> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those organisations
> who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't be deterred by
> a bunch of legalese.

It's more to prevent otherwise legally-acting companies from doing military 
stuff with other countries without control from the government.  Without the 
disclaimer, a company could (to quote the example already given) extract the 
accelerometers from iPods and sell them to a missile-making company, 
completely avoiding any government control on such devices.

AIUI, in the UK at least, if you export some technology or a product that 
even has a remote chance of being able to be used for some military purpose, 
then you need to go through a lot more hoops with the government.

Post a reply to this message

But my podcast describing how to develope ICBMs is only available as an 
mp4!!! :-(

-- 

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:36:35 +0200, scott wrote:

>> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
>> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those
>> organisations who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't
>> be deterred by a bunch of legalese.
> 
> It's more to prevent otherwise legally-acting companies from doing
> military stuff with other countries without control from the government.
>  Without the disclaimer, a company could (to quote the example already
> given) extract the accelerometers from iPods and sell them to a
> missile-making company, completely avoiding any government control on
> such devices.

Oh, yeah, I understand the intent.  It's just really silly to read.

> AIUI, in the UK at least, if you export some technology or a product
> that even has a remote chance of being able to be used for some military
> purpose, then you need to go through a lot more hoops with the
> government.

Yep, same here in the US.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:35:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such
>> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those
>> organisations who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't
>> be deterred by a bunch of legalese.
> 
> I don't think it's that. I think it's there to keep Apple from having to
> prove the device is suitable for that purpose. I.e., "No, the military
> shouldn't be using the GPS on this to decide where to bomb", and etc.

Well, as I said to Scott, yeah, I understand the real intent.  But it 
comes across as what I said to most laypeople.  That's why the warnings 
like the one below:

> Kind of the difference between getting FCC approval for your radio vs
> slapping a sticker on it that says "Caution: may generate interference."
> If it's going to be used in a hospital, you really need the approval.

Come across as silly as well.  Or for that matter, warnings telling you 
that that chainsaw you just bought isn't to be used for trimming nose 
hairs.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I wonder how you could use iTunes to develop nuclear weapons. Unless
> they mean that you can't listen to music through iTunes while you are
> developing the weapons...

What, you don't subscribe to the Anarchist podcast? ;)

....Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:34:15 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 
>> On 06/21/09 22:32, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> That, and the rather safe conclusion that people who are willing to
>>> break laws about WMD are not likely to give a rat's about their iTunes
>>> EULA.
>> 	Well, more seriously, it may be about covering Apple's rear end 
> rather
>> than preventing the user from doing something.
> 
> Absolutely, but it's quite funny that the law requires Apple put such 
> verbiage in the EULA when it's pretty well known that those organisations 
> who would use the technology for nefarious purposes won't be deterred by 
> a bunch of legalese.

It's more sad than funny; not because it would be the reason for 
dragging Apple into court, but because it would be the *excuse* for 
dragging Apple into court.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:29:36 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

> It's more sad than funny; not because it would be the reason for
> dragging Apple into court, but because it would be the *excuse* for
> dragging Apple into court.

Well, sad and funny I'd go as far as. But yeah, it could be used that way.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> It's more sad than funny; not because it would be the reason for 
> dragging Apple into court, but because it would be the *excuse* for 
> dragging Apple into court.

Wel said!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message