Bogus article. If you read the actual patent ( http://www.google.com/patents/US8254902 ), the quote about some police activity requiring complete blackout conditions is actually in reference to the screen brightness, not the cameras. One aspect of the idea seems to be that the phones OF THE COPS would be able to go dark in response to a central command. It has nothing to do with turning off the cameras of citizen-journalists.
Here is the full paragraph from which the misleading sentence was yanked:
> Excessive lighting emanating from wireless devices can also create disruption in dark environments. While it is well known that excessive or bright lighting in a movie theater can spoil the mood of certain movies, excessive lighting can also become a more serious issue in other contexts. For example, darkrooms used to develop film can only tolerate very low amounts of ambient lighting. Some biological labs also require low levels of lighting in certain instances (for example, as in the growth of light-sensitive bacteria). Covert police or government operations may require complete “blackout” conditions. A person's sleep can even be interrupted by a bright flashing or modulating display (such as to indicate an incoming call).
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.
Same error here. You're reading a meaning into the undefined phrase "sensitive area" from the abstract that doesn't seem consistent with that term's use elsewhere in the patent. But if you grep "sensitive" and look at the other uses it seems to mean primarily (a) places where light or sound would annoy or frustrate, (b) situations like wanting to control EMF levels in a hospital or airplane to avoid adverse effects (c) security issues related to "enterprise" applications.
There's actually a REASON we can know that this patent isn't trying to cover the specific case of turning off cameras in places where The Man doesn't want us to have that capability. The reason is: somebody else (not Apple) had ALREADY previously patented that explicit use case.
This patent is about adjusting general system settings, especially ringer volume, display brightness, and communications settings, in a way appropriate to the venue. For instance, pairing bluetooth when you get in your car and then turning that feature off again when you get out of your car. The vast majority of it really shouldn't be patentable because it's too obvious to any practitioner in the field. The general thrust of it is NOT about preventing phone users from photographing the police and it's not clear anything in THIS patent would even make it easier for the police to have that capability. (You have to do a fair amount of reading between the lines to even make that connection.)
Sorry, but that is in the "description of related technology" section. Meaning it helps establish the CONTEXT of the present patent but is not itself part OF the present patent.
You're missing the point. This technology could clearly be used for exactly the purpose that the BoingBoing article describes, whether or not that's Apple's specific goal. And since they're a highly proprietary vendor we have no idea to what extent they have opened or will open this to law enforcement etc.
Which is exactly why I said it's essential we don't depend on a single proprietary vendor for mobile tech.
And the fact that an existing patent covers similar technology is meaningless. The patent archives are overflowing with redundant and overlapping claims that have yet to be tested in court.
(jwz nails it here: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2013/08/oh-noes-apple-has-patented-b... )
Here is the full paragraph from which the misleading sentence was yanked:
> Excessive lighting emanating from wireless devices can also create disruption in dark environments. While it is well known that excessive or bright lighting in a movie theater can spoil the mood of certain movies, excessive lighting can also become a more serious issue in other contexts. For example, darkrooms used to develop film can only tolerate very low amounts of ambient lighting. Some biological labs also require low levels of lighting in certain instances (for example, as in the growth of light-sensitive bacteria). Covert police or government operations may require complete “blackout” conditions. A person's sleep can even be interrupted by a bright flashing or modulating display (such as to indicate an incoming call).