Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 January 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 3

Is there an app that allows you to photograph without showing the live view on your screen?

I tried searching and didn't find any relevant hits... Is there an app that allows you to photograph without showing the live view on your screen? 166.171.185.166 (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You can simply not look at screen :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is it you're trying to accomplish? clpo13_(talk) 19:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well clearly to take photos without getting caught. I can think of some legitimate reasons you might want to do this, and I can also think of many illegitimate reasons you might want to do this. Like taking photos anywhere where you are not permitted recording devices. I'm not aware of any authorized apps that let you do this, but there are several unauthorized apps, however you need to jailbreak your iPhone to install unauthorized apps. As far as I am aware while jailbreaking is not "illegal" in the US, it does void your warranty and forfeit your rights to apple support, so go down that road at your own risk. Vespine (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

How about for Android phones? And truly do assume good faith here, I'm just uncomfortable taking photos in public, especially when using a cell phone and not a real camera. As well it could speed up taking photos if there was a widget accessible from the launch screen that doesn't change the window, like the flashlight operates. 216.9.110.9 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an android but a quick google search turned up: "Quick Camera - Hidden Camera", play.google.com . Vespine (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's totally clear jailbreaking voids your warranty. Apple may say it does, but AFAIK it's never been tested in court whether this is allowed under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act which forbid warranties which require "tie-in sales" (including services) [1]. On iOS, as you basically can't use an alternative app stores without jailbreaking and given that while you don't have to pay to use the app store, not everything on it is free and Apple does take a cut of that, Apple may have a problem disclaiming warranties for jailbreaks in certain cases. I'm not aware that Apple has been granted a waiver by the FTC preventing you from jail breaking. Of course if you break something by jail breaking you're SOL for whatever you broke. Just as if you open up the iPhone to fix something which Apple will charge you for and in the process break something, whatever you broke isn't going to be covered under the warranty. Or if you use third party ink and it clogs the heads of your printer you shouldn't expect the heads to be covered under warranty (unless it would have happened with manufacturer ink). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Magnuson-Moss is a US law - so (a) Please don't assume our OP is necessarily from the USA and (b) We're not allowed to give legal advice here - and that's what that was. SteveBaker (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing since it's fairly OT to the original question. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

