or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Evasi0n iOS 7 jailbreak funding supplied by Chinese app piracy site
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Evasi0n iOS 7 jailbreak funding supplied by Chinese app piracy site - Page 3

post #81 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post
 

Who's to say that these companies with their proprietary secret hidden code, haven't embedded kill switches in these devices that can be activated when one loads "unapproved" software?

 

So like what Google did when Android users in the UK enabled voice guidance in Google maps or the other times they have used their killswitch?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #82 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So like what Google did when Android users in the UK enabled voice guidance in Google maps or the other times they have used their killswitch?

Fortunately for users both Apple and Google have put a killswitch in their OS.
http://www.phonenews.com/did-apple-flip-the-ios-kill-switch-on-ndrive-11579/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/06/google-flips-android-kill-switch-destroys-a-batch-of-malicious/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #83 of 130
Quote:

 

Except Apple has never been shown to have used a killswitch to interfere with people's phones, unlike Google, the hypocritical champions of "open".

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #84 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Except Apple has never been shown to have used a killswitch to interfere with people's phones, unlike Google, the hypocritical champions of "open".

I guess I'm not familiar with whatever evil thing you're accusing Google of this time. Any link so I can read up on it?
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/26/13 at 5:33pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #85 of 130

Just thought I'd put this in, because I don't think the anti-jailbreak brigade know what they are talking about.

if I jailbreak my iphone , and I have cydia, I cant download any pirated apps from cydia.

i have to manually add sources that have pirated apps, and as soon as I click add, I get a warning from cydia that this source has pirated software and its recommended not to install it.

 

so no, jailbreaking and piracy don't go hand in hand

post #86 of 130

The people "reasoning" against jailbreaking obviously don't know what they are talking about, so let's clear up a few misconceptions here:

 

a) Jailbreaking makes the iPhone less secure!

FALSE! Jailbreaking *exploits* preexisting security holes in the iPhone, forcing Apple to fix these holes and leaving one less wormhole for three letter agencies and other thiefs to control your device without you being aware of it. So the very fact that there is a jailbreaking scene makes iOS MORE SECURE.

Further, a jailbroken phone has all the same security mechanisms intact as a non-jailbroken phone, the only person with more power after jailbreaking is THE OWNER, in other words, jailbreaking only helps the owner of the device to exercise his ownership over his device, nothing more, nothing less. An iPhone is nothing but a Mac with a less powerful CPU, a touch interface and a cellular modem built-in. It's a pocket computer running Darwin (just like a Mac), where the owner (unlike on the Mac) doesn't get administrator privileges.

To assume that jailbreaking makes iOS less secure is like claim the Mac OS X is less secure because the owner can have admin rights; you can consider OS X "jailbroken" from the factory. 

So why would anyone in their sane mind think that just because it's a pocket computer instead of a laptop, the user should not have the same rights to control the device he bought?

(Note: Jailbreaking can make an iOS device less secure if someone installs ssh and forgets set new passwords, but if iOS came factory-jailbroken like any Mac does, then setting these passwords would be part of the initial device setup, and that would be a non-issue, too)

 

b) Jailbreaking is about piracy!

FALSE! Just like owning a Mac with OS X isn't about piracy as these Macs are all "factory jailbroken", so jailbreaking an iPhone isn't about piracy. Apple jails the user of an iOS device for the following reasons:

1) less support requests, because of limited user choices => to make more money

2) to allow carriers to charge different prices for exactly the same good (wireless bandwith usage), depending on whether you want to use that bandwith for your phone or your tethered device, this allows the carriers to be price gauging, which in turn allows Apple to make more odious contracts with the carriers => to make more money

3) to prevent people from buying software anywhere but the AppStore, which means Apple might lose out on the 30% cut of any AppleStore purchase => to make more money

 

c) Jailbreaking is about freedom of choice!

TRUE! Apple is perfectly free to say they won't give support for a device unless it's in a non-jailbroken state and only has software installed that was downloaded from the AppStore, but it's intolerable for them to say you can't have anything on your device unless they approve it, particularly since they not only check software for security, but also have a content policy that turns all Apple customers into kids visiting DisneyWorld.

Every company is free to decide what they sell as their offerings affect their brand image, but when that freedom of a company is combined with a monopoly store like the AppStore/iTunes Store, then THAT COMBINATION turns into censorship which isn't any more acceptable when perpetrated by a private entity than when it's a consequence of government action. One might even argue that if the government aids and abets with the various laws that make Apple's construct legal, that this constitutes an indirect form of government censorship.

So that means that

EITHER Apple would have to accept any product offering as long as it's not illegal or a security hazard 

OR Apple would have to allow alternative channels for content providers.

How ludicrous some of these things are:

- Safari is built-in, but downloading a third party web browser from the AppStore throws up an alert panel that looks like one just downloaded a porn app.

- the built-in Photos app and iPhoto apps are perfectly capable of displaying porn through PhotoStreams, etc. but they are easy to install, but a 500px picture browser again comes with a huge "adult content" warning.

- Not only do apps throw such a warning upon initial install, but with each update, as if putting a new version of an already installed app would be a problem when the rating didn't change.

- games that promote violence are not a problem, games that promote sex are out of the question

In short, it's hypocrisy, that creates a fake sense of "decency" and "child safety", yet violence is OK, but love making isn't. Ugh, whatever happened to "Make love, not war!"??? Long time since Jobs' hippy days, I guess.

 

d) Jailbreaking is illegal!

FALSE! There are clear exemptions from the DMCA that explicitly allow jailbreaking, which of course isn't a free pass for piracy, and that proves that the two have a priory nothing to do with each other, because otherwise there were no such exemptions since the DMCA was specifically created as an anti-piracy measure, which brings us back to point b) above.

 

 

And on a totally different note: Just because "them" (the Chinese) are doing it doesn't make it worse than if "we" (the US) is doing it.

Just as China tries to protect and advance its market and products, so does the US. Just study up on how US agricultural subsidies destroy farmers around the world, so China's lax stance on piracy hurts the US. The US isn't interested in the fate of other countrie's farmers and China doesn't give damn about US software developers.

How absurd these things becomes clear when you look at font design: In the day of letterpress printing, typefaces were NOT under copyright protection in the US, because all the leading type foundries were German and the US had no interest in protecting a foreign industry. With the advent of desktop publishing and computerized layout, typefaces became a software product, and since the leading companies in that field were US based, NOW it was important to protect software fonts with copyright laws.

So please, stop swallowing the "bad Chinese" red herring hook, line and sinker, and study up on IP law history...

post #87 of 130

*headdesk*

 

Seriously?  That's you're argument?

post #88 of 130
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

a) Jailbreaking makes the iPhone less secure!

FALSE!

 

Well, there goes your credibility.

 
Jailbreaking *exploits* preexisting security holes in the iPhone, forcing Apple to fix these holes

 

And this sentence somehow magically keeps the device as secure, despite one of its key accessibility features being direct, unprotected access to all files on the device?

