Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Patents Polluting Facebook, Google Profiles

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the why-all-your-friends-have-crazy-aliases dept.

Patents 142

theodp writes "On Tuesday, the USPTO granted Apple an odd patent on Techniques to Pollute Electronic Profiling, which presumably might concern the targeted ad revenue-hungry folks at Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn (and their investors). The patent, apparently assigned to Apple from Novell, is designed to thwart 'dataveillance techniques from automated Litter Brothers,' including lawful targeted and aggressive marketing tactics. Creating cloned identities that are 'intentionally populated with divergent information [e,g., fake phone numbers, email accounts, credit or debit card accounts],' explains the patent, 'circumvents the reliability and usefulness of dataveillance used by network eavesdroppers and effectively provides greater privacy over the network to principals.'"

cancel ×

142 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So Apple (5, Funny)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369523)

has a patent for lying and fooling people?

Re:So Apple (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369589)

And they're terrorists! Who else would want to evade profiling?

Re:So Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369603)

Not just people, "revenue-hungry folks at Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn (and investors)." I do this all the time when I'm required to manually enter data into a survey.

Re:So Apple (3, Insightful)

dav1dc (2662425) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370131)

Does that mean every time someone fills in an online form using bullsh!t information; said person is now obliged to pay Apple a royalty?!?! :p

Re:So Apple (4, Funny)

dc29A (636871) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369629)

I claim prior art circa 1996. My real name is not Pig Benis. I don't live in Fucking, Austria neither.

Re:So Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369883)

So does this mean your phone number isn't really 867-5309?

Re:So Apple (4, Funny)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370865)

We know who you are. Very funny alias, Mr Willy Ficken from Petting, Germany...

Re:So Apple (5, Insightful)

imagined.by (2589739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369641)

Apple has a patent to fool bots that aggregate people's data.

Interesting how even this can be spun to something negative.

Re:So Apple (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369763)

Apple has a patent to fool bots that aggregate people's data.

Interesting how even this can be spun to something negative.

The negative part is I've been doing this since the very early 90s, offline and online, and now its patented, so I guess I owe APPL every time I do this, or I can't do it anymore?

Re:So Apple (0)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369929)

Apple has a patent to fool bots that aggregate people's data.

Interesting how even this can be spun to something negative.

The negative part is I've been doing this since the very early 90s, offline and online, and now its patented, so I guess I owe APPL every time I do this, or I can't do it anymore?

"The invention claimed is: 1. A device-implemented method, comprising: cloning, by a device..." - are you a device?

I wished the patent said "tool".

Re:So Apple (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370163)

Apple has a patent to fool bots that aggregate people's data.

Interesting how even this can be spun to something negative.

The negative part is I've been doing this since the very early 90s, offline and online, and now its patented, so I guess I owe APPL every time I do this, or I can't do it anymore?

"The invention claimed is: 1. A device-implemented method, comprising: cloning, by a device..." - are you a device?

Do scripts (more specifically, scripts running on a computer) count as "a device?"

If so, then yea, lots of prior art.

I wished the patent said "tool".

Why?

Re:So Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370529)

Because then it would have read:
"The invention claimed is: 1. A device-implemented method, comprising: cloning, by a tool..." - are you a tool?
And the answer would be "Yes you are!"
Jokes are so much more funny when you have to explain them.

Re:So Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371189)

Jokes are also much more funny when they are funny.

Re:So Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370547)

Apple has a patent to fool bots that aggregate people's data.

Interesting how even this can be spun to something negative.

The negative part is I've been doing this since the very early 90s, offline and online, and now its patented, so I guess I owe APPL every time I do this, or I can't do it anymore?

"The invention claimed is:

1. A device-implemented method, comprising: cloning, by a device..." - are you a device?

I wished the patent said "tool".

Ever heard of a fucking spam bot? Notice any MyCleanPC posts on slashdot, maybe?
Go shill for Apple somewhere else, iTard.

Re:So Apple (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371137)

are you a device?

The pen I used to fill out my grocery loyalty card form is probably a "device", so I've been violating this recently issued patent since the 90s, or something like that.

