Apple fights off hackers with new iPhone 3GS firmware - Page 4

I actually do support the idea of jailbreaking. But that wasn't specifically what my post that you referred to was about, hence my overreaction.

You are right about the difficulties that will occur when trying to set fair boundaries for usage and restrictions. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. And it doesn't mean those that support more freedom deserve derision and scorn, a la tundraboy. JailBreaking does not automatically make you a thief or a sociopath (also a la tundra boy).

I see tethering more akin to being a really hungry guy. They built their pricing around the expectation that everyone would be a 100lbs teenage girl and instead in walks a bunch 500 pounders looking to clear the table.


True enough...but should there be a distinction between on device data and tethered data, simply because the tethered system is even more able to use the data? Again, the closest analogy I can think of is using multiple computers on your home ISP connection. The ISP could impose restrictions of one computer per paid line, but in this age, most homes would feel that was overly restrictive.

Well, the point is that there is a distinction in this case. I think it would be great if there weren't, and if their network could handle the demand.

I think most ISPs gave up on trying to restrict broadband to a single computer because it was too ridiculously easy to circumvent (especially once the first home router added the "clone MAC address" option) that it became more trouble than it was worth to try to police. As far as I know, there's nothing legally to prevent them from doing so, but, now that no one does, it would put any one that did try to impose such a restriction at a serious competitive disadvantage.

The same doesn't apply to cell phones, so, in the absence of a legal requirement, I think it will be some time before this will be the case. Unless, of course, actual competition comes to the U.S. wireless market, but the carriers are in no hurry to see that happen.

I done messed up my Mac. Playing around with changing the MAC address I have somehow removed AirPort from the entire system. A reinstall of the OS and everything else Ive tried is useless. Luckily, I have tethering enabled so I can use the WiFi from the iPhone to connect my computer via USB or Bluetooth.

I hadnt thought of this before, but unless you live in a country that allows tethering or have the old profile installed, like I do, you cant even use tethering on WiFi.

I wonder if the license restrictions or even the legality of the license has been tested.
I would argue that in this case, the iPhone and Touch, are virtualy useless without said software. Just a thought.

Welcome Teckstud, wondered how long it would take for you to appear.

Can you put the full desktop IE, Firefox or Opera on a WinMo device? No you can't, because they are different OSes with different hardware restrictions and APIs.

Can you install full Firefox on an Android device just by recompiling (no source modification) for the G1 CPU? No you can't.

The same goes for the AppleTV.

Not a very good point you are trying to make.

The fact you only have a license has most certainly been upheld by copyright laws and numerous prosecutions exist as proof.


Still doesn't change the fact you only have a license to use the software though, does it?

Serves you right for messing around with your MAC address. This issue would go for any device you buggered up the MAC address on. Hardly Apple's problem.

Sorry if this has been posted but here is more stats on the piracy of jb phones:

These analytics show roughly 4 million jailbreak devices, 38% of which are using pirated app(s) (aka cracked apps). In other words, most jailbreakers don’t steal apps.

http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/10...piracy-iphone/

The rest of the stats posted there are also interesting.

Full report by pinch media here:

http://www.pinchmedia.com/blog/pirac...-from-360idev/

In the corporate environment, policiies can be enforced that prevents the open-ness and "install anything" that you speak of. Especially when the device also connects to the corporate Exchange server etc.

Wouldn't a favorable judgment necessitate that argument's applicability to any embedded or special-purpose device (microwave, navigation, etc.) which utilizes software/firmware covered by a restricted-use license? An IP legal specialist can weigh in on that.

If you paid the subsidised price of your handset then I think if you check the fine print of the contract the phone will most likely remain the property of AT&T until you are out of contract.

That was certainly the case in the UK until a few years ago with any mobile phone.

Ive done it countless times before. Either things changed with SL (more likely) or my AirPort HW is buggered (less likey), but telling people that they shouldnt use there machines the way they seem fit is just ignorant. Am I breaking an NDA or some other agreement changing my MAC Address? No, didnt think so.

Actually It might.

Do you own a car?
If so you have a computer on board with software that determines Brake response, acceleration, etc you don't have a license to use the software. There are aftermarket companies that sell chips to "enhance' performance.

My argument here is that since the software and the hardware are so entwined, that separating them would render both usless. Any enfrocement of the license regarding any "hacks" that you might want to use, to add to the useability of the device, might not stand up.