 
Further, a jailbroken phone has all the same security mechanisms intact as a non-jailbroken phone, the only person with more power after jailbreaking is THE OWNER

 

And anyone who knows the stock root password or anyone who wants to access it remotely.

 

…where the owner (unlike on the Mac) doesn’t get administrator privileges.

 

Right: with jailbreaking they get ROOT privileges.

 
To assume that jailbreaking makes iOS less secure is like claim the Mac OS X is less secure because the owner can have admin rights
 

 

Root rights. Also, admin rights in OS X allows for the viewing of all local content anyway, so it by definition makes it less secure.

 
…you can consider OS X “jailbroken" from the factory. 

 

You could if you had no grasp of what jailbreaking was.

 
b) Jailbreaking is about piracy!

FALSE!

 

Well, that’s true. It’s growing less true, but it’s still true.

 
1) less support requests, because of limited user choices => to make more money

2) to allow carriers to charge different prices for exactly the same good (wireless bandwith usage),  

3) to prevent people from buying software anywhere but the AppStore… …to make more money

 

Well, that’s completely false. We’re delving to conspiracy theory territory here.

 

c) Jailbreaking is about freedom of choice!

 

So jailbreaking is the abortion argument. Great. :lol:

 
its intolerable for them to say you can't have anything on your device unless they approve it

 

Except something like 260 million people tolerate it.

 
…particularly since they not only check software for security…

 

Oh, no! What a dystopian nightmare!

 
…a content policy that turns all Apple customers into kids visiting DisneyWorld.

 

c.1) Jailbreaking is for porn. TRUE!

 
a monopoly store like the AppStore/iTunes Store

 

Follow this link for education: monopoly

 
…censorship…

 

“No, I don’t want to sell artichokes at my furniture store. There’s a farmer’s market down the road a ways. Entrance fee is just $50 plus the proper legal paperwork for origin of consumable goods. That’s far less headache than you’d have getting ready to sell it in my store.

 

… Yes, if you’re stupid enough to sue me over it, I’ll gladly go to court; it’ll be the easiest money I’ve ever made.

 
One might even argue that if the government aids and abets with the various laws that make Apple's construct legal, that this constitutes an indirect form of government censorship.

 

Are you psychotic? “Apple following the laws that the government created means that Apple is responsible for government-level censorship,” is your argument. I guess you’re outraged at every single company in the entire country, then. Every single company, even competitors in the same market, are “aiding and abetting their own monopoly status” according to you.

 

News flash, jethro. Google censors child porn in the US. Unlike your nonsense, that’s actual government censorship. I suppose you’re furious about that, huh.

 
EITHER Apple would have to accept any product offering as long as its not illegal or a security hazard 

OR Apple would have to allow alternative channels for content providers.

How ludicrous some of these things are:

 

Some of them? I’m looking at the most ludicrous right now.

 
- the built-in Photos app and iPhoto apps are perfectly capable of displaying porn

 

Hey, good luck FINDING porn using Photos and iPhoto. You don’t seem to comprehend the distinction, so feel free to get thrown in the slammer for it.

 
as if putting a new version of an already installed app would be a problem when the rating didnt change.

 

Yeah, see, there are legal requirements at work here.

 
Ugh, whatever happened to "Make love, not war!"??? Long time since Jobs' hippy days, I guess.

 

1. Prove Jobs was a hippie.

2. Prove Jobs held to that tenant.

3. Jobs has never, at any time, spoken anything except disdain for that industry and its place on his products.

 

Being a parent–you know, actually having some responsibility in life–tends to make you make the right decisions.

 
that proves that the two have a priory nothing to do with each other
 

 

Okay, first, I’m guessing you mean a priori. Second, jailbreaking isn’t protected by the DMCA. The law is worthless nonsense, after all.

 

Jailbreaking your tablet is illegal. Jailbreaking your phone is not (until 2015). Unlocking your phone is illegal.

 

The DMCA doesn’t protect your “rights” or help your argument at all. It doesn’t care about jailbreaking as a concept in the slightest.

 

study up

 

Oh boy.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #89 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by xPad View Post
 

No, jailbreaking is breaking the security, not "broken security". QUIT USING QUOTES as though I've said any of those words. You've literally "quoted" nothing I've written. Nor did I say it was "literally the only thing" or that "everything is broken, your device is under the control of anybody".

 

I said the two things above, with the third for elaboration.

 

If your intention is simply to argue with a made up list of arguments, please don't bother replying to me, as I've said none of it and have no responsibility for the imaginary arguments put forth by people in your head.

Your item #2 is nonsensical as stated because no reason is given. What motivates this preference, given that you do not jailbreak and are therefore incapable of being unaffected by jailbreaking?

post #90 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

Nothing threatens me.  I couldn't care less, to be honest.  What bothers, me, though, is someone claiming that the iPhone he bought is somehow so screwed up -- due to THINGS HE KNEW ABOUT GOING IN!  It's like me buying a Shakira (well, old Shakira, anyways) album called "Sale e Sol" and then complaining that it's in Spanish.

 

When I was sick of Windows -- sometime between '95 and '98 -- I moved to Linux.  I ran that for many years.  Eventually, I got my first Mac, a TiPb G4, and that was that (god, I miss that machine -- spilled a Coke on it in my sleep :( ).  If I wanted Windows, I ran that (god knows why).  When I wanted free software and a system with which I could do absolutely anything, I ran Linux.  When I wanted a Mac and a very free OS, I ran and am running OSX.

 

So, I run the OS which most fits my use-case scenario.  If digging into the root system and messing around with the file system most fits your use-case scenario, then why use iOS?  Why not use Android?  Clearly, that fits the scenario much better.  

I don't know of any open operating system that can also run iOS-specific apps. I can get a functional equivalent to that, though, by jailbreaking. Did you also, say, morally object to using WINE when you were on Linux?

 

(And yeah, that rant you're referring to doesn't exactly do any favors for the causes espoused therein. I grimaced when reading that.)

post #91 of 130

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Well, there goes your credibility.

 

And this sentence somehow magically keeps the device as secure, despite one of its key accessibility features being direct, unprotected access to all files on the device?

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the statement was meant to apply to all iPhones as a whole. Certainly any given individual device that is jailbroken has some of its controls relaxed. But that has zero impact on any other iPhone.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

And anyone who knows the stock root password or anyone who wants to access it remotely.

Three things:

1) Again, this only affects the jailbroken iPhone, not iPhones as a whole.

2) This applies only if one installs OpenSSH and manages to overlook the many, many warnings displayed on the front page of Cydia, in the description of the app itself, and in the popup that comes up after the app is installed that one must change the default passwords Right Now.

3) Said potential hole is why I've maintained that jailbreaking entails taking more responsibility for one's own security. If folks don't know how to handle that sort of thing, they shouldn't be jailbreaking.

post #92 of 130
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
1) Again, this only affects the jailbroken iPhone, not iPhones as a whole.

 

Yeah, we are specifically talking about jailbreaking, after all.

