MissionImprobable
Silver Member
Tin foil hats, activate!
I actually did think of a few logical purposes to this technology. I work for a company that has contracts with intel. There are no phones allowed inside the facilities. If you're important enough to the company to need a phone in there, they have specific ones that you have to trade for when you go in that have no cameras. Having a phone that automatically disables the camera would streamline that process and allow you to keep the same phone at all times in case there is any sort of data on the phone you may need while inside or something along those lines. I also have a friend that works for the aerospace division of Honeywell, where they have many government contracts for classified projects. Their company phones are piles of ****, because any phone worth a **** today has a camera. Something like this would have a practical purpose for these types of applications. Considering the amount of invasion into our lives they could do with smartphones already, that many people knowingly and intentionally do anyways (geo-tagging pictures, checking in everywhere on facebook, they can track exactly where you are with your GPS whenever, and so on and so on...), I don't think this is that big of an issue, but I still have no intention of buying a phone equipped as such. I won't buy a phone that even has a locked bootloader though. Just a different perspective to keep in mind. Big brother? Yes. Malicious? No.I don't understand what they would intend to do with this function.
in the use I'm referring to. I would imagine that it would be something just built into the GPS. The "concert" application of this tech seems stupid though. I don't understand where "thugs" coming to someone's house comes into play though. The camera would prevent the picture, no? So what would these "thugs" be going to someone's house to do?The problem is the matter of who is in control of the feature. Do you really want a company that literally sends thugs to their employees' homes to shake them down having that kind of power over a device? I certainly don't see any good coming out of it.
sure. And if someone REALLY wants to hack into business servers and whatnot, they can find a way as well. That doesn't mean these companies shouldn't at least try to prevent itif someone wants to take a photo of some sensitive info then they will find a way to do it.. limiting us common folk with our fancy smartphones will hardly enforce any security
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
it is really that cut-throat. My company does contract work for Intel, there are NO phones allowed in some of their FABs. As for your concern about cutting your communication, I don't mean to alarm you, but that is already easy to do, with cheap devices: Cell Phone Jammer :: Phonejammer.com :: Buy Here !from that point view the technology doesn't seem that bad. My only worry is if the technology falls into the hands of some with bad intentions, I would be worried that they would disable my communication so they could come in to my house and carry out their objective that doesn't work for me and I won't be able to call 911. If any governmental officials got greedy they could disable parts of our phones rendering them useless. I would hope Honeywell could trust their employees enough to where they didn't need a program to knock out cell phones with the fear of potentially damaging photographs being taken in their building. Or is it really that cut throat where your company needs to control their employees to such a degree because of security risks?
sure. And if someone REALLY wants to hack into business servers and whatnot, they can find a way as well. That doesn't mean these companies shouldn't at least try to prevent it[/url]
you still need to get said device inside, thus the comparison between this and hacking. You need to come up with a way to get the camera in. It's not as simple as throwing it into a briefcase and cruising past securitythey do that to prevent just anyone from hacking them... yes a top level hacker most likely will get through anyway... but we're not talking about that...i'm talking about if your phone isn't able to take a pic... another device readily available will be able to
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
you still need to get said device inside, thus the comparison between this and hacking. You need to come up with a way to get the camera in. It's not as simple as throwing it into a briefcase and cruising past security
This is bad for the activist community. Would take much for the cops to use this to turn off cameras and then really let loose with their typical heavy handed tactics.
yea a lot of new age hippies have apple products lol... I remember one of them in occupy wall street complaining about someone stealing his $4,000 computer.... if u have that kinda money to spend on a computer what are u fighting for lol
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk