BOA does this already if you're in the US.

I don't think this is an attempt to prevent interception of passwords in transit over the network; I believe it's an attempt to prevent keyloggers or other nefarious software/hardware on a machine from impacting the user's privacy.

I think this is a step in the right direction, assuming spoofing is difficult or impossible for these SMS messages (anyone care to weigh in there?). Still, my personal policy is to never login to a system which contains somewhat sensitive data from a computer that I don't fully control or whose controller I don't fully trust. Their solution seems like a workaround, while users could just stop any potential privacy violation at the source and opt not to provide their credentials via others' machines.

Kind of a different concept, since in this case the car (PS3) changes its oil/spark plugs/air filter (firmware) automatically, provided there's an internet connection.

Not saying I believe the premise of this submission, as it seems pretty far fetched, but...

Say I want to verify that some anti-nuke weapon system can disable nuclear weapons. Say I've tested it to every extent possible, and now I want to verify its effectiveness against real weapon systems. Do you test it against the enemy and risk an actual nuclear war? Nope, you test it on your own weapons. The US has plenty, so one or two missiles at a time being disabled isn't going to be much of a tactical disadvantage, and it could be well planned in advance such that a real nuclear launch is impossible (by placing "real deal" missiles into silos, while subtracting the fissile material) in the case of malfunction as a result of your anti-nuke weapon system.

Unlikely, sure. But much more likely than the combination of aliens having made contact with Earth, the government having kept it from us, and the aliens having an interest in our nuclear weapon systems, as presumably species which can travel such distances would already have the tech to wipe us away and then some.

The thing is, tracking cookies allow you to be tracked across all the points of internet connectivity you use (in the case of mobile devices) and even after new IP address leases from your ISP. It's completely persistent, whereas linking me to log entries I generate on a remote web server would be difficult unless you had every IP address and location of connectivity I've ever used.

Lashing out in violence is a sure fire way to turn away people sympathetic to your cause and make it easy to label anyone with your beliefs "extremist" and marginalize them. Committing violence is never the way to gain true followers.

Since reading is apparently hard for you 'mate', let me help you understand that poll I posted. Find the section labeled "Backgrounder: Country-by-Country Results" and then find "United States" and you will get a breakdown of the perception of the United States by various countries, not only by the United States itself. And stop raising objection to the poll itself unless you have a legitimate objection to the methodology. Asking people how they feel is the only way to find out how they truly feel that I'm aware of.

You're right, asking people how they feel about the US in a representative manner is a fundamentally flawed way of establishing a country-by-country perception of the US. And we should totally exclude those things which make people view the US more favorably. Gosh, what was I thinking. /s

Yes, that first case was clearly a failure of the justice system. I'm glad to see it was struck down on appeal, but the fact that a law firm needed to take it on pro bono to see the idiocy of the complainant is very disconcerting indeed.

Actual research disagrees with many of your generalizations. And yeah, the US has considerable freedoms related to free speech while having significantly many other problems. Still, I somehow doubt you've ever lived in the US and are getting all your information from those same people who fed you that 90% fabrication.

I actually think most problems like that of the plaintiff here are a result of insufficient parenting. Had the parents instilled in this person good time management and prioritization, he may well not have had this problem.

I'm sincerely hoping "unauthorized person" means "the guy who stole it from the owner". If that were all this functionality were to be used for, and it were solely at the control of the device's owner, then I would be very interested. I mean, we already have remote wipe, but this other functionality would actually be useful in catching anyone who steals the phone and could potentially have received sensitive or personal data on it.

Apple's image will certainly survive a scandal resulting from the actual implementation of something in the vein of the patent application. I mean, spying on the possessor of hardware you provide because you're somehow suspicious of them has worked out well in the past.

And they're tracking the GPS location of the 'suspicious user'? What, do they plan to send the police at them as soon as they detect jail breaking? Apple really wants to open this legal can of worms?