 
If folks don't know how to handle that sort of thing, they shouldn't be jailbreaking.

 

And yet its proponents laud it as the way the iPhone should exist and how Apple is evil for doing anything else.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #93 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And yet its proponents laud it as the way the iPhone should exist and how Apple is evil for doing anything else.

Wrong. What proponents want is the ability to make that choice without having to jump through hoops and existing security holes.

post #94 of 130
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
What proponents want is the ability to make that choice without having to jump through hoops and existing security holes.

 

Well… they’re never gonna get it. They need to give up.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #95 of 130

I do not believe I am wrong.  If I circumvent my agreement with Apple, and by extension, Apple's agreement with it's contractors, to get things I don't want to pay for, and/or things which are by contract unacceptable, I am a crook.  Do you agree?

If you pay for what you want, and you don't break a contract, then you may obtain it.  

If you found someone's wallet, would you not feel better about yourself if you returned it?  Honor is measured in the small things you do, when no one is looking.

post #96 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
 

I don't know of any open operating system that can also run iOS-specific apps. I can get a functional equivalent to that, though, by jailbreaking. Did you also, say, morally object to using WINE when you were on Linux?

 

(And yeah, that rant you're referring to doesn't exactly do any favors for the causes espoused therein. I grimaced when reading that.)

 

One: I used WINE just fine, and didn't have any "moral" problems doing so.

 

Two: I don't remember making a "moral" issue out of any of this.  Did I?

 

Three:  I believe in all OS.  I really do.  If someone is happy with Windows, then go with Windows.  If someone is happy with iOS, then go with iOS.   Etc.  Android, iOS, WP, Windows, OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, whatever.  I'm all for all of it.  And, honestly, I've used the vast majority of these OSes.

 

But believe me, I don't have a "moral" objection to any of them.  Sure, I might rip into Windows on a daily basis, but I don't "morally" object to it. :)

post #97 of 130
Quote:
vaporland
"It's better to be a pirate than join the navy" - Steven P. Jobs
Quote:
Tallest Skil
“I was definitely talking about the theft of intellectual property when I said that. Totally. Like, no two ways about it.” – Steven P. Jobs
Quote:
vaporland
Rip, Mix, Burn - Steven P. Jobs
Quote:
Tallest Skil
“I was definitely talking about stealing CDs and illegally distributing them. Like, totally. That’s what I wanted people to do when I said that.” – Steven P. Jobs

No, really keep it up. Is English not your first language? Do you not comprehend context?

Here's some context for you:
This is a photo of one of many blue boxes that Jobs and Wozniak manufactured and sold, back in the hippie days . . .



This device was used to make long distance phone calls for free. It's interesting, really. That was most certainly piracy. It was use of a service without paying, and was a serious felony at the time they were selling them. The income they received from the sale of these illegal devices helped to fund the manufacturing of the 1st 200 Apple I computers. Thanks to that criminal act, you're not using DOS 67.5.

Perhaps now you will cease your imperious and sanctimonious interpretations of Steve Jobs' mindset. (If you insist on channeling him, I'll send you an Ouija board - it would be more accurate than your efforts here)



Here's some more context:

Disney boss accuses Apple of fostering piracy with Rip Mix Burn ad campaign for iTunes
Quote:
The Hollywood Reporter noted that Walt Disney Co. president and CEO Michael Eisner has taken computer makers, including Apple, to task for fostering piracy.

Eisner's comments came as he testified before the United States Senate Commerce Committee about the potential threat that computer use has to music and movie distribution. Eisner accused the computer industry of considering piracy its new "killer app." He singled out Apple's "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad campaign of 2001 as an example of this type of behavior.

Apple's ad campaign suggested to potential buyers "that they can create a theft if they buy this computer," said Eisner, who otherwise ignored Apple's iPod ad campaign, which features prominent warnings against stealing music.

Eisner's comments come as congress considers legislation known as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act. The act would require computer makers and consumer electronics makers to install technology which would prevent such devices from being able to duplicate copyrighted media, including CDs, DVDs, digital music and movies and more.

Amusingly enough, Jobs later became one of Disney's biggest shareholders. He reengineered Disney's operations and turned it around. A lot of that turnaround happened once iTunes started offering Disney content.



Still more context: If I steal your bike, you cannot use it. I have deprived you of the use of your bike.

If I copy your music, I have not deprived you of the use of your music. I may have used it without authorization, which some people in the entertainment industry (e.g., Mr Eisner quoted above) tend to equate with stealing.

I'm not 'stealing' by copying music instead of paying for it, because guess what: I was never going to pay you in the 1st place. You didn't lose a sale - you never had one to begin with.

It's actually legal to tape music off of the radio, edit out the ads, make a mixtape and give it away. Also to rip, mix, burn and give the CD away. It's illegal to sell it, but not to copy and give it away.

P2P works exactly the same way but on a much grander scale. I used to download a lot of movies and TV. I don't anymore. Netflix for $7/month is a better legal deal.

A battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is too close to bullying, and my post here is bordering on tl;dr, so I am going to stop now.

Spare me your insulting comments about my first language and contextual comprehension. You fail to appreciate the context of where your 'tech' originated from, and where it will end up if myopic folks like yourself get your narrow minded way.
post #98 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
1) Again, this only affects the jailbroken iPhone, not iPhones as a whole.

Yeah, we are specifically talking about jailbreaking, after all.
Quote:
If folks don't know how to handle that sort of thing, they shouldn't be jailbreaking.

And yet its proponents laud it as the way the iPhone should exist and how Apple is evil for doing anything else.

Exactly, because that is the state a Mac is in. The stupid default passwords only exists because Apple assumes that users are locked out. If iOS devices were "factory jailbroken" like every Mac OS X computer ever shipped, that potential vulnerability doesn't exist because setting passwords is part of the setup routine.
You can't compare the state of an incompetly jail broken iOS device with a device that is set up under the assumption that the owner will have admin privileges.

And no, jail breaking doesn't make the device less secure: just like sandboxing works on a Mac where the owner has admin privileges sandboxing will continue to work after jail breaking an iOS device. Just because the user has the ability to run apps and commands as root doesn't mean things run by default in that mode. Regular apps will execute as user mobile with all restrictions after the jail break exactly like they did before the jail break.

Jail breaking is like giving the user a gun permit. That doesn't mean he's going to buy a gun, use a gun, kill anyone or shoot himself in the foot, even though he has the ability to do so if he so desires; but that's exactly what it means to take responsibility. Taking responsibility for one's own actions is not something to be outsourced to a private sector service provider like Apple. A non-jailbroken iOS device is like using zip ties to tie the users wrists behind his back because he could possibly use the hands to shoot himself in the foot: thanks for the concern, but that level of concern isn't welcome: if I want to shoot myself in the foot, I'll do so, thank you very much!

