Oblivious Man Staring At iPad Causes Security Meltdown Conga Line

from the iTerrorist dept

We've often discussed the complete farce that airport security has become since 9/11. Security theater that appears to be a performance art piece on how dumb government can get isn't something we should be looking to export, but it seems like many countries throughout the planet have incorporated many of the reactionary tactics you can find in the States.

Take, for instance, the story about how a guy in Australia who accidentally walked in the wrong direction while paying too much attention to his iPad shut down a terminal and delayed flights for an hour.

On Saturday morning, a man got off a plane at Sydney Airport in Australia and was so enchanted by the fascinating content on his iPad that he walked into a domestic terminal without bothering to go through security. This event was captured on CCTV and unnerved officials so much that they evacuated passengers.

Flights were delayed for around an hour. One also wonders about security at Sydney Airport. Australia is currently under high alert after its prime minister, Tony Abbott, declared that a terrorist attack on his country was "likely," even though his security services hadn't discovered any "particular plots."

Terrorism is an issue that should be taken seriously, but if the civilized world is going to simply give up so much sense as to let a guy accidentally walking the wrong direction to essentially shut down an airport for an hour, then we might as well just admit defeat in our own minds. I see people pulling this oblivious move on my city's streets every damn day. It's annoying, sure, but it's fairly easy to determine that these people aren't going to be blowing up any buildings any time soon.

Well, maybe after they beat that Candy Crush level, but certainly not before. In the meantime, it's been over a decade, so we can all just calm down a bit when it comes to pretending to do airport security?

Filed Under: airport security, australia, ipad, security, walking

Marketing Failure: Microsoft Pays NFL To Use Its Surface Tablets -- And People Still Call Them 'iPad-Like Tools'

from the didn't-get-the-memo dept

Over at The Verge, Vlad Savov has an amusing post about how NFL announcers this weekend referred to the sideline tablets that players are using as "iPad-like tools." Microsoft Surface tablets are being allowed on the sidelines as part of a $400 million deal between Microsoft and the NFL. And Microsoft is promoting the Surface as "the official tablet of the NFL." And, in the end, all anyone remembers is that it's an "iPad-like tool." I wonder if the guy who signed that deal for Microsoft has lined up a new job yet...

Filed Under: football, ipad, marketing, surface, tablets
Companies: microsoft, nfl

Dumb Criminal Tries To Pass Off Ice Blocks As iPads For Fun And Profit

from the the-i-is-for-ice dept

And here we go with another idiot criminal doing idiot criminal things. Every time we write these stories up, we're always left thinking that it can't get any stupider and we're always proved wrong. You'd think between the murder-plotting butt-dialers, LEO-taunting, and parish computer porn purveyors, no follow up act would qualify.

But then you read about an idiot trying to pull off postal insurance fraud by claiming several blocks of ice were actually iPads. Our story begins with Nathan Meunch, who walked into a UK Post Office sopping-wet, which he explained by stating it was raining when it wasn't, and then put a package on the counter which he said contained several iPads. He wanted to send this package via special delivery and fully insure them for the value of $4,000. After then claiming he couldn't recall what his own return address was, things went exactly as you've already guessed they went.

About an hour after Nathan dropped off his parcel and left, another post office employee noticed a puddle of water forming underneath the package. After investigating the cause of wetness, they discovered that the "iPads" were actually just blocks of ice. At that moment, it became clear that either something had gone catastrophically wrong at the Apple manufacturing plant, or that Nathan was trying to pull off a (terribly planned) scam.

But, because the Post Office is quite proud of their reputation for timely deliveries (snicker), and likely to make sure Meunch had all the rope required to build a super-awesome noose of self-destruction, they delivered the package anyway, which ostensibly no longer contained $4,000 worth of ice-pads. Right on time, the post office was hit for an insurance claim on the delivery. That's when the men were charged with fraud and the insults started coming from behind friendly lines.

The two men's scheme was easily exposed by the authorities, who charged charged both of them with fraud. At the trial, even Bennett's own lawyer referred to their plan as "rather pathetic." On Monday, August 12 of 2013, both Nigel Bennett and Nathan Meunch were sentenced to 12 months of community service, 150 hours of unpaid work for the court system, and a £500 (approximately $775) fine.

So way to go, Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. Enjoy all that unpaid labor during the summer hours. And if you get a little toasty from all the effort, imagine just how nice it'd be to have a couple of blocks of sweet, cool ice lying around.