Every mail in rebate form that asks for excessive personal data, etc, etc.

Re:So Apple (1)

Grudge2012 (2662391) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371841)

are you a device?

The pen I used to fill out my grocery loyalty card form is probably a "device", so I've been violating this recently issued patent since the 90s, or something like that.

Every mail in rebate form that asks for excessive personal data, etc, etc.

So what you are saying is that your pen is actually the smarter of you two, doing all the work.

Re:So Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369797)

You think it's a good thing that they now have the legal means to restrict others' ability to prevent marketers from gathering data on users?

Re:So Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370023)

Don't be stupid. When Apple does something it is automatically, by definition, good. Thus the patent system is the greatest thing ever invented, revolutionary, amazing, you'll never look at it the same way again!

Re:So Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369881)

Given that Apple is in this market also, it seems like they basically have patented using dishonestly to get an unfair advantage over the competition.

It is one thing for individuals to use this to protect themselves, but for a company to (a) use this to one-up the competition and possibly (b) prevent other companies from providing related services to protect individuals... I find that a bit "do more evil". Then again, it is Apple, so I'm not surprised at this (note: I wouldn't be surprised by any big tech company with this one).

Re:So Apple (1)

imagined.by (2589739) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370763)

I wonder how you can come to these conclusions. Where does Apple have services based on personal profiling?

Re:So Apple (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370151)

Interesting how even this can be spun into something positive. Unless you are are a company, that despite US law, does not equal a human being.

Re:So Apple (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369647)

has a patent for lying and fooling people?

Don't be silly. They're just claiming that they have.

Re:So Apple (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370091)

Now Apple has finally done something cool with their patent trolling. I want to buy that app as long as it doesn't cost more than $1 on Google Play.

Re:So Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371659)

Remember that one of the ways to use patents is to prevent others from doing the patented thing. Sounds good... ;-)

Makes Sense Now (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369557)

So yesterday, we see how Steve Jobs wanted all of Google's products to be integrated with Google+, presumably so that they could make things more relevant through social interactions. Then today comes the Apple patent for polluting a social profile and making that information useless. I guess his strategy of "going thermonuclear war" is still alive...

Re:Makes Sense Now (4, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369585)

I don't think so. It sounds more like a MacroVision strategy. Come up with a scheme you want to carry out. Then envision all possible anti-scheme methods, and patent them when you patent your original scheme. That way no one can anti-scheme your scheme.

Re:Makes Sense Now (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370193)

So all I need to do is come up with all the possible inventions of criminal masterminds. Then patent them.

So no taking over the world with a ... oh fuck it, I was going so well and then I realised I never did like those marvel comics with their super heros and their criminal masterminds...

Re:Makes Sense Now (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370307)

I dunno, Apple doesn't really make much money from advertising. They make it from actual products. Google and Facebook on the other hand are both marketing companies, this is a weird one alright.

Re:Makes Sense Now (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369627)

Except Apple didn't patent it. Novell did. Apple bought the patent.

Neither the poster or editor (duh, its timothy) have any idea how patents work I guess.

Re:Makes Sense Now (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370265)

Was talking to a patent lawyer today. Yes I did wash my hands afterwards. Anyway he tells me that in theory ANYONE who uses something that has been patented, whether they knew it was patented or not (i.e. just wrote a program to do the bleeding obvious) is potentially infringing in said patent.

With 7 billion people on the planet, I think we all need to raise the bar on what constitutes unique. As part of my job recently I have examined loads of patents recently a particular area, and they are all quite similar, and also all quite similar to open standards. How they all got approved as inventions is a mystery to me. But not that different from the whole business of law really.

Re:Makes Sense Now (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371279)

I think you misunderstand the patent office. In modern times, they basically act as a registry for assertions people claim are novel. Unless something is really, really obvious they'll go ahead and file the patent. Whether the inventions actually are novel or not is largely determined by court filings and later re-examinations. It's this aspect of the current patent system that bothers me the most. I have no problem with software being patented, because I think it's an expressive form of communication that mimics in all measurable way a mechanism/solution as might exist in the real world. (I don't buy into the "software is just mathematics" argument any more than saying "all existence is just mathematics".) But a little more a priori examination of novelty by practitioners of the art, and a higher bar for "obviousness" would go a long way towards allowing actual innovators to profit from their investment while separating more wheat from chaff in the patent warehouse.