People really shouldn't talk about computer security if they don't get it. This discussion harkens back to the time when all the dumb Mac OS 7-9 users were bitching how OS X was going to be insecure because it offers network services like ssh, web services, file sharing, and GOD FORBID ACCESS TO THE SHELL IN A TERMINAL WINDOW. Few people are still hysterical about this, but a jailbroken iOS device takes an OS like OS X/Darwin and dumbs it down artificially to the level of MacOS 6 or so...
post #99 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
What proponents want is the ability to make that choice without having to jump through hoops and existing security holes.

Well… they’re never gonna get it. They need to give up.

Mandela should give up, too, he'll never end apartheid...
...oh, he's dead, and no more apartheid.

GIVING UP IS NEVER AN OPTION! FU
post #100 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprit de Corps View Post
 

I do not believe I am wrong.  If I circumvent my agreement with Apple, and by extension, Apple's agreement with it's contractors, to get things I don't want to pay for, and/or things which are by contract unacceptable, I am a crook.  Do you agree?

If you pay for what you want, and you don't break a contract, then you may obtain it.  

If you found someone's wallet, would you not feel better about yourself if you returned it?  Honor is measured in the small things you do, when no one is looking.

 

Violating a contract in its substantial terms is potentially illegal, however if the terms don't violate common decency.

How often do you read EULAs? Say Apple slips a line in there by means of which you agree to become a corporate slave. Would you really adhere to that just because you clicked the "Agree" button? Would you really believe the law would uphold such a clause?

There's a reason why there is a clear exemption from the DMCA provisions for jailbreaking, because in essence the exemption says that's an unenforceable part of the user agreement that you can safely ignore, because the exemption ranks higher than the click-through agreement.

Further, there's a difference between a contract that I make with an equal, and the type of adhesion contracts one can't avoid. When the balance of power shifts too much to one side, the only way to fight it is to resort to civil disobedience.

post #101 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

a) Jailbreaking makes the iPhone less secure!

FALSE!

 

Well, there goes your credibility.

 
Jailbreaking *exploits* preexisting security holes in the iPhone, forcing Apple to fix these holes

 

And this sentence somehow magically keeps the device as secure, despite one of its key accessibility features being direct, unprotected access to all files on the device?

 

No software gains more privilege through jailbreaking, the USER gains more privilege. Apps can't magically access all files due to a jailbreak. A user can choose to install a privileged app to do special things that require that privilege, but that's not what happens with apps by default.

So unless you consider the user a security risk...

...but I don't want to be protected from myself; I want to be protected from others, and a jailbreak doesn't alter anything in that last regard.

 
Further, a jailbroken phone has all the same security mechanisms intact as a non-jailbroken phone, the only person with more power after jailbreaking is THE OWNER…

 

And anyone who knows the stock root password or anyone who wants to access it remotely.

 

 

You would obviously be dumb .

Most others would not be that stupid enough to both install ssh and to not change the default password, because they would either not install ssh or change the password, and in either case the FUD scenario you create doesn't apply. Nevermind that when you install the ssh package it warns you to change your password, as does just about any jailbreak How-To. But I guess reading wasn't your strong suit ever, as is evident by how well you comprehend what others post here.

 
…where the owner (unlike on the Mac) doesn’t get administrator privileges.

 

Right: with jailbreaking they get ROOT privileges.

 

Exactly, as it should be, because the owner of a device is root/device-God/owner/admin whatever you want to call him. We're not chattel of big-daddy Apple who decides like for a 5 year old what is or isn't appropriate to do.

 

To assume that jailbreaking makes iOS less secure is like claim the Mac OS X is less secure because the owner can have admin rights
 

 

Root rights. Also, admin rights in OS X allows for the viewing of all local content anyway, so it by definition makes it less secure.

 

First, I guess you have never heard of encryption...

...and second, only morons need to be protected from themselves.

I don't consider myself a security risk to myself. It's my device with my content so if I can view all of it, that's not exactly what I call a security breach.

 

On the other hand, if someone introduces malware/spyware I do have a chance to notice that on a jailbroken device, because I can see what processes are running and I can inspect what they are doing; while in a non-jailbroken device I'm as secure as I want to make myself believe to be.

 

Note: just because you can't see a security breach doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

…you can consider OS X “jailbroken" from the factory. 

 

You could if you had no grasp of what jailbreaking was.

 

Jailbreaking is breaking the jail that prevents the user to be the owner of the device, nothing more, nothing less; an exercise not necessary on a Mac because users are given admin privileges by default.

But obviously you don't get what jailbreaking really does, otherwise you'd not be writing what you write.

 
b) Jailbreaking is about piracy!

FALSE!

 

Well, that’s true. It’s growing less true, but it’s still true.

 

You don't get even that. As far Jailbreaking is about piracy at all, it's becoming more so rather than less so, because as Apple adds many features to iOS that used to require tweaks only possible on jailbroken devices, like the control center, or infinite number of apps in a folder, the "need" for jailbreaking is reduced as far as it's done simply to get specific features.

As iOS evolves, the need for jailbreaking will strictly end up for three purposes:

a) security: because security requires control and inspection, not blind faith

b) low-level device functionality, to write/install drivers and networking code

c) piracy, because user-level features are already all copied by Apple, just like they copied the command center or the 3D effect for the home screen

But that's just a relative development, the vast majority of jailbreakers don't engage in piracy, but they do like e.g. access to the shell, like to use their phone with a real file system, use it as a thumb drive, etc.
 
1) less support requests, because of limited user choices => to make more money

2) to allow carriers to charge different prices for exactly the same good (wireless bandwith usage),  

3) to prevent people from buying software anywhere but the AppStore… …to make more money

 

Well, that’s completely false. We’re delving to conspiracy theory territory here.

 

Haha. Like Apple screws its users just for the fun of it? Why did Apple not allow FaceTime over 3G? Because AT&T objected; Apple could have said that's AT&T's problem, we give users what they want. But instead they were in bed with AT&T because there's money in that.

Why doesn't Apple implement transparent tethering, just like MyWi does? Because they are in bed with the carriers who want to charge you more for the same bits just because they are directed to your laptop and not to your phone. And why does Apple support that? To piss off its own user base? Or to make some extra cash by getting more favorable terms in the contracts it makes with the carriers?

Conspiracy theory my ass, it's called business economics 101.

 

c) Jailbreaking is about freedom of choice!

 

So jailbreaking is the abortion argument. Great. :lol:

 

If you want to put it that way, yes. There are some people I could think of who'd be better off having been aborted.

But that aside: many things are about freedom of choice, including your ability to get away with making completely inappropriate and out of context remarks.

 
…it’s intolerable for them to say you can't have anything on your device unless they approve it

 

Except something like 260 million people tolerate it.

 

There are also millions of people who tolerate the North Korean dictatorship: not because that regime is tolerable or because they enjoy, but because they have no choice and no alternative (no, Android isn't an alternative, because it's equally locked down).

 
…particularly since they not only check software for security…

 

Oh, no! What a dystopian nightmare!

 

Indeed

 
…a content policy that turns all Apple customers into kids visiting DisneyWorld.