You have little understanding of how contracts work. Not to long ago the sellers of land would require buyers to sign a contract as a condition of the sale. The terms would forbid the buyers to ever sell the property to black people. Up until the last forty years, that used to be both a legal and enforceable contract. Today, it would be legal to enter into such a contract, but no court in the Country would enforce such a contract. The US Constitution allows the contract to be made, but doesn't allow it to be enforced by the government.

The point being: Apple can put anything it wants in it's contract and that will be legal. The issue, however, becomes is the contract enforceable in the courts? Companies often like to try and control what consumers like to do with the companies products after the purchase. For instance, many contracts used to forbid a buyer to sell an item he purchased. The law, however, recognizes many terms like that are legal to write in the contract, but not enforceable in the law.

It is perfectly legal to jailbreak a phone because 1) you own the phone, and 2) Fair-Use is a legal concept that allows users of copyrighted works to use such works as they see fit regardless of what the copyright holders wishes are provided the use is both non-commerical in nature, and for personal use. Jail-breaking is non-commerical in nature, and for personal use. It also doesn't interfere with Apple's business model as Apple never intends to sell forbidden applications.

This doesn't mean that Apple has to make it easy for it's customers to exercise it's fair-use rights. It just means Apple cannot sue a user for jail-breaking the phone. If it could, it would have already done so. Apple can, however, rightfully void the warranty. It shouldn't be forced to support an modified product.


There are serious free speech issues involved here. For instance, Apple has denied access to the iPhone for many political applications, and applications of poor taste. For instance, a recent health care application, and the baby shaker application. Other then jail-breaking the device, there is no way other supported way to get those applications on the phone. Copyright law is embedded in the US Constitution and was intended to benefit the public, not companies. So, it is only right that users can do what they wish with products after they purchase them.

I own an iPhone. I paid full price for it (purchase price plus a cancellation fee). I own it. I hate AT&T and run it on T-Moble. It works better then some of my friends who are using AT&T. I also enjoy my baby shaker application. Great stress relief.

Further, most products you buy have contracts that are impossible to read, and you can't even read them until you have the product unwrapped and in your house. Accordingly, there is no real agreement at the store.

I have 242 applications, (some free, most paid) and a jailbroken iPhone. I am not a thief. In fact, I often donate to shareware developers and repurchase software, just so developers will have the funds they need to continue making excellent software. I purchase software from Cydia, as well.

I use a jailbroken phone so I can organize my applications in folders. My phone has 3 pages of 12 icons, with page two primarily being folders of apps in type of application. It keeps things neat and easy to use, just as Apple like things to be. How is this stealing? Surely, your holier-than-thou attitude needs to be put aside for a moment while you consider this.

Actually, in most States you are the legal owner of the property subject to a lien. Further, AT&T allows you to end the contract subject to a cancellation fee. That cancellation fee is largely to cover the cost of the subsidized phone.

A person doesn't get prosecuted for simple copyright violations. They get sued in civil court. The only issue here is money. Prosecuting implies somebody did something illegal. The issue there can possibly be jail time along with money.

Violating a licensing agreement is not illegal. It happens all the time. It may, however, subject the violator to potential civil damages.

So, I doubt there have been any such prosecutions.

A bigger impediment than $99 per year is getting the source code to all the apps you might want to use and the skills needed to compile, provision and maintain the apps (there are now three things that are inevitable: death, taxes, and code rot).

Which contract? I haven't signed a contract when I have purchased a phone before

You don't own the software, but you do have Fair-Use rights that Apple cannot license away from you. Those rights allow you to use the software for personal uses that are not commercial in nature where your rights do not materially interfere with Apple's sales. Copyright rights are constitutional in origin and were meant to primarily benefit the public by giving copyright holders limited rights to make money of their creations.

If it weren't otherwise, Sony never would have been allowed to sell the first TV recorder over the objection of the copyright holders.

Oh, you do it via tethering, so when you used your great usage pattern as an example of how data intensive the iPhone was you were actually fibbing a little...

solipsism: the trick to changing your airport mac address under SL is to go to the 'radar' airport icon and select join other network. Now type in some random characters and hit join and then cancel. Use terminal to change your MAC address and then click on the 'radar' airport icon and join your network. Repeat to change it back or just reboot.