Re:Makes Sense Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371355)

Was talking to a patent lawyer today. Yes I did wash my hands afterwards.

Talking doesn't pollute your hands. It might pollute your brain, though. Therefore I hope you properly washed your brain afterwards. :-)

I don't know if evil or good. (4, Interesting)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369571)

Makes me wonder if this is evil or good.

Evil because it's fucking with Google. This is squarely a jab to google's breadbasket. If WWDC wasn't a big "fuck you" to google, this certainly is.

Good because this is anonymity to the next level. Defeating snooping from big business to try to sell us shit we don't need.

Evil though because this idea should belong to everyone.

TBH, I'm surprised the EFF didn't figure this one out sooner.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (3, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369619)

Evil because it's fucking with Google.

Why is fucking with Google evil?

And can someone please translate "dataveillance techniques from automated Litter Brothers" to English?

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

agentgonzo (1026204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369713)

Why is fucking with Google evil?

And can someone please translate "dataveillance techniques from automated Litter Brothers" to English?

Because people still believe that Google honour the 'do no evil' mantra and thus that Google must be inherently Good.

Dataveillance = Surveillance of Data. Litter Brothers I have no idea about.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (3, Interesting)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369821)

While Google undoubtedly does some evil, the good they do outweighs it in my opinion.

I was reading their privacy/censorship report yesterday and thinking how nice it would be if Apple, FB, MS, Twitter, Linkedin, etc. all did the same.

Indeed, on the same day that Google was publicising and enumerating how much governments intrude on Privacy; the US government was refusing to say, even in broad numbers, how many US citizens enjoyed a NSA snoop session recently.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369937)

Litter Brothers I have no idea about.

I'm going to wildly guess it was supposed to say little brothers, which I assume is rather than the big brother of one large organization (generally the government) monitoring people, you have lots of smaller organizations (Facebook, Google, numerous internet advertising networks) monitoring people.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370019)

We totally needed to make a new word for data mining...

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370355)

Learn German. They have a habit of combining words. Or just use Wearedataminingstuff until it enters the dictionary.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370629)

Consumerbuttrape

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (2)

twocows (1216842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369729)

Because Google, while often treading the line on the "privacy" factor, does a lot of good things for the tech community and even the open source community.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369785)

True... and Apple is becoming famous for making us pay for what we already have, and as a consequence, stifling any growth that would come from existing technology. They are an embarrasment to tech, even if they do put out a shiny well crafted piece.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369875)

So does Apple. So do many companies. It doesn't give either Apple nor Google a free pass when they do something unpleasant though.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370579)

So does Apple.

Citation needed please.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371999)

How about heavily contributing to WebKit, which Google happily used as the basis for Chrome?

Oh, and all of these projects: http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1074/

I digress though, I really shouldn't be feeding the trolls.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370063)

The Nazi's medical experimentation policies did great things for medical science.

Good results from bad people doing bad things doesn't make the methodology, or the people, any better.

Quirk's Exception.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370575)

Or worse for that matter.

WW2 brought many advances. Jet engines, radar, cryptography, rockets, atomic power. The demise of European empires.

Which in turn lead to the world we live in. Cheap air fares, safe air travel, the internet (which would be hampered without cryptography), satellites, nuclear power, the embryonic colonisation of space, and independent states.

However much one may despise the WW2 Germans, and not all of them were Nazis by a long way, the era was a massive period of technological advance, and the way the US and Russia snapped up the scientists that survived is an indication of how their system was able to promote scientific progress, however odious one may feel their views were.

Not an apologist by the way, but I think the world has painted a whole nation with the sins of a political party. After all, no one would regard all Cambodians as Khmer Rouge.