 

c.1) Jailbreaking is for porn. TRUE!

 

Stop using fake quotes. The only person with his mind in the gutter is you. Apple "restricts" simple medical books, and unless you're a pervert, I don't see what's pornographic about an anatomy book or for that matter about a variety of paintings.

Besides, some of the prudes in this country drape curtains over the statue of Justice too, because she happens to have breasts. Some people tent for forget that breasts are made for children, not for grown men, so it's beyond my comprehension how tits can "spoil" children, when it's kids who are supposed to suck on them in the first place.

 

…a monopoly store like the AppStore/iTunes Store…

 

Follow this link for education: monopoly

 

It's amusing how you post a link to a definition that you either haven't read or understood:

 

Quote:

mo·nop·o·ly

 
 
 
 [muh-nop-uh-lee]  Show IPA
noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or [...]
2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service,granted by a government.
3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.
4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5.
a company or group that has such control.
 
1: yes, the particular market being iOS applications, monopoly exercised through the AppStore requirement
3: yes, the AppStore terms and submission/acceptance process creates exclusive control for Apple over the AppStore, and thus over the market for iOS apps
2: the legal structure that allows for the AppStore and its contracts to be possible is provided and enforced by the government
4: iOS apps
5: Apple
 
…censorship…

 

“No, I don’t want to sell artichokes at my furniture store. There’s a farmer’s market down the road a ways. Entrance fee is just $50 plus the proper legal paperwork for origin of consumable goods. That’s far less headache than you’d have getting ready to sell it in my store.

 

… Yes, if you’re stupid enough to sue me over it, I’ll gladly go to court; it’ll be the easiest money I’ve ever made.”

 

The whole point is that there IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE APPSTORE. If there were, then there would be no censorship, just a variety of market places that cater to different kinds of customers. So to stick with your silly metaphor: the farmer's market closed off to the public by the owners of the furniture store, because they want people to spend money on furniture instead of vegetables.

 
One might even argue that if the government aids and abets with the various laws that make Apple's construct legal, that this constitutes an indirect form of government censorship.

 

Are you psychotic? “Apple following the laws that the government created means that Apple is responsible for government-level censorship,” is your argument.

 

There is no law that requires Apple to restrict users from alternative market places for iOS apps and content, so Apple isn't following law, it is creating law through the contracts it designs and writes, and the government set up a legal framework that gives companies too much power such that they are able to write such immoral contracts.

It shouldn't be Apple's or the government's business to second-guess what I read and why I do it.

 

Quote:
 I guess you’re outraged at every single company in the entire country, then. Every single company, even competitors in the same market, are “aiding and abetting their own monopoly status” according to you.

 

Some do, some don't. But you wouldn't understand the difference.

 

News flash, jethro. Google censors child porn in the US. Unlike your nonsense, that’s actual government censorship. I suppose you’re furious about that, huh.

 

Gee, I guess if you run out of reason, you have to bring up tabu topics? How much will it take until you grasp for the Nazi theme?

 
EITHER Apple would have to accept any product offering as long as it’s not illegal or a security hazard 

OR Apple would have to allow alternative channels for content providers.

How ludicrous some of these things are:

 

Some of them? I’m looking at the most ludicrous right now.

 
- the built-in Photos app and iPhoto apps are perfectly capable of displaying porn

 

Hey, good luck FINDING porn using Photos and iPhoto. You don’t seem to comprehend the distinction, so feel free to get thrown in the slammer for it.

 

Built-in Safari works just fine for that if anyone is inclined to do so....

 
…as if putting a new version of an already installed app would be a problem when the rating didn’t change.

 

Yeah, see, there are legal requirements at work here.

 

Says who? There is no legal requirement for rating apps. That's merely an industry self regulation. However, were I to install some app like e.g. that horrible porn app "Opera" or "Chrome", then I think I don't need to be warned with every single bug-fix release that I'm about to be exposed to the morally decrepit nature of the internet, because the nature of these apps hasn't changed one bit just because some bugs were fixed, or their appearance has been adjusted to match with the iOS7 style conventions.
 
Ugh, whatever happened to "Make love, not war!"??? Long time since Jobs' hippy days, I guess.

 

1. Prove Jobs was a hippie.

2. Prove Jobs held to that tenant.

 

Shows how little you know. A guy who walks around barefoot and lives in an apple-farm hippie commune wasn't a hippie, yeah right. Maybe John Lennon wasn't a musician, either?

 

3. Jobs has never, at any time, spoken anything except disdain for that industry and its place on his products.

 

Being a parent–you know, actually having some responsibility in life–tends to make you make the right decisions.

 

Not sure what industry you're talking about. Love making isn't an industry, last I checked, but an act of human affection.

Conducting war and killing, however, is an act of hate and aggression. Yet Apple bans books because there might be a hint of a nipple somewhere, but allows games in which enemies' guts and blood splatter all over the screen. Wonderful set of "family values" there...

 

…that proves that the two have a priory nothing to do with each other…

 

Okay, first, I’m guessing you mean a priori. 

At least you get something right for a change and notice a typo. Congratulations!

 

Second, jailbreaking isn’t protected by the DMCA. The law is worthless nonsense, after all.

 

Jailbreaking is protected by exemptions to the DMCA for which there are provisions in the DMCA, which means jailbreaking is protected by the DMCA, because these provisions that allow for exemptions are part and parcel of that very law.

 

Jailbreaking your tablet is illegal. Jailbreaking your phone is not (until 2015). Unlocking your phone is illegal.

 

Unlocking and jailbreaking are two totally different things. A locked phone is a way to enforce you pay off your phone through the hidden financing the carriers provide by giving away "free" or "cheap" phones. When the era of subsidized phones ends and carriers simply finance the purchase of a phone, the need for locked phones goes away, because the financing is a separate contract not tied to some mobile phone service contract.

 

The DMCA doesn’t protect your “rights” or help your argument at all. It doesn’t care about jailbreaking as a concept in the slightest.

 

…study up…

 

Because the DMCA doesn't care about jailbreaking that's why it has provisions for exemptions which happen to be in place. Very logical reasoning. Not!

post #102 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Only it's not, since you've always been able to sideload pirated apps with software like iHelper without jailbreaking. The primary purpose of jailbreaking has, is, and will continue to be for the ability to install software that isn't available through the App Store. Apps like iBlacklist, that allow you to block unlisted/blocked calls, Winterboard for installing custom themes and icons, SBSettings for tweaking the looks and behavior of iOS such as hiding Apple default apps (stocks, Newstand.. looking right at you) that can't be deleted, and MyMod, which unlocks the cellular settings panel so people like me who get service from MVNO's such as Straight Talk can manually adjust certain settings so data and MMS work the way they should, and the way we pay for them to.

