an Apple product. It is fairly annoying that all the different phones use separate chargers. Maybe what we need here is a uniform charging (and data access) scheme for all of our mobile devices.


Easy implementation
By Lyman42 on 7/31/2007 1:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless of the wording in the patent, wouldn't it be feasible for Apple (or any company) to safeguard the charging on the product itself and not the power accessory? Think of it, the Ipod could have two charge systems: one system for sensing the charge, and the other for charging the ipod itself.

This charge sensing system would have a relay in it. The system would default to a disconnected state. When the system would sense power, it would send a some code or flag signal to the ipod o/s that there is a power plug attached. At this point the software would poll the user for a password. Once the user inputs the correct password, the relay switches to a connected state and the ipod charges normally.




RE: Easy implementation
By dajeepster on 7/31/2007 2:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can just predict what's going to happen now:
consumer:
"Hello Apple, I forgot my password on my iDohicky"
Apple:
"Just send the iDohicky in with $49.95 and we'll reset the password on the iDohicky and send it back to you"
consumer:
"Gee thanks Apple... you guys are the absolute greatest in the whole wide world!!!"


Thief!
By JimFear on 7/30/2007 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
Only thing I can think of them doing would be to have an online servive by which you can report an iPod stolen providing you issue them wih the serial number and such from the original packaging, in which case the next time its hooked up to a PC itunes will detect a reported iPod and update some kind of code to brick it, this is the only way I can see of doing it without having to install some kind of extra logic into the hardware of the iPod or charger, either that or its coming to the next gen of iPod which would leave their current consumer base security less...

"Buy this new iPod because its safer and can't be used if some dirty b*stard robs you"

Watch the masses flock...




Can't charge it?
By Oregonian2 on 7/30/2007 5:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
My wife charges her iPod mostly by plugging it into her (PC) computer's USB port (afterall, it's the Pod's USB port that charges it, and "chargers" are just USB ports with no data connections). Does this mean that one wouldn't be able to charge one's iPod when hooking up to one's computer or will we have to ONLY use a matching Mac?




Reboot?
By leidegre on 7/31/2007 1:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
If people are currently circumventing the service provider lock, how long will it take to do somthing like a complete reset of the phone? iHack will surly not have a problem with it. And for the love of god! Why on earth do you need a patent for something as trivial as a security solution which pairs to devices. I hate these patents. Patents are supposed to be novel, sound, and "inventing". It's not a market strategy!




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings













botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki