I don't see the camera being a huge security liability. Cameras are on virtually every smartphone let alone regular cell phones now. With the remote wipe capabilities, the camera shouldn't be a problem.
Security it terms of spying: corporate espionage. How would wiping the phone help, after I've just taken pictures of, say, Apple's latest great product and posted it to Flickr right from the phone?
There are many employers that do not allow camera phones. Hell, even Samsung (the phone manufacturer) supposedly does not. Perhaps it is too small of a market, but it sure would be nice if Apple could support it.
That's why I still have a 4-year old phone. It sucks, but try to buy one without a camera these days.
The final piece of the iPhone puzzle is the camera. They will have to offer an iPhone without camera if they really want to infiltrate large organizations. The security risk of the camera is too great, and it will impede adoption.
You may have missed it, but they mentioned for security purposes the camera can be disabled by the phone!
Problem solved, let's see the other handsets do THAT.
IT departments typically care about ease of management, not ease of use for end users. I really dread when Apple starts catering to these guys. I hope they can do it in a way that won't be detrimental to the end user.
IT departments typically care about ease of management, not ease of use for end users. I really dread when Apple starts catering to these guys. I hope they can do it in a way that won't be detrimental to the end user.
I'm puzzled why you would say that. Did you not see the video? Having seen the video on how Apple did it, I really don't see a problem here.
The market doesn't fully appreciate the impact these announcements will have on both the number of units sold, and even more important, the impact on corporate IT culture.
Security it terms of spying: corporate espionage. How would wiping the phone help, after I've just taken pictures of, say, Apple's latest great product and posted it to Flickr right from the phone?
I think it's a pointless edict. Those that wouldn't commit acts of espionage, wouldn't, and I would guess that those that would can probably find compact cameras that would require a cavity search to find, if they felt they had to go that far.
Quote:
That's why I still have a 4-year old phone. It sucks, but try to buy one without a camera these days.
I think it's for the fact of not looking in the right places or asking the right people. I went to Sprint's site and found six models without a camera that you can buy new right now. I found two on Verizon's site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BjK
Or, if you want to be doubly certain, just drive a chisel through the camera lens
I know several corporate accounts that say they won't standardize on a phone with a camera.
For liability reasons, for security reasons, for lots of reasons.
Apple has the best solution for this.
The phone has a camera, but it can be disabled.
This means the phone's camera will not work when at the home office.
Or it will not work EVER for their users.
Simple as that, problem solved.
Now I know all you guys are going to whine and complain, but when you cater to the business community, the business is the customer NOT the phone user.
So Apple has a superior solution.
In fact, for insurance adjusters, they could fix it so the camera NEVER works unless run from their app that logs photos of car damage. (and those photo files are forwarded to the central database without any intervention by the user meaning they can't do anything that isn't monitored)
This doesn't HAVE to be done, the point is Apple has a solution that can work this way and COMPLETELY removes the camera as any security problem at all.
(we can talk about it's poor resolution but that should be solved in the next model)
And now let's talk about ease of use.
Yes, the IT department care more about THEIR cost of support and ease of use.
Apple has killed that problem.
Simply support your exchange server which you must do ANYWAY, and your support for the phone is basically done.
It doesn't hurt that the end user support is easy to understand because that translates it less problems for IT to walk users through.
But if you paid any attention to the video replay of the presentation, it's clear RIMM is going to finally have to explain how have all corporate email for all corporations going through their canadian central server is either safe or secure.
And now lets' talk about wiping data off the phone.
Currently, corporates have issues with Laptops.
I know of one company, that puts customer data on laptops and using Pointsec to encript all the data on the laptop. So if tye laptop is stolen or lost, nobody can get to any data on the computer. It's encripted with a huge key and about as impossible to break as anything you could imagine. That company had a laptop stolen with a customer list of 10,000+ people in it, including social security numbers. Even though the data was completely encripted, that company paid for credit monitoring services for a year for every single one of those people. So wiping the phone is BIG if it is actually going to do work. If it's a phone, wiping contacts is not that big of a deal, and I think you guys are thinking of this as a phone. It's a computer, and think of it as having data on it including customer data that SOX defines how you deal with it.
Having the phone wipe, and having it be a real computer with a browser and apps that match laptops in capability means very simply that some companies...... will deploy certain capabilities on the iPhone and not use laptops at all. (can't remotely wipe a laptop!)
The iPhone 2.0 software is coming out in June. With all this effort to inject the iPhone into enterprise, I would not be surprised if Apple did offer a camera-less phone in June, available only through AT&T business plans.
OK. Let's not. If the camera can be enabled by one piece of software, any hacker worth their salt will be able to enable it with a hacked phone. Espionage is espionage. If the phone does not have a camera, it can be never be used. Plain and simple. This is why at many institutions, you must lock any camera device at the front security office and not take it on the campus. This restriction is near impossible to deal with especially with the fact that the iPhone is now being sold as a business device. It doesn't matter if it can be software disabled. If the security guard sees a lens it will be confiscated.
The iPhone 2.0 software is coming out in June. With all this effort to inject the iPhone into enterprise, I would not be surprised if Apple did offer a camera-less phone in June, available only through AT&T business plans.
OK. Let's not. If the camera can be enabled by one piece of software, any hacker worth their salt will be able to enable it with a hacked phone. Espionage is espionage. If the phone does not have a camera, it can be never be used. Plain and simple. This is why at many institutions, you must lock any camera device at the front security office and not take it on the campus. This restriction is near impossible to deal with especially with the fact that the iPhone is now being sold as a business device.
When a corporation deploys a laptop, you could say any hacker could install software that steals data and uses the internet to send it somewhere.
It's not a problem to prevent hacker software onto laptops, at least enough to allow corporates to adopt them.
There is no difference in the iPhone.
In fact, a corporate can deploy the iPhone in a way that prevents it from accepting ANY applications other than those deployed under control from their iT department.
Again, no different than the laptops.
The corporate world is different, let's get off these "I can do anything with my phone and screw it up and corporate can't stop me" mantra.
Laptops work the same way and corporates have no problem controlling them.
Thinking that corporates won't be able to control the iPhone is .... well..... simply not thinking.
I think enterprises that ban cameras are idiots. You can buy really tiny camera or watch camera without anyone noticing. Furthermore, information can be leaked out by employees If someone is really desperate to do so no matter what security measures an enterprise have.
I think enterprises that ban cameras are idiots. You can buy really tiny camera or watch camera without anyone noticing. Furthermore, information can be leaked out by employees If someone is really desperate to do so no matter what security measures an enterprise have.
I think if Apple completely and totally turned their back on companies with this problem, it would mean zero to their sales.
In other words, any company this afraid of technology isn't in the market for any Apple product so making anything to target that market would be silly.
Consider the army.
If you have a site high risk to photography, you don't let in any device that has a camera in it.
Fine.
So somebody walks in with a blackberry device without a camera.
In the normal process of doing email, they talk about developements, deployments, costs, meetings or WHATEVER, in emails that go outside the country into a centra server in one place in the world that can be sniffed!
Let's face it, going to the iPhone with a camera in it disabled would be infinatly more secure than a blackberry without a camera!
If anyone really cares that much about limiting technology, it's not a growth opportunity for Apple so let's all just move along...... nothing to see here.
If you have a site high risk to photography, you don't let in any device that has a camera in it.
Fine.
You just don't get it. All Japanese and Taiwanese high tech companies that have R and D and even production lines on their campus take your camera equipped devices (including phones and laptops!) before you walk on their property. I cannot do business without a phone/email or email device. Most serious technology companies are fanatical about their trade secrets.
If apple is going to be taken seriously for their security, they will need to get rid of the camera in the phone.
A camera equipped phone will be useless as a business device if it is locked in a security cabinet.
Thinking that corporates won't be able to control the iPhone is .... well..... simply not thinking.
Assuming that taking away camera phones reduces the risk of corporate espionage is the real tomfoolery. But convincing those charged with security or security policies, is like arguing with a brick wall, because they simply won't understand, or admit that they are wrong. All it really does is inconvenience the honest people.
The final piece of the iPhone puzzle is the camera. They will have to offer an iPhone without camera if they really want to infiltrate large organizations. The security risk of the camera is too great, and it will impede adoption.
Again, I yearn for a snap-on model to show up. The iPhone or touch becomes the brains for any variety of analog converters that connect via the docking connector.
-a really good camera (zoom lens, flash, its own battery)
-high quality voice/sound/music input DSP.
It like this way better than trying to make the iPhone/touch do everything itself in lowest common denominator fashion and makes the device really expandable.
Comments
I don't see the camera being a huge security liability. Cameras are on virtually every smartphone let alone regular cell phones now. With the remote wipe capabilities, the camera shouldn't be a problem.
Security it terms of spying: corporate espionage. How would wiping the phone help, after I've just taken pictures of, say, Apple's latest great product and posted it to Flickr right from the phone?
There are many employers that do not allow camera phones. Hell, even Samsung (the phone manufacturer) supposedly does not. Perhaps it is too small of a market, but it sure would be nice if Apple could support it.
That's why I still have a 4-year old phone. It sucks, but try to buy one without a camera these days.
The final piece of the iPhone puzzle is the camera. They will have to offer an iPhone without camera if they really want to infiltrate large organizations. The security risk of the camera is too great, and it will impede adoption.
You may have missed it, but they mentioned for security purposes the camera can be disabled by the phone!
Problem solved, let's see the other handsets do THAT.
You may have missed it, but they mentioned for security purposes the camera can be disabled by the phone!
Problem solved, let's see the other handsets do THAT.
Or, if you want to be doubly certain, just drive a chisel through the camera lens
Seriously though, wouldn't this be an option?
cap'n, I think she's gonna blow
That's what she said!
IT departments typically care about ease of management, not ease of use for end users. I really dread when Apple starts catering to these guys. I hope they can do it in a way that won't be detrimental to the end user.
I'm puzzled why you would say that. Did you not see the video? Having seen the video on how Apple did it, I really don't see a problem here.
SPLASH.
1st in the pool.
Let the complaining begin......
Where is my iPaper toilet paper dispenser?
Security it terms of spying: corporate espionage. How would wiping the phone help, after I've just taken pictures of, say, Apple's latest great product and posted it to Flickr right from the phone?
I think it's a pointless edict. Those that wouldn't commit acts of espionage, wouldn't, and I would guess that those that would can probably find compact cameras that would require a cavity search to find, if they felt they had to go that far.
That's why I still have a 4-year old phone. It sucks, but try to buy one without a camera these days.
I think it's for the fact of not looking in the right places or asking the right people. I went to Sprint's site and found six models without a camera that you can buy new right now. I found two on Verizon's site.
Or, if you want to be doubly certain, just drive a chisel through the camera lens
Seriously though, wouldn't this be an option?
I forget why it's not.
I know several corporate accounts that say they won't standardize on a phone with a camera.
For liability reasons, for security reasons, for lots of reasons.
Apple has the best solution for this.
The phone has a camera, but it can be disabled.
This means the phone's camera will not work when at the home office.
Or it will not work EVER for their users.
Simple as that, problem solved.
Now I know all you guys are going to whine and complain, but when you cater to the business community, the business is the customer NOT the phone user.
So Apple has a superior solution.
In fact, for insurance adjusters, they could fix it so the camera NEVER works unless run from their app that logs photos of car damage. (and those photo files are forwarded to the central database without any intervention by the user meaning they can't do anything that isn't monitored)
This doesn't HAVE to be done, the point is Apple has a solution that can work this way and COMPLETELY removes the camera as any security problem at all.
(we can talk about it's poor resolution but that should be solved in the next model)
And now let's talk about ease of use.
Yes, the IT department care more about THEIR cost of support and ease of use.
Apple has killed that problem.
Simply support your exchange server which you must do ANYWAY, and your support for the phone is basically done.
It doesn't hurt that the end user support is easy to understand because that translates it less problems for IT to walk users through.
But if you paid any attention to the video replay of the presentation, it's clear RIMM is going to finally have to explain how have all corporate email for all corporations going through their canadian central server is either safe or secure.
And now lets' talk about wiping data off the phone.
Currently, corporates have issues with Laptops.
I know of one company, that puts customer data on laptops and using Pointsec to encript all the data on the laptop. So if tye laptop is stolen or lost, nobody can get to any data on the computer. It's encripted with a huge key and about as impossible to break as anything you could imagine. That company had a laptop stolen with a customer list of 10,000+ people in it, including social security numbers. Even though the data was completely encripted, that company paid for credit monitoring services for a year for every single one of those people. So wiping the phone is BIG if it is actually going to do work. If it's a phone, wiping contacts is not that big of a deal, and I think you guys are thinking of this as a phone. It's a computer, and think of it as having data on it including customer data that SOX defines how you deal with it.
Having the phone wipe, and having it be a real computer with a browser and apps that match laptops in capability means very simply that some companies...... will deploy certain capabilities on the iPhone and not use laptops at all. (can't remotely wipe a laptop!)
Let's all finally STOP talking about the camera.
OK. Let's not. If the camera can be enabled by one piece of software, any hacker worth their salt will be able to enable it with a hacked phone. Espionage is espionage. If the phone does not have a camera, it can be never be used. Plain and simple. This is why at many institutions, you must lock any camera device at the front security office and not take it on the campus. This restriction is near impossible to deal with especially with the fact that the iPhone is now being sold as a business device. It doesn't matter if it can be software disabled. If the security guard sees a lens it will be confiscated.
The iPhone 2.0 software is coming out in June. With all this effort to inject the iPhone into enterprise, I would not be surprised if Apple did offer a camera-less phone in June, available only through AT&T business plans.
They don't need a camera-less phone.......
OK. Let's not. If the camera can be enabled by one piece of software, any hacker worth their salt will be able to enable it with a hacked phone. Espionage is espionage. If the phone does not have a camera, it can be never be used. Plain and simple. This is why at many institutions, you must lock any camera device at the front security office and not take it on the campus. This restriction is near impossible to deal with especially with the fact that the iPhone is now being sold as a business device.
When a corporation deploys a laptop, you could say any hacker could install software that steals data and uses the internet to send it somewhere.
It's not a problem to prevent hacker software onto laptops, at least enough to allow corporates to adopt them.
There is no difference in the iPhone.
In fact, a corporate can deploy the iPhone in a way that prevents it from accepting ANY applications other than those deployed under control from their iT department.
Again, no different than the laptops.
The corporate world is different, let's get off these "I can do anything with my phone and screw it up and corporate can't stop me" mantra.
Laptops work the same way and corporates have no problem controlling them.
Thinking that corporates won't be able to control the iPhone is .... well..... simply not thinking.
Or is this totally unrelated?
I think enterprises that ban cameras are idiots. You can buy really tiny camera or watch camera without anyone noticing. Furthermore, information can be leaked out by employees If someone is really desperate to do so no matter what security measures an enterprise have.
I think if Apple completely and totally turned their back on companies with this problem, it would mean zero to their sales.
In other words, any company this afraid of technology isn't in the market for any Apple product so making anything to target that market would be silly.
Consider the army.
If you have a site high risk to photography, you don't let in any device that has a camera in it.
Fine.
So somebody walks in with a blackberry device without a camera.
In the normal process of doing email, they talk about developements, deployments, costs, meetings or WHATEVER, in emails that go outside the country into a centra server in one place in the world that can be sniffed!
Let's face it, going to the iPhone with a camera in it disabled would be infinatly more secure than a blackberry without a camera!
If anyone really cares that much about limiting technology, it's not a growth opportunity for Apple so let's all just move along...... nothing to see here.
Consider the army.
If you have a site high risk to photography, you don't let in any device that has a camera in it.
Fine.
You just don't get it. All Japanese and Taiwanese high tech companies that have R and D and even production lines on their campus take your camera equipped devices (including phones and laptops!) before you walk on their property. I cannot do business without a phone/email or email device. Most serious technology companies are fanatical about their trade secrets.
If apple is going to be taken seriously for their security, they will need to get rid of the camera in the phone.
A camera equipped phone will be useless as a business device if it is locked in a security cabinet.
Thinking that corporates won't be able to control the iPhone is .... well..... simply not thinking.
Assuming that taking away camera phones reduces the risk of corporate espionage is the real tomfoolery. But convincing those charged with security or security policies, is like arguing with a brick wall, because they simply won't understand, or admit that they are wrong. All it really does is inconvenience the honest people.
The final piece of the iPhone puzzle is the camera. They will have to offer an iPhone without camera if they really want to infiltrate large organizations. The security risk of the camera is too great, and it will impede adoption.
Again, I yearn for a snap-on model to show up. The iPhone or touch becomes the brains for any variety of analog converters that connect via the docking connector.
-a really good camera (zoom lens, flash, its own battery)
-high quality voice/sound/music input DSP.
It like this way better than trying to make the iPhone/touch do everything itself in lowest common denominator fashion and makes the device really expandable.