Incidentally, did you notice that using "one" was far less inflammatory than "you". I love the English language, especially the archaic bits? If everyone on the interwebs used one rather than you we would have a lot less flaming. I know what you are thinking..... one would say that wouldn't one...

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40371519)

and the way the US and Russia snapped up the scientists that survived is an indication of how their system was able to promote scientific progress,

It was the pre-Nazi system which promoted scientific progress in Germany. Of course many of those scientists were still there in the Nazi time (not all of them, because all the Jewish ones were missing for obvious reasons). However I'm not aware of a great scientists who started his career in Nazi Germany.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

dead_user (1989356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371377)

This. The dissociative used by some surgeons (like my dad) was developed in the concentration camps as a truth serum. It puts you into a twilight where you can respond to questions, but are completely unaware of what you are saying. When it wears off, you remember NOTHING. I know this because I went under for surgery using that drug. Apparently I kept trying to talk during the surgery (on my jaw) so I had these 2 bruises from where they were having to hold my mouth open. At any rate, FANTASTIC stuff. But to imagine all the healthy people it was tested on just makes me shudder.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (2, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370279)

Google is a marketing company. That so many traditionally anti-marketing techies don't grasp this just means they are a very good marketing company.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371341)

Thank you,

I always find it amusing that people using Google services to the nines talk about Apple's reality distortion field.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370405)

Because Google, while often treading the line on the "privacy" factor, does a lot of good things for the tech community and even the open source community.

And that negates the fact that Google is nothing more than an ad agency whose entire business model is to monetize every last bit of data about you - literally? Your privacy be damned?

Google doesn't "tread the line" on privacy - they shit all over it every chance they get. The only reason they get away with it is they are actually very innovative in the way they shit all over your privacy. So what they do hasn't been made illegal - yet.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369889)

Because I don't know if Apple has the responsibility to wield that weapon. I nominally think flamethrowers are a useful tool for the military or civil service(or some other generally "good" entity that has a nominally good reason to set things on fire).

If Apple bought some flamethrowers, I'd want to know what's up.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

bnyrbl (1014257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369977)

Surveillance of Data, and I think Litter Brothers in reference to the automated bots is a typo and they meant lots of "Little Brothers" as opposed to Big Brother.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

bnyrbl (1014257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369989)

Damn you autocorrect.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (2)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369979)

From the patent:

Concerns about the government and its knowledge about its citizenry is often referred to in a derogatory sense as actions of "Big Brother" who is omnipresent and gathering information to use to its advantage when needed. The electronic age has given rise to what is now known as thousands of "Little Brothers," who perform Internet surveillance by collecting information to form electronic profiles about a user not through human eyes or through the lens of a camera but through data collection. This form of Internet surveillance via data collection is often referred to as "dataveillance." In a sense, thousands of "Little Brothers" or automated programs can monitor virtually every action of users over the Internet. The data about a user can be accumulated and combined with other data about the user to form electronic profiles of the users.

litter brothers was a typo in the original patent that got copied to the summary.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369693)

I'm not sure if it provides anonymity, or if it just restricts profitable dataveillance to Apple.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369695)

The difference between selling stuff we don't need and having useful information that we actually do care for is very thin... Basically the difference is how gullible the person is and how "evil/good" the company using our info is.

I like to think I'm a normal, balanced, intelligent and informed person that doesn't go on a shopping spree just because I see an ad that is more appealing to me. I'm not 3 years old anymore and haven't been for a long long long time. But I do like that products are more personal, more relevant to me, and if in the process I end up having some ads that are also more relevant to me but I don't care much (relevant or not), so be it.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369809)

I love you geek kids. Somehow fucking with a corporation that makes its money selling you to advertisers and collecting as much personal data as possible is illegal.

Always Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369905)

Makes me wonder if this is evil or good.

Here's a hint: if it's done by a big company, whether that company is Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Sony, or Starbucks Coffee...it's evil.

Evil or Good is irrelevant...this is patentable? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370105)

Let's stay on topic - this was not obvious to a technical skilled in the art of internet identity obfuscation?