Seriously, you down on him for tinkering with his Mac? It was asked before, rhetorically, how people would feel if they were instructed on how they were allowed to use their computers. Intentionally or not, I guess we have our answer.

Holy crap! Man, & I thought the political scene was the hot-button of the day.

I think Apple & AT&T have every right to write up their own agreements that you have to sign. I also think they have every right to take whatever actions they so choose to require the end user live up to the agreement they signed.

I think every hacker has the right to ignore the rules & try to hack the iPhone so long as they can accept the consequences when they come.

I think every user that adheres to the rules has the right to be totally peeved at the hackers if their actions cause technical issues on the AT&T network.

I think EVERYONE has the right to be peeved at Apple & AT&T if they do not meet the level of service that they advertise!

I think I want my cake & I wanna eat it too!!!

Oh, so that's what freedom is!

Apple is not legally required at this time to open their platform. and like with their computers, they have a legit reason for keeping the box closed. it makes isolating and fixing problems brought on by apps a lot easier.

anyone that buys a phone knows the rules. they either play by them or they choose not to and deal when it bites them in the ass. But they are not heroes in my book and Apple should not be made to cater to them.


while this is true, they most certainly can tell how much data is going through your line and whether it is on par with the amounts used during tethering etc. and if the line is listed as an iphone it isn't a stretch to say that the phone was most likely JB'd.

it is because of this that I support data caps. so long as they are reset daily and of a level high enough that the average user will rarely to never hit it but those that are tethering, using things like slingbox etc in violation of the rules they know and pretended to agree to get cut off at some point. allowing the rest of us to have back bandwidth that will allow us to make our phone calls without connection failures and drops


if you look at the terms and conditions I"m fairly sure you'll find a caveat that not all areas have 3g. and yes they do have a map
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/

Now if you live in an area where they claim they have 3g but it sucks then go find a lawyer and file a class action suit. but hacking your phone is as invalid a way of dealing with the issue as Palm spoofing Apple's USB codes in violation of the licensing rules

I have no idea what your "argument" here is. It is completely lacking in logic. I am NOT unreasonable to expect to have the right to do whatever I want with the phone I bought. You can attack me but I have the law on my side. 98% of Jailbreakers do not pirate apps. Who's ass did you pull that figure out of? You don't know what you are talking about. But then sheep never do.. You're a moron who wants a sollution that doesn't require you to think Fine, you have one in the Iphone. How would allowing others to do MORE with it, change that? It wouldn't, but people like you don't care. You are the unreasonable one. You expect all of us to conform to what you want. I have my phone to be productive. I use programs like Intelliscreen-- which Apple didn't allow in the App store-- and Backgrounder-- which also wasn't allowed-- to get more out of my phone. I don't know what world you live in-- other than the licking Steve Job's balls world-- but I'm not living there. And as long as Apple continues this type of short-sighted behavior-- and as I said, they are perfectly welcome to do so-- I'll never buy another iPhone. But it's very bad business to drive away and alienate your best customers. And all you idiots that defend the behavior shows you know as little about business as you do about tech.

[QUOTE=newbee;1499393]To paraphrase: "Contract, sure I signed a contract, but I don't AGREE with that contract so I should be able to break the legalities of that contract in any way I like"....... I don't know, Tulkas, from where I stand, your argument doesn't hold any water. [/QUOTE


We own the device, the device comes WITH the software, therefore THAT copy of software is ours. We bought it. WE can't sell it or reproduce it, but can modify it all we like for our personal use, regardless of what these apple apologists claim. You obviously don't know the law, and fair use law allows modification-- hell it even allows reproduction in some cases-- so your argument doesn't hold water. Companies can put whatever they want in their license agreements but that doesn't mean they are enforceable or even legal. It's not that difficult to understand people.

actually under current US law, you are incorrect. Sim Unlocking and Jailbreaking are both forms of access control removal by law any knowledge or technology which removes access control is illegal to use or distribute.

I'm sure it won't stop anyone from doing it anymore than reminding folks that torrenting those DVDrips and cinema cams is piracy stops that from happening. but don't pretend that you are doing something noble. you aren't. what you are doing is breaking the law.



what most folks don't realize is that it doesn't. it only recovers part of the cost. the retail on the phones is $499-699, early upgrade takes $200 off that, full upgrade takes another $200.

so I go and buy a 16gb iphone with my full upgrade. I pay $199 plus tax (ATT 'pays' the other 400).I keep the phone for 31 days and then cancel. I only pay them an ETF of $175. They are out $225 plus 23 months of service fees.

so yeah ATT is pissed.