People who want to pirate are going to pirate. Jailbreaking has never been an obstacle to this, or even part of the equation. If you're going to comment on an issue, AI, you should probably make sure you're knowledgeable on it first.
I don't see the need for jailbreaking based on those you mentioned. I jailbroke mine before because of iBlacklist, but it's no longer needed in iOS 7. Winterboard or SBSettings are nice to have but is not must-have things. The risk of having the phone compromised outweighs the benefit of jailbreaking.

Congratulation to Samsung Galaxy S5 for winning CNET's Best Android Phone of the Year 2014

 

"From the owner of iPhone 6+, Best Smart Phone of the Year 2014"

Reply

Congratulation to Samsung Galaxy S5 for winning CNET's Best Android Phone of the Year 2014

 

"From the owner of iPhone 6+, Best Smart Phone of the Year 2014"

Reply
post #103 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
 

Your item #2 is nonsensical as stated because no reason is given. What motivates this preference, given that you do not jailbreak and are therefore incapable of being unaffected by jailbreaking?

 

I did, but that doesn't even matter, as you pointed out, it's a preference. I don't care if you agree with me, I'm just expressing my opinion on that. I did expand on my reasoning, and you are free to read it and come to your own conclusions (as I'll take as a given that you have).

 

But I'm glad you agree with #1, which is a statement of fact, not of opinion. That being that piracy is a reason that many people jailbreak for. I'm satisfied to leave it at that.

post #104 of 130

Just wanted to quickly chime in here to remind people that 'copying' is not 'stealing'.

 

Good resources here:

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig9/green-p1.html

http://www.stephankinsella.com

post #105 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by xPad View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
 

Your item #2 is nonsensical as stated because no reason is given. What motivates this preference, given that you do not jailbreak and are therefore incapable of being unaffected by jailbreaking?

 

I did, but that doesn't even matter, as you pointed out, it's a preference. I don't care if you agree with me, I'm just expressing my opinion on that. I did expand on my reasoning, and you are free to read it and come to your own conclusions (as I'll take as a given that you have).

 

But I'm glad you agree with #1, which is a statement of fact, not of opinion. That being that piracy is a reason that many people jailbreak for. I'm satisfied to leave it at that.

 

Piracy is *a* reason, out of many. But that's not the question, the question is, is it the main reason (NO), and further, what effect does whatever piracy there is have on the health of the market (MINOR), and is preventing jailbreaking an effective way of stopping piracy (NO). 

 

Let me rephrase your points to air travel:

 

#1: blowing up air planes is a reason for people to book a flight

#2: I thus prefer that nobody travels by airplane

 

So yes, there are terrorists who book a flight so they can potentially blow up a plane, to claim that's the main reason for air travel, or that because of that air travel should be suspended and discontinued would be just idiotic.

 

If the ability to reason displayed around here is indicative of the level of education people get in this country, then the US may want to start saving the money it wastes on the military and hand over the keys to the country to the Chinese, because it's more frightening to think we'd have to live in a country run by morons than having to live in a country run by smart people with whom I disagree, because at least with the latter one stands a chance to reason. Anyone who listens to old radio and TV productions has to wonder how and why the standards today are as low as they are...

post #106 of 130
Originally Posted by vaporland View Post
Smallest Skilset

 

Talk about infantile! That’s great. :lol:

 
Perhaps now you will cease your imperious and sanctimonious interpretations of Steve Jobs' mindset. (If you insist on channeling him, I'll send you an Ouija board - it would be more accurate than your efforts here)

 

No, you’ll learn how stupid you’re being eventually.

 
who otherwise ignored Apples iPod ad campaign, which features prominent warnings against stealing music.

 

Hey, found your problem. Argument’s moot. Oh, and you may have noticed that there haven’t been security features blocking CD ripping put in place. So not only is your argument moot, so was Eisner’s.

 
I’m not ‘stealing’ by copying music...

 

lol. 

 

That’s really all there is to say here. You actually think this. It’s pathetic, and frankly quite embarrassing.

 
A battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is too close to bullying

 

So’s not using wit at all but rather outright calling people names. :lol:

 
…and my post here is bordering on tl;dr

 

I wouldn’t say so, but it’s certainly “Too wrong; shouldn’t read.”

 
Spare me your insulting comments about my first language and contextual comprehension.

 

Well, I would if you could exhibit any proof that you actually understand the things that are being said to you. You haven’t, is all, so that question was honest.

 
You fail to appreciate the context of where your ‘tech’ originated from…

 

You fail to appreciate how small the correlation is.

 
…and where it will end up if myopic folks like yourself get your narrow minded way. 

 

You don’t have the first clue what you’re on about. Piracy is not crucial to the advancement of technology.

 

Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
Exactly, because that is the state a Mac is in.

 

No. It isn’t. Root isn’t even activated by default.

 
And no, jail breaking doesn't make the device less secure

 

It does, though.

 
A non-jailbroken iOS device is like using zip ties to tie the users wrists behind his back

 

You guys are just crazy.

 
if I want to shoot myself in the foot, I'll do so, thank you very much!

 

The jailbreak community, ladies and gentlemen: suicidal. :lol:

 

Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

GIVING UP IS NEVER AN OPTION! FU

 

When you grow out of the false equivalencies, let us know.

 

Originally Posted by rcfa View Post

No software gains more privilege through jailbreaking

 

Of course it does. That sentence is the entire point of jailbreaking and you’re claiming it doesn’t happen?!

 

Apps can't magically access all files due to a jailbreak.

 

Well, YOU can, so yes, THEY can. Apps can be written to get to those places if you’re jailbroken. Apps have more access than you by default, unjailbroken. Are you seriously pretending they wouldn’t have the same access as you when jailbroken?

 
A user can choose to install a privileged app to do special things that require that privilege, but that's not what happens with apps by default.

 

Ah, see, so you admit it does happen. Why were you pretending it doesn’t before?

 
You would obviously be dumb enough to both install ssh and to not change the default password.
 

 

So every jailbroken user is intelligent enough to do this. This is your claim, is it? Do you want to take a few seconds and revisit that before I tear this nonsense apart? It helps not to insult people unless you know you’re right.

 
the owner of a device is root/device-God/owner/admin whatever you want to call him. 
 

 

Again, you’re fundamentally wrong.

 
We're not chattel of big-daddy Apple who decides like for a 5 year old what is or isn't appropriate to do.

 

Then shut up and buy software from someone else. I’m sure Microsoft gives you access to everything. Nothing Apple sells gives you root access by default. You don’t even seem to know this, as you’re claiming otherwise. So why would anyone think that the rest of what you’re saying is correct?

 
 First, I guess you have never heard of encryption...

 

I have, but as it doesn’t have much to do with what we’re discussing, I ignored it.

 
...and second, only morons like yourself need to be protected from themselves.

 

♩♫ Peeeeeeople like us… who have a clue what we’re talkin’ ‘bout… ♩♫

 
It's my device with my content so if I can view all of it, that's not exactly what I call a security breach.

 

No one claimed otherwise. The applications ON said device, however…

 
On the other hand, if someone introduces malware/spyware I do have a chance to notice that on a jailbroken device, because I can see what processes are running and I can inspect what they are doing; 

 

And read and copy any file on the device, which is the point of the argument around which you seem to be tiptoeing.