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370121)

Evil because it's fucking with Google.
 
Could you scream 'fanboi' a little louder?

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370317)

It is easy. Software patent = evil. I challenge anyone on ./ to come up with anything software-wise unique that is really worthy of protection for 25 years.

In fact forget the software-wise. To me something worthy of a patent that lasts n years should not be obvious for that n years.

Which is why all patents are bullshit. Just like all other IP.

Re:I don't know if evil or good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370767)

Except for whistle-blowers I don't see a need for such anonymity, it is more a problem than a solution to anything, no need to cheat, lie or fake something, there is a difference between privacy and anonymity. The latter is usually abused.

Prior Art (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369591)

I have been doing this for over a decade. I claim Prior Art.

Re:Prior Art (1)

Scarred Intellect (1648867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370637)

Don't you remember, we're not a first to invent country anymore, we're first to file [slashdot.org] . They filed first, so they're right. To be honest, I never followed up on this, did it get signed into law?

Re:Prior Art (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371113)

Except that that's not how first-to-file works.

Condundrum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369599)

Lying TO the customer I do not appreciate, Lying FOR the customer does interest me.

Re:Condundrum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370729)

Lying TO the customer I do not appreciate, Lying FOR the customer does interest me.

Too bad, Apple just got the patent on lying, you'll have to pay them royalties to plant false information on your Facebook profile from now on.

Friends of Privacy (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369615)

I guess the idea is that if there are patents, then Friends of Privacy is delayed for 20 years. Sorry, Vernor, but it'll happen some day. That's why you write about the future, because patents mean the next 20 years always has to suck.

The founders were clever to put that into the constitution:

Congreff shall have the power .. to retard the Progress of Science and delay the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to patent trolls the exclusive Right to prevent the proliferation of technology

Re:Friends of Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369755)

Yeah, now if they can prove you made up a fake persona on the web, Apple can sue you for patent infringement!

Re:Friends of Privacy (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371095)

It's not "Congreff", it's "Congress". The style of writing they used had a medial "s" that looks similar to, but is not, an "f". Our style of writing does not, so the same text rendered into modern type has neither the letter "f" nor the medial "s". On top of that, they used a final "s" that is the same as our modern "s" -- so the medial "s" character should never appear at the end of the word.

Coming next. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369649)

Google, Facebook and the entire advertising industry launch the biggest class action suit in history against Apple.

In other news: Apple files for bankruptcy.

Re:Coming next. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369827)

Note to appletards. just cos you don't like a post doesn't mean you should mod it down.

What is it good for (3, Insightful)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369661)

Skimmed through the patent and all I can figure out is that our master profile stays the same, but you will have a bunch of fake ones. This does not give you a whole lot of privacy to the user since you are still tied to the master, but makes it harder for facebook/google to created targeted ads and make it harder for someone to find the real you. Unless you are actively using all these clones then Big Brother is going to know who you are. Next there will be a patent to filter out these clones.

Re:What is it good for (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370093)

It's also quite obvious. There are not a lot of different ways to do this.

Re:What is it good for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370201)

Then a technique to avoid the filter will be applied for and the cat and mouse game will continue until one of the sides quits.

Nathan

Prior art...? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369671)

About 15 years ago I wrote a script for populating "phishing" forms with plausible-but-fake names, addresses and credit card numbers that pass simple validation checks. I can't remember what I called it, possibly "phishfood" or "phishfarm". It's probably still on sourceforge.

Re:Prior art...? (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370815)

That could be advanced with cooperation from VISA, rather than using numerically valid but nonsense numbers, use toxic numbers and names so VISA can track which processors these payments are posted through and crack some skulls

Prior art. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369701)

"Creating cloned identities that are 'intentionally populated with divergent information [e,g., fake phone numbers, email accounts, credit or debit card accounts],'"

I've been doing that for years.

Prior Art: Art of War (2)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369733)

Wasn't there prior art in Sun Tzu's Art of War? This is only deception done on a network instead of a battlefield...