In case there is some confusion, I was replying to Vespine who specifically said that jailbreak voids you warranty in the US, hence the clear cut indenting. I admit, I neglected to include the US part, but I thought it was obvious in the context of the thread. Since I don't live in the US, my only interest in the situation in the US is when people make claims which may not be correct, or have questions about the situation in the US. There was no comment on any other country so I didn't comment on any other country. (If I did want to mention other countries I may have mentioned how in NZ, warranties aside, many products are covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act which require products are of acceptable quality [2] and other things. These rights are in addition to any warranty. So regardless of whether or not jailbreaking voids you warranty, Apple will need to be able to explain how their products are of acceptable quality if the home button breaks under normal usage for reasons unrelated to the jail break or alternatively fulfill their obligations. I could have also mentioned how Australia as well as the UK and many other countries in the EU have similar laws.) And there was no intention of legal advice. I didn't say that jail breaking doesn't void your warranty. (Although as said above, the comment I was replying to you did say the opposite, albeit only as far as the commentator knew.) All I said was that the idea jail breaking voids you warranty in the US is a legally untested claim made by Apple, which would need to be considered in light of laws which may forbid such practices, as other commentators in other places have pointed out. Actually even our article mentions it albeit it's unsourced, see iOS jailbreaking. If you want to know I geolocated the OP when I first saw the question, so an assumption they may be in the US would have been fair. But in the end I didn't make the assumption in my eventual reply anyway because it was irrelevant. I was not replying to the OP, but to a comment made here by someone else. In fact, by the time I replied, the OP had already commented suggesting they probably didn't even care about iOS. The geolocation was primarily because if the OP was in South Korea or Japan, or somewhere else with a legal requirement for an audible noise for when taking photos, I would have mentioned that. Not because I wanted to offer legal advice, but because the OP may want to consider taking legal advice if they are going to use apps where it may be required. This was before anyone had replied, but I didn't reply because it didn't seem relevant to the OP as they don't appear to live there, and it's also not relevant to anything said in the thread thus far so I didn't end up mentioning. (And if I had said this, it would be an even greater case of expecting the OP to take on competent legal advice if needed, since I have no idea if there's any chance these laws forbid end users from removing the sounds, or simply require manufacturers to try and ensure there is a sound. I've only barely read up on these laws myself, and it's difficult since of course many of the sources are in Korean or Japanese, neither of which I understand.) And in case there's an further controversy, if I had mentioned something like this, I consider it the same way I (and others) do occasionally mention the DMCA and similar laws when replying about stuff relating to deDRMing. DMCA is of course a US law, but it's the iconic example of a law which forbids DRM circumvention and was, thanks to US pressure, the primary inspiration for such laws in other countries. There's IMO an obvious problem if we are allowed to give advice on something which may break the law like deDRMing, but not allowed to even mention that the people may want to investigate this aspect before proceeding. Or back to the main point, if we're allowed to say doing X voids you warranty, but not allowed to point out it's untested and unclear if it does void you warranty. 'May void you warrant' would avoid such confusion, and if this was what was stated I wouldn't have commented but it wasn't. And similar to my earlier point, it's problematic if we're going to offer advice on doing stuff which may indeed void you warranty, but not at least allowed to mention it does so. Yes I could have just said something like "I think you mean 'may void you warranty'". But while that's sometimes fine, it's also the kind of thing which often leads to dispute when people then say it definitely does void the warranty. So we either have to shut down that discussion because of the risk it will cross in to legal advice, or mention why sources say it's unclear. And IMO particularly since it doesn't sound like anyone here is actually planning to jail break it was fair to mention why sources say it was unclear. I also prefer to say all I feel needs to be said to avoid questions coming up rather than engaging in long back and forths.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC) As a final comment, I admit my sourcing for the original claims wasn't that great although I do feel the FTC website which I provided above [3] does address most of what I said, even if it doesn't specifically mention jailbreaking. (I also found [4] which provides some more info.) One of the problems is while I can find decent forum discussions and comments on article, it's difficult to find actual RS. What I do find from the RS is decent sources which either say "the warranty is void because Apple says it is" (without any comment on state or federal law that affects such limitations) e.g. [5]. Or "the warranty isn't void because they have to prove jailbreaking damaged the phone, under the Magnuson-Moss Act" (but more informed sources discussing related issues, or even the FTC and reading the law makes it clear the Magnuson-Moss Act isn't so simple) [6]. So we get contradictory claims in RS which don't really seem to have properly considered the issues. I expect in the past, you would have gotten the same thing if you looked in to generic ink/toner catridges, thankfully there's now enough interest, including commercial interest you can easily find discussion surrounding how the Magnuson-Moss Act affects them. E.g. [7] [8]. Likewise for replacing computer components [9] [10]. AAll of these are generally small fry compared to stuff like cars which is one area the Magnuson-Moss Act was definitely designed to cover [11] [12] and probably one of the most common areas of discussion [13] [14]. In fact even the FTC discusses and has been actively involved in it [15] [16]. The cost involved in car cases may also be high enough to allow a federal court case, which is probably impossible for iOS devices given the need for individual claims to be $25,000. (It's also clearer when a company says any use of third party parts or service voids your warranty, that it's a problem.) Jail breaking is for better or worse still fairly esoteric and in particular of little commercial interest. So there seems to be very limited RS discussion surrounding this particular warranty aspect. The best I could find beyond reading the earlier FTC links are [17] (which is decent, but unfortunately doesn't mention warranties when it comes to jail breaking) and [18] (which partially replicates the FTC but has some useful fresh info). It possible another reason why this isn't discussed much is a number of state laws are clearer on the jail breaking aspect, so are more likely to be used (but that would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). And I have no real idea how much Apple actually denies warranty claims when it's unlikely jailbreaking was the cause, so it's also possible it's largely theoretical. (Notably, if the product just isn't working or even if there's clearly a physical defect unlikely to have been cause by mis-used, my impression is many companies just repair or replace. Testing to check if it was jailbroken or the firmware was modified just wastes time. At most, they may re-flash firmware, probably without checking what was on it. Particularly since they probably don't want their staff checking in case they start viewing private data.) And yes I am very passionate about this. The way many companies mislead consumers about their rights (in countries with strong such protections which actually isn't the US in a lot of cases) is a strongly held pet peeve of mine. Particularly extended warranties which in a number of countries are close to scams, providing no more rights than the consumer already has. Stronger laws and enforcement can sometimes help, but so does educating consumers. Education also works both ways, it means knowing what rights you do have but also knowing what rights you don't have (e.g. a recent case here revealed some people think companies are required to sell you a product at an advertised price if they make a genuine mistake). Thankfully the internet has often made things a lot better. This doesn't mean I always agree with consumer advocate organisations. For example a number here have made a big deal about physical bill charges, something I feel is fine if the price is resonable. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting using wikipedia or the RD for advocacy. But rather simply pointing out again that it should be acceptable to challenge a claim which I feel is wrong or misleading and given the possibility of disputes, explain why it may be wrong or misleading. And in this particular case, there is a good reason why I was so concerned, even if not everyone feels the same way. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) The above was supposed to be a final comment, but I forgot to check one more thing I uncovered while researching the above answer. I believe I made an error in my original statement. In particular, I incorrectly thought it may have been significant whether or not the service Apple was providing was free. However from more reading e.g. [19] and some of the earlier sources and careful consideration, I believe the free service bit is only related to the actual warranty. So for example, it's still difficult for a car company to say "you didn't use our oil which we would have provided free, so your warranty is void even though the problem is with your brakes and clearly unrelated to the oil you used". All that part does is make it difficult for a consumer to say "since my engine is defective and you're replacing my oil, use oil Y, and pay for it yourself". Or "my car is defective and needs to be fixed, my sister's garage is going to do it, and you're goign to pay for it". It's intended to allow the company to say "we will fix the problem, but you have to use Z". This emphasises the complexity and the need for caution when dealing with the law. But that applies both ways. It shows why we shouldn't take legal advice given by random stranges, but as said above it was never my intention to provide legal advice. But it also shows why it's foolish to assume just because Apple (and sources quoting Apple) say the warranty is void, automatically means it's void. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to restart the discussion, I would just like to add, in my defense, I was just repeating what appears to be the consensus on apple.com support forums. Vespine (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Viewing Facebook pages

I'm not a member of Facebook and have absolutely no wish to become one, but I do look at some pages on it, such as those of local shops or sports clubs that I regularly visit. However every time I got to a page now after a few seconds a box pops up prompting me to log in in order to continue and no matter what I do I can't get rid of it. SO is there any way for me to dismiss this without taking out membership or am I snookered? Keresaspa (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You can try clicking the close button on the bottom right of the box or pushing the escape key. Anyway, presuming you mean the desktop site, unless Facebook is carrying out some sort of beta test in your area, you shouldn't get a box unless you're trying to do something which requires login like commenting on a page. Are you sure this box is actually coming from Facebook? (I'm presuming you don't mean the box which shows up at the top right of the profile picture but which doesn't move with the page and otherwise doesn't affect the page.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The pressing escape thing worked perfectly - as you can probably guess I'm a bit rubbish at computers :D. Thanks very much. Keresaspa (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)