>>h3cate+(OP)
Remember a few years ago it came out that Apple filed a patent to disable cameras in a localised area. Speculation was so that law enforcement could disable cameras during protests and riots.
In the next few days/weeks, watch if people start saying that they're in these hot zones and their camera phones stop working
>>alfied+n5
Wow really? Sounds like something that could be abused... But I know I seen some posts before talking about someone wanted to have a way to disable phones during concerts due to copyright concerns... But seems like with some things it starts out with one goal and then keeps getting expanded and expanded a little bit at a time.
>>Keverw+c8
This is the number one reason I can come off as inflexible in terms of sanctioning remote control or backdooring of user device features, or the implementation of anti-features.
Once you accept something controversial can be done be highly in situation X, the fact you allow it in situation X eventually gets used as a point that it should be allowed in situation Y, where Y was the controversial thing in the first place.