Re:Prior Art: Art of War (1)

Wandering Voice (2267950) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370653)

But cyberdude, this cyber network is the new battlefield. Haven't you heard we're in a cyberwar now?

Prior Art. (5, Interesting)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369735)

I've been doing this for 15 years now, ever since my first spam email lured me to my first spam site.
I own several domains and give different emails; faked whenever I don't care if I never hear from the admen again.
I invent (fictitious, but coherent) persona's for myself when answering marketeers dumb questions. I regularly complete 'Can we tediously interrupt you to gather marketing info' wonkery with entirely faked data. If I care about a website, or think a company is treating me properly, then I help them help me by being broadly honest, all others get systematically and deliberately misinformed.

My 2 point plan; which I heartily recommend:
1) Reward honesty with honesty,
2) Reward spin with spin.

And if any marketeers read this, hahaha, spin on it.

(PS: I know, from colleagues and friends, that I am not alone in doing this.)

Re:Prior Art. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370085)

I love doing this to telemarketers when they're 'Just doing a survey'..

1) What is your age? : 8.7
2) How many people in your house hold? 57
3) What is your annual income? £0.66
4) What is your total debt? £3.25million

Re:Prior Art. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370397)

You are not alone in your endeavor...

Chester http://www.cheetos.com/

captcha: deviants

Re:Prior Art. (1)

stillpixel (1575443) | more than 2 years ago | (#40372063)

Funny because on all online forms I am Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and I always live on Elm Street, 1 Infinity Loop or some other nonsense like that. Oh and I'm 122 years old, go big.. be an outlier.

Killing the option? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369783)

Since they own it, they can now prevent anyone from using it (against them)...

won't work (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40369813)

If you have enough evidence from a person then only extreme amounts of noise will prevent you from identifying that person.

http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/vitaly/papers/Kearns93-e.pdf (Statistical Query Learning (1993; Kearns)

I claim prior art... (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369843)

Not only have I actively used such techniques - such as my "Famous Dictators and Cruel Leaders" series and the ever popular "Dead Little KnownPresidents" series when signing up for affinity cards and websites; I have also written about it. Yes, I am the reason Attila T. Hun is in your database, as well as a Mr. A Shickelgruber who resides at T. Bunker, Berlin. Please call me at 202-555-1212 to discuss this.

litter brothers (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40369845)

Being intrigued by the summary, and naturally reluctant to RTFA, I tried to find out what an "Automated Litter Brother" is. Best I could come up with is something from the same litter as an other automaton, or some kind of automaton that litters.

Re:litter brothers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40370247)

Being intrigued by the summary, and naturally reluctant to RTFA, I tried to find out what an "Automated Litter Brother" is. Best I could come up with is something from the same litter as an other automaton, or some kind of automaton that litters.

Hmm yes, I thought it was an odd phrase too.

It comes across sounding like something that's been passed both ways through an automated translation tool.

I wonder if they used Google Translate for that?

Re:litter brothers (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370923)

My best ACTUAL guess is that they meant "little brother", in a sort of reference to "big brother" [wikipedia.org]

Re:litter brothers (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371575)

When a daddy machine and mommy machine love each other so much, they set up a factory that builds baby machines. Machines built at the factory come in lots, we'll refer to them as a litter. It seems Apple as found a way to fool male machines from the same litter when they try to collect data. It remains unclear if it would work for machines from different litters.

"Dataveillance"? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370011)

Die in a fire.

Dog in a manger? (0)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#40370203)

When these seemingly-weird patents come out, why does someone always assume they're meant to be used? I'm betting that Apple wants the legal clout to prevent other companies from using the techniques they've patented, even if they don't want to use them themselves. For example, suppose you were granted a watertight patent on spamming. That might be a nice tool to beat spammers up with in court: "hey, judge, they're violating my government-granted monopoly on the techniques I described! I offered to license them for only $2,000 per email but they refused. I want triple damages."

This patent is a far cry from stopping spam, but maybe that preemptive principle is what they're aiming for?

power (0)

jopaki (1725124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40371023)

too much power - capitalizm can suck my crank
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?