Also Apple is likely under contract to do whatever they feasibly can to prevent unlocking and tethering hacks. so they are just doing what they agreed to do. it's not some personal attack

If you don't like HOAs, live where there is not one.
If you don't like the iPhone EULA, buy an Openmoko.
But thinking Apple will change their EULA just because there is a community of hackers who can't really tell you what value is added to Apple by their hacking is a worthless activity.
Do you hold any patents or claim any copyrights as part of your work?

Wrong:-

http://www.pinchmedia.com/blog/pirac...-from-360idev/

You can blame the 38% of measured users who have at least one pirated App on their jailbroken iPhone.

So why don't you lay blame where it is due, the 38% who mess it up for "legitimate" jailbreakers like you.

End of argument the jailbreakers lose unless they can guarantee that jailbroken iPhones cannot be used to install pirated Apps they have no leg to stand on.

That still leaves 62% of non jailbreakers who are messing it up for everyone. Where is the guarantee from non-jailbreakers? Of course there is no such thing as getting a guarantee from anyone but it certainly does not end the argument.

62% not showin up as it says in the report, part of the cracking process of Apps can also remove the tools used to report their use, it's certainly a long way from the 98% figure I was replying to.

Can you run pirated Apps on a non-jailbroken iPhone?

The issue is not the Jailbreakers who have good intentions it is those who ride in on their coattails, who are less ethical, who Apple has every right to block in order to protect App store developers IP.

End of argument, jailbreakers enable pirates.

Yes, you can load pirated apps on a non-jailbroken phone so just because you say it ends the argument does not make it so. If 38 % of piracy happens on jb phones then 62% must happen on non JB phones (type 100 minus 38 into a calculator and you will get 62 incase you don't understand the math). I absolutely agree that Apple should protect their IP and as I mentioned in an earlier post, Saurik works to prevent pirates promoting hacked apps using Cydia.

Heh, blaming hackers for ATT's incompetent 3G network is just great. :-) ATT = corporate greed.

yes. when you purchase a property that is subject to caveats/covenants restricting the design/alteration of the property for various reasons, from heritage to just "it's how the developers want the area to look" imo, the iphone is exactly the same.

fwiw, i'm not against jb'ing (for purposes of customisation etc), but jb-ers should quit the whining when their hacks get broken, it's part of the endless cycle...

If you took the time to read the link that has been posted twice, you would see that the 62 and 38%'s refers to 100% jailbroken phones.

More than a third of jailbroken iPhones were detected using pirated Apps, those that weren't detected are in the other 62% of jailbroken iPhones.

The number detected was over a million, that's over a million people using Apps which developers don't get paid for.

If you support jailbreaking then obviously, by extension you support pirates.

Like I said this Saurik guy may have the best intentions but jailbreaking opens the door for those with less ethics.

What would the result be if someone loaded a pirated App with a Trojan, such as a mass emailer, would the people who installed it even be aware apart from high data use.

If such a thing was to occur, where do you think the finger would be pointed?

One could argue that HOA restrictions are similar, I suppose. A couple years ago, a lot of home owners were surprised that the covenants prohibited things like clotheslines anywhere outside of their houses. Many would consider this a reasonable enough restriction. As global warming has become more and more of a concern, the province took action to have those portions of the agreements removed or nullified.

Not all restrictions are good. Not all restriction will or should stand up to a challenge.

Actually I posted the link originally so my bad. But if you actually read the article then you would have read:

"its worth pointing out that an individual who jailbreaks their phone is not necessarily an individual that steals applications." which is something that you seem to want to say across the board. In the other link I posted it says: "In other words, most jailbreakers dont steal apps." So, only to you is it obvious but, clearly to the two different authors, JB does NOT support piracy. The only way to really do a comparison is if they track how many non JB phones have pirated apps on them. Till then it is not 'obvious'. BTW you work for ATT?

On a side note, one more reason to consider JB your phone - I actually have the Privacy app on my phone, that I believe the article is referring to, as it stops advertisers tracking my online usage which is something that Apple should provide but till this point hasn't.

I'll let you have the last word.