 
…while in a non-jailbroken device I’m as secure as I want to make myself believe to be.

 

You keep digging that hole of ignorance deeper.

 
Note: just because you can't see a security breach doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

You’re making my argument for me at this point.

 
an exercise not necessary on a Mac

 

You keep saying this. You keep being wrong. Educate yourself.

 
because users are given admin privileges by default.

 

Admin ≠ root.

 
But obviously you don't get what jailbreaking really does

 

Oh, irony.

 
You don't get even that. As far Jailbreaking is about piracy at all, it's becoming more so rather than less so,

 

Okay, fine. You want jailbreaking to be more about piracy, then it’s more about piracy. That’s a point in my favor. Enjoy the extra negative stigma.

 
because as Apple adds many features to iOS that used to require tweaks only possible on jailbroken devices, like the control center, or infinite number of apps in a folder, the "need" for jailbreaking is reduced as far as it's done simply to get specific features.

 

Ah, so when it was said “eventually jailbreaking will be nothing but piracy” above and people were all “no, that’s a lie, you’re an idiot, etc.” they were wrong, I guess.

 

I tried to throw you guys a bone, but you won’t even pick it up.

 
a) security: because security requires control and inspection, not blind faith

 

Jailbreaking for security. That’s rich, man.

 
b) low-level device functionality, to write/install drivers and networking code

 

Which no one would ever want to do.

 
the vast majority of jailbreakers dont engage in piracy

 

Again, do at least a few seconds of research before saying something.

 
Why did Apple not allow FaceTime over 3G?

 

Their contract disallowed it. If you have any proof of your assertions, you’d post it. But no, “Because money” is all you can say. Thanks for the additional insults, though. They really mean a lot coming from someone who doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

 
But you obviously seem to take pleasure in being a sheep, as long as it's prescribed by the holy Apple religion....

 

Again, my list isn’t of things TO do.

 
Stop using fake quotes.

 

Okay. Wait, I never did: 

 

 

Oops!

 
1: yes, the particular market being iOS applications, monopoly exercised through the AppStore requirement

 

Jailbreaking exists. Your statement is false.

 

2: the legal structure that allows for the AppStore and its contracts to be possible is provided and enforced by the government

 

There you go again with “Apple is obeying the law; therefore Apple is a monopoly”. Where did the government specifically grant or deny Apple anything?

 
3: yes, the AppStore terms and submission/acceptance process creates exclusive control for Apple over the AppStore, and thus over the market for iOS apps 

 

Except the App Store is not the only market for iOS apps. Your statement is false.

 
 4: iOS apps

 

Jailbreaking exists. Your statement is false.

 
 5: Apple

 

Except that by virtue of your other statements being false, this statement is false.

 

You tried, at least, so I’m happy about that. You actually read it and presented your argument. It just happened to be wrong. Thanks for wanting to better yourself. You’re better than many in that regard.

 
 The whole point is that there IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE APPSTORE.

 

So jailbreaking doesn’t exist? So other platforms don’t exist? Apple is the only company that makes phones?

 
If there were, then there would be no censorship

 

Nice false equivalency. It’s subtle; I like it. Not, you know, enough to actually like it, but…

 
So to stick with your silly metaphor: the farmer's market closed off to the public by the owners of the furniture store, because they want people to spend money on furniture instead of vegetables. 

 

You need to actually read things before pretending to understand them.

 
There is no law that requires Apple to restrict users from alternative market places for iOS apps and content, so Apple isn’t following law, it is creating law…

 

No, a company cannot create law. Try again.

 
and the government set up a legal framework that gives companies too much power

 

Subjective. Try again.

 
such that they are able to write such immoral contracts.

 

There is nothing immoral about the iOS EULA. I’d tell you to try again, but just shut up at this point.

 
It shouldn't be Apple's or the government's business to second-guess what I read and why I do it.

 

So… don’t read it. Buy something else.

 
Some do, some don't. But you wouldn't understand the difference.

 

Because there isn’t any in your mind. You see everything, even non-monopolistic behavior, as monopolistic and protected by the government as such. 

 
Gee, I guess if you run out of reason, you have to bring up tabu topics? How much will it take until you grasp for the Nazi theme?

 

I’d say that I was sorry that you can’t understand why my quote is directly related to the content to which it is replying, but I’m not, because it–in all honesty–only takes an elementary school education to find the correlation. If you’d like, I can lay out each point individually to walk you through why you’re completely wrong, but I get the feeling that you wouldn’t care about my explanation and would be too frightened to be proven wrong.

 
Built-in Safari works just fine for that if anyone is inclined to do so....

 

Yes, and? 

 
Says who? There is no legal requirement for rating apps.

 

Never said there were. Said there was a requirement for showing the popup. Context clues.

 
...then I think I don’t need to be warned with every single bug-fix release…

 

What you think and what actually is are different things. That’s growing ever more evident.

 
Not sure what industry you're talking about.

 

Well, again, if you were able to parse context clues and knew what the purpose of a quoted block of text was, you wouldn’t be confused.

 
Love making isn't an industry

 

This just in: pornography is love making and is not an industry. Also, avocados are orange on the inside and are a vegetable.

 
Jailbreaking is protected by exemptions to the DMCA for which there are provisions in the DMCA, which means jailbreaking is protected by the DMCA, because these provisions that allow for exemptions are part and parcel of that very law.

 

Except I have already explicitly shown you that jailbreaking is not protected by the DMCA. It is, in some cases, illegal, and made illegal BY the DMCA itself. Jailbreaking as a concept is not protected by anything. It is a partial consequence of the literature, not the literature itself. 

 

The above quote, then, is an example of idiocy. Not an insult, the factual representation of the content being presented. You had an idea, the idea was wrong, the idea was corrected with fact, you continue to have the wrong idea despite having been show the fact. That is idiocy, and you are an idiot. It is not ignorance–the absence of knowledge. You have been given the knowledge and choose to ignore it. You are an idiot.

 
Unlocking and jailbreaking are two totally different things.
 

 

One is illegal, the other is partially illegal. No one questioned this.

 

Because the DMCA doesnt care about jailbreaking

 

So how does it explicitly illegalize it if it “doesn’t care”? Because, again, jailbreaking tablets is explicitly illegalized by the DMCA.

 
Continue on that track, and you'll develop all the intellectual capabilities required to become a tea party member.

 

Ten out of ten. No, wait, fifteen out of ten. I applaud you, sir. A post that long and that wrong and I thought to myself, “Self, how can he possibly end this? It’s a crescendo built so high that I can’t see an ending that doesn’t putter itself out,” but MAN was I wrong! Tossing in political nonsense at the end of a long string of ludicrous nonsense, and doing it well! You kept the tone of just being plain wrong from start to finish, and that’s a challenge.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #107 of 130
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
[post]

 

Dude, it was bad enough to have to read and reply to the thing; quoting the whole thing again is just horrible. Edit it with a “[post]” or something. :lol: 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #108 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
 

 

Piracy is *a* reason, out of many. But that's not the question, the question is, is it the main reason (NO), and further, what effect does whatever piracy there is have on the health of the market (MINOR), and is preventing jailbreaking an effective way of stopping piracy (NO). 