Filed Under: dumb criminals, ice blocks, insurance, ipad, nathan meunch, post office

Expose Blatant Security Hole From AT&T... Face Five Years In Jail

from the security-through-threat-of-intimidation dept

A few years ago, we wrote about some hackers who exposed a really basic security flaw in AT&T's setup for iPad users. Basically, if you fed an ID to a website, it would return the email address of the account. And, on top of that, AT&T appeared to hand out the IDs in numerical order, so it was easy to just run through a bunch of IDs in order and collect a ton of users' info. And that's what these hackers did -- collecting a variety of emails including the President of News Corp., the CEO of Dow Jones and Mayor Bloomberg in New York. They got lots of other government officials as well: "Rahm Emanuel and staffers in the Senate, House of Representatives, Department of Justice, NASA, Department of Homeland Security, FAA, FCC, and National Institute of Health, among others."

This seemed like a pretty massive flaw in the design of the system by AT&T... but of course, all of the blame is falling on the guys who exposed the hole. It seems noteworthy that the pair of hackers who exposed this are known for trollish online behavior, and Andrew Auernheimer, who goes by the name weev, has flat out called himself an internet troll. It seems that the FBI decided to use the trollish nature of Auernheimer and collaborator Daniel Spitler to argue that this hack actually violated the incredibly poorly-worded and misunderstood Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). That's a law that we've been discussing for a few years now, as law enforcement and courts keep trying to stretch the definition of what counts as "unauthorized access" under the bill.

Unfortunately, in this case, a jury was convinced that the discovery of this security hole left by AT&T was actually a crime, and Auernheimer is now facing five years in jail. Not surprisingly, he plans to appeal. Of course, part of the issue is that Auernheimer discussed, but did not actually do, a variety of bad things he could have done with the data in question, before eventually just revealing the security hole to the media.

Obviously, there may be a fine line between "white hat" exposure of security flaws and nefarious activity, but given that all that really happened here was the exposure of really poorly thought-out programming by AT&T, it seems bizarre that the guy who exposed it is now facing years in jail.

Filed Under: andrew auernheimer, ipad, security hole, user ids, weev
Companies: apple, at&t

Apple/Samsung Verdict Advertising Samsung As A Viable Alternative To iPads & iPhones

from the backfiring dept

From early on in the Apple/Samsung dispute, I pointed out that Apple's reaction really seemed to indicate to the world that Samsung's devices were the ones they were most scared of. And, of course, for those looking for alternatives, it was possible that it would act as really, really good advertising for Samsung. It's still early, but there's some anecdotal evidence that the verdict only emphasized that fact even more. Via Mashable, we learn of a post from Enrique Guitierrez, who was in a Starbucks over the weekend and overheard people talking about the verdict -- and they seemed to indicate that it was making them more interested in buying Samsung products:

Guy: "Wait, so what they're saying is, Samsung is the same as Apple?"
Friend: "I know, right? Makes me think twice about how much I paid for my Mac Book"
Guy: "Seriously"

Not 10 minutes later, a husband and wife, same newspaper:

Husband: "... Samsung's iPad is the same as Apple's iPad, and I paid how much for the Apple one? Honey, I told you they were a ripoff", after looking up the Samsung tablet on his iPhone.
Wife: "Oh wow," looking at the screen, "... that's a lot cheaper. Think we can return it?"

Those aren't the only examples in the post either. He notes that these people don't understand the details, but they seem to have gotten the message that Samsung makes at least an equivalent product for a lot less money... and that's making them a lot more interested in Samsung. Once again, it makes you wonder why Apple didn't just focus on competing in the marketplace, where they had a tremendous brand advantage.

Filed Under: advertisements, android, galaxy, ios, ipad, iphone, patents
Companies: apple, samsung

Apple Has To Advertise That Samsung's 'Not Cool' Tablet Is No iPad Copycat

from the wow dept

So even as Apple has been successful in getting a US court to rule against Samsung for having a tablet that Apple thinks looks too much like an iPad, things are shaping up very differently in the UK. We already noted that a judge over there had rejected Apple's claims in the UK, pointing out that Samsung's tablet just isn't as cool as the iPad (leaving Samsung in the awkward position of celebrating the fact that it won the lawsuit due to its own lack of coolness). However, now reports are coming out that the judge has also ordered Apple to advertise online and in print that Samsung didn't copy the iPad.

The judge apparently told Apple to put a notice on its own website and in UK newspapers telling people that Samsung's Galaxy Tab -- which Apple is clearly afraid of -- isn't a copy. As you might imagine, Apple is not happy about this -- though it might as well include the stuff about Samsung's lack of coolness, if it must discuss things. Either way, Apple is protesting. According to the Bloomberg report linked above:

The notice should outline the July 9 London court decision that Samsung’s Galaxy tablets don’t infringe Apple’s registered designs, Judge Colin Birss said. It should be posted on Apple’s U.K. website for six months and published in several newspapers and magazines to correct the damaging impression the South Korea-based company was copying Apple’s product, Birss said.

The order means Apple will have to publish “an advertisement” for Samsung, and is prejudicial to the company, Richard Hacon, a lawyer representing Cupertino, California-based Apple, told the court. “No company likes to refer to a rival on its website.”

While I agree that Apple's lawsuit was a bad idea in the first place, and that the company should just compete in the marketplace, I'm at a loss as to the "damaging impression" that this lawsuit would have for Samsung. As the judge himself noted, the iPad is seen as being really cool. And the Samsung tablet... is not. So, why would it damage Samsung's reputation to have Apple claiming that the devices were too much alike? If anything, it seems like it should help Samsung by advertising which tablet Apple thinks is most like an iPad.

Filed Under: advertising, ipad, not cool, patents, tablets, uk
Companies: apple, samsung

In The Patent Battle Over Speech Devices, The Real 'Irreparable Harm' Is A Child Losing Her Only Voice

from the irreparable-indeed dept

We've written a few times now about a horrifying patent dispute that literally threatens to silence a little girl. It involves an iPad app, called Speak for Yourself (SfY) that another company claims infringes on the patent it licensed. Prentke Romich Company (who makes come competing products, but not iPad software) and Semantic Compaction Systems (who licensed the patent to PRC) have been arguing that SfY infringes, and have even convinced Apple to remove the app from the App Store, despite no ruling in the case.

SfY had made a filing with the court, arguing that keeping its app out of the App Store was causing irreparable harm, while PRC/SCS has argued that there is no irreparable harm. But now, three children who are actual SfY users are apparently trying to intervene in the case to argue that having the app shut down represents irreparable harm to them, and thus the app should be put back for now.

If Speak for Yourself ceases to function when the iPad’s operating system is updated this fall, and Maya and Robert are suddenly left unable to communicate . . . that will be irreparable harm.

The panic, confusion, frustration, and sadness of these children as they tap their touchscreens, trying to open their “talkers,” and are met with blank screens . . . that will be irreparable harm.

It is definitely odd to see the users of a technology seek to intervene in a patent case like this, and if I had to guess, I'd say it's not actually going to work (and could possibly even backfire). But, at the very least, it should make the judge aware that there are more issues at stake here than just two organizations fighting over patents.

Filed Under: ipad, speech augmentation
Companies: prentke romich, semantic compaction systems, speak for yourself

UK Judge: Samsung Wins Over Apple In Patent Dispute Because Its Tablet Isn't As Cool As iPad

from the that's-one-way-to-do-it dept

While the judge in the US banned Samsung's devices claiming it was likely that Samsung violated Apple's patents, there was a different result in the UK... where a judge has decided that Samsung didn't violate Apple's design patent, because it's obvious that Samsung's Galaxy Tab is just not as cool as Apple's iPad.

"They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design," said Judge Birss.

"They are not as cool," he said. "The overall impression produced is different."

Amusingly, of course, this puts Samsung in the position of celebrating its lack of coolness.

In the end, this is the right result, but the reasoning is a bit odd, frankly. When patent disputes are being determined based on a judge's determination of "coolness," it seems like perhaps something is wrong with the system itself.

Filed Under: coolness, galaxy tab, ipad, uk
Companies: apple, samsung

In Round Two, Apple Succeeds In Getting Samsung Tablet Banned In The US

from the who-wants-one-now dept

Apple has continued its legal effort to make it clear to the world that the best tablet you can buy... is a Samsung Galaxy Tab. Honestly, I'm still at a loss to understand Apple's strategy in suing Samsung because its Galaxy Tab looks too much like Apple's iPad, and (Apple claims) infringes on its design patent. Apple had succeeded in getting sales of the device blocked in Europe and Australia, but had a bit more trouble in the US. The district court had rejected the injunction saying that letting sales continue wouldn't be harmful to Apple. However, CAFC, the appeals court that loves patents and never sees anything wrong with them, sent it back telling the district court to try again -- so this time around an injunction has been issued.

As I've said before, all this is really doing is signalling, repeatedly, to the market which tablet Apple thinks is the closest in terms of a competitor to the iPad. The whole thing is really silly of course. Apple could (and should) focus on just competing with the Galaxy Tab in the market. Make a better product and sell it. Forcing a competitor out of the market because it looks similar really highlights how insecure Apple is concerning its own products, and how easy it thinks others can compete with it.

Filed Under: australia, cafc, desing patents, europe, galaxy tab, injunction, ipad
Companies: apple, samsung