 

Straw men. I never said it was only reason or even the main reason. Nor did I say that stopping jailbreaking would end piracy.

 

All I said (with regards to piracy) is that it's dishonest to claim that jailbreaking isn't commonly used for piracy.

 

Quote: 

Let me rephrase your points to air travel:

 

#1: blowing up air planes is a reason for people to book a flight

#2: I thus prefer that nobody travels by airplane

 

Nope, there is no "thus". I've made it abundantly clear that my second point isn't predicated on my first point.

 

Quote:

If the ability to reason displayed around here is indicative of the level of education people get in this country, then the US may want to start saving the money it wastes on the military and hand over the keys to the country to the Chinese, because it's more frightening to think we'd have to live in a country run by morons than having to live in a country run by smart people with whom I disagree, because at least with the latter one stands a chance to reason. Anyone who listens to old radio and TV productions has to wonder how and why the standards today are as low as they are...

 

You might want to be careful with such arguments, as you seem to be incapable of understanding a very simple and repeatedly clarified argument.

 

As I asked the other guy, if you're going to attack straw men, please leave me out of it.

post #109 of 130
Wait a second, do any of you genius's have proof that they have taken a penny? No?

Does Appleinsider give any insider information since Apple's lawyers took a run at them? No...

Did Apple have a vested interest in allowing jailbreaking, and do they now have a vested interest after adoptation of dis-allowing it?

Is this simply a bought and paid for 'news site' that's manipulating the community to think jailbreaking is now 'evil'? Perhaps, I'm surprised by the lack of quality in this article.
post #110 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
 

 

Piracy is *a* reason, out of many. But that's not the question, the question is, is it the main reason (NO), and further, what effect does whatever piracy there is have on the health of the market (MINOR), and is preventing jailbreaking an effective way of stopping piracy (NO). 

 

 

When it's being paid for by a provider of pirated Apps with real cash money, your noble bullshit gets weaker and weaker.

 

So why are the pirates paying for this?

 

How do they make their investment back?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #111 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rcfa View Post
Exactly, because that is the state a Mac is in.

No. It isn’t. Root isn’t even activated by default.

 

In OS X the user belongs by default to the sudoers file and therefore has the ability to escalate to root privileges. Running commands using sudo is for all intents and purposes equivalent to running those commands as root. On the other hand, jailbreaking does not make the user automatically run everything as root. See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15968845/once-jailbroken-will-ios-apps-run-with-root-privilege

post #112 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

When it's being paid for by a provider of pirated Apps with real cash money, your noble bullshit gets weaker and weaker.

So why are the pirates paying for this?

How do they make their investment back?

Did anyone ever confirm they were paid by China's Taig for creating the jailbreak?
http://www.iclarified.com/37080/evad3rs-deny-taking-payment-for-ios-7-jailbreak-denounce-cracked-version-of-evasi0n
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #113 of 130
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
Running commands using sudo is for all intents and purposes equivalent to running those commands as root. On the other hand, jailbreaking does not make the user automatically run everything as root.

 

Neither does OS X. I don’t see how it’s “on the other hand”. 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #114 of 130

As usual the anti-jailbreaker know nothing about their own devices.  If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows.

 

Using a jailbreak to gain root access is the same as you on your Mac with admin rights.  

 

You have the ability to install unlicensed software on your Mac right?  Do you have to do it?  It's a choice thing.  

post #115 of 130
Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post
If Apple were to lock down Macs with the same protection scheme we'd have people breaking ranking quickly and threaten to move to Windows.

 

I guess you’ve never heard of Gatekeeper. See anyone whining about that anymore?

 
Using a jailbreak to gain root access is the same as you on your Mac with admin rights.  

 

Again, admin ≠ root. You guys don’t seem to get that.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #116 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I guess you’ve never heard of Gatekeeper. See anyone whining about that anymore?

 

Gatekeeper is not comparable to the restrictions on iOS. It's functionally equivalent to the security setting on android which controls whether apps from outside google play are allowed.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 12/28/13 at 2:19pm
post #117 of 130
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
Gatekeeper is not comparable to the restrictions on iOS.

 

I’m having a pretty hard time believing you.

 

Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.

 

Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself. 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #118 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I’m having a pretty hard time believing you.

 

Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.

 

Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself. 

 

Why do you crop to just the first option? Here is the full control panel.

 

Gatekeeper in OS X is no more or less restrictive than the "allow unknown sources" checkbox in Android. How is this feature at all comparable to the iOS restrictions, which essentially allow only the option corresponding to the first radio button? One of the main reasons for jailbreaking is to basically enable the third radio button. If iOS were to replace its current restrictions with Gatekeeper, most of the motivation for jailbreaking would dry up.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 12/28/13 at 3:09pm
post #119 of 130
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

Why do you crop to just the first option?

 

Because that option is the point of the service. Because that option is relevant to the argument. 

 
Gatekeeper in OS X is no more or less restrictive than the "allow unknown sources" checkbox in Android.

 

But is more restrictive than OS X previously.

 
How is this feature at all comparable to the iOS restrictions, which essentially allow only the option corresponding to the first radio button?

 

“How is something that is exactly like something else comparable to something else?” 

That’s your question.

 

If iOS were to replace its current restrictions with Gatekeeper, most of the motivation for jailbreaking would dry up.

 

As would most of the software quality, security, and experience.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #120 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I’m having a pretty hard time believing you.

 

Its existence is to present a restriction that was never available before. If we were to make a chart and draw a line, it would be pointing toward lockdown and away from freedom. The trick is to make people want it.

 

Guess what: iOS users want it. Overwhelmingly. The jailbreaking community is the Hackintosh community. They’re tiny, they’re not taken seriously, they’re explicitly associated with piracy, and they don’t garner much respect or sympathy from regular users or Apple itself. 

 

It's there because businesses want it.  Macs are used at schools and businesses and in order for IT people to protect its assets from lawsuits they use that button to enforce software compliance.

 

That lock is not the equivalent of Apple's lockdown on iOS device.  Apple blocks the owner's ability to downgrade iOS and manage settings under the hood.  Mac OS you can change preferences beyond the scope of the System Preferences as long as you're admin.

 

Jailbreaking isn't only about piracy, you can side-load apps without a jailbreak.  

 

One of the reasons I don't have an iPhone because I want to own my device and chose which iOS I want and control the behavior of my device the way I see fit.  Since I can't do it freely and I'm tired of jailbreaking.  Android is a better fit for me.  I don't have any pirated apps on my Android device.  I don't need to pirate apps when there are plenty of free apps available that suit my needs.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Evasi0n iOS 7 jailbreak funding supplied by Chinese app piracy site