a friend of mine recently jailbroke his iphone but said it caused problems with his apps. Heres what he told me:
"videorecorder and the nes mod won't even open. a gps app keeps not finding me. the cycorder video app works fine but it's really choppy ugly video so it's just not been worth it so far. customizing the phone is nice, but really only when things work. i still think i'm gonna restore it"
Anybody with some experience in jailbreaking got any advice for him?
You need a fake certificate only to activate an iPhone in a carrier in which it can't be activated.
If you jailbreak a legally activated iPhone you actually are using your original certificate created when you activated it through iTunes
In addition, jailbreaking with Quickpwn does not totally restore the iPhone, it simply modifies the software on it through a known exploit. Using QuickPwn, you don't even need to re-activate it through iTunes assuming that you are on a carrier which Apple allows (such as AT&T).
Actually, you should. Any messages you send to someone who has used this "pushfix" hack will possibly be sent to random people - whether you are JB or not. In fact, the person mentioned in the article was sending a message from his mac in iChat to a hackitvated phone, not from it.
That being said, "pushfix" was only ever an alpha release. Once I heard of all the issues (well before this story) I steered clear (I'm on a hacktivated 2G iPhone). I'm sure the dev-team will find a better solution in the future.
Since this is essentially spoofing, wouldn't this also mean if you sent a message to someone whose cert was spoofed, that message would also go to everyone else using that spoofed certificate?
The EFF want to take away Apple's ability to take legal action for tampering with the iPhone software. Apple may not have any immediate plans to take any legal action, Apple does want the option to do so.
The reason these types of stories hurt the case is because Apple can argue such actions could potentially negatively impact the reliability and reputation of their product. If jailbreaking and hacking became common, people who have no idea what they are doing, or bugs in the hacking software hurt the experience of using the iPhone. That could hurt the perception of the iPhone in the larger market. Apple wants the freedom to fight against such scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quine
Why should this hurt the EFF case? Jailbreaking should be totally ok. If you want to void the warranty and support for your device and use it how you please, you should be able to.
Apple has made the consequences clear, ignore the idiots who jailbreak and expect support. It should be legal.
a friend of mine recently jailbroke his iphone but said it caused problems with his apps. Heres what he told me:
"videorecorder and the nes mod won't even open. a gps app keeps not finding me. the cycorder video app works fine but it's really choppy ugly video so it's just not been worth it so far. customizing the phone is nice, but really only when things work. i still think i'm gonna restore it"
Anybody with some experience in jailbreaking got any advice for him?
He probably had an issue in the middle of jailbreaking it that caused it to go wacky, or he made the mistake of restoring the phone from a previous backup, instead of setting it up as a new phone (one of the downsides to jailbreaking is this backup glitch).
If he's using a 3G or 2G iPhone and has no plans to unlock the phone to use on another carrier, then he can simply his "restore" within iTunes and try again with Quickpwn or Redsn0w. Or, he can use PwnageTool to create a custom firmware that is already jailbroken and restore to that instead (press and hold option+restore on the Mac, shift+restore on Windows).
If he's using a 3GS, however, he should look up how to capture his iBEC and iBSS files *first and foremost.* This will allow him to jailbreak in the future when Apple closes the iBoot hole. Then, simply restore to 3.0 and use redsn0w again. It should work.
Nice thing about Apple's products is their nearly impossible to brick. Worst case scenario, you can always go back to stock firmware from Apple.
"The reality is that this issue is being reported almost everywhere else as being a security problem Apple is responsible for."
By carrier-locking the iPhone, they pretty much are responsible.
Apple is not at fault. That is why they are taking aggressive measures against jailbreaking and unlocking the iPhone this time around - essentially to prevent these situations from occurring on their devices (a PR-related move if anything).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The EFF want to take away Apple's ability to take legal action for tampering with the iPhone software. Apple may not have any immediate plans to take any legal action, Apple does want the option to do so.
The reason these types of stories hurt the case is because Apple can argue such actions could potentially negatively impact the reliability and reputation of their product. If jailbreaking and hacking became common, people who have no idea what they are doing, or bugs in the hacking software hurt the experience of using the iPhone. That could hurt the perception of the iPhone in the larger market. Apple wants the freedom to fight against such scenarios.
While I feel that Apple has every right to minimize situations like this, I still side with the EFF saying that if a person wants to run unauthorized software on their device, they should be able to. Yes, they should also deal with the consequences and not get upset when Apple's system no longer works as intended, no argument there.
This goes against the free market and the freedom for any company to market and sell their products in the way they feel will benefit them most. Within the limits of fair and open competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo
While I feel that Apple has every right to minimize situations like this, I still side with the EFF saying that if a person wants to run unauthorized software on their device, they should be able to. Yes, they should also deal with the consequences and not get upset when Apple's system no longer works as intended, no argument there.
This goes against the free market and the freedom for any company to market and sell their products in the way they feel will benefit them most. Within the limits of fair and open competition.
Who's preventing Apple from selling their products in the way they feel will benefit them the most? There are 35+ million iPhone and iPod Touch devices out there, and I'm willing to bet there are more unmodified phones on the market than modified ones -- FAR more.
I think you misinterpret the EFF's stance on this issue. They want to protect consumers and developers who wish to tinker and modify the devices that they own from legal action against Apple. They're not trying to force Apple to allow them to do it. Its a cat-and-mouse game, the same game that they've been playing for years now.
Its my choice whether or not I want to jailbreak my phone, and its Apple's choice to make it increasingly difficult, if not flat-out-impossible, in the near future.
Dismissing Apple's ability to take legal action against people who modify iPhone software is apart of taking away a lot of the power to protect their business model. Which is the whole point of the EFF pursuing these actions. No company would agree to such a thing.
Right now it is a stale mate. People are free to jailbreak, unlock, hack their iPhones if they so choose. Apple is free to not support jailbroken, unlocked, or hacked iPhones if they so choose. The EFF should leave it alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo
I think you misinterpret the EFF's stance on this issue. They want to protect consumers and developers who wish to tinker and modify the devices that they own from legal action against Apple. They're not trying to force Apple to allow them to do it. Its a cat-and-mouse game, the same game that they've been playing for years now.
Its my choice whether or not I want to jailbreak my phone, and its Apple's choice to make it increasingly difficult, if not flat-out-impossible, in the near future.
He probably had an issue in the middle of jailbreaking it that caused it to go wacky, or he made the mistake of restoring the phone from a previous backup, instead of setting it up as a new phone (one of the downsides to jailbreaking is this backup glitch).
If he's using a 3G or 2G iPhone and has no plans to unlock the phone to use on another carrier, then he can simply his "restore" within iTunes and try again with Quickpwn or Redsn0w. Or, he can use PwnageTool to create a custom firmware that is already jailbroken and restore to that instead (press and hold option+restore on the Mac, shift+restore on Windows).
If he's using a 3GS, however, he should look up how to capture his iBEC and iBSS files *first and foremost.* This will allow him to jailbreak in the future when Apple closes the iBoot hole. Then, simply restore to 3.0 and use redsn0w again. It should work.
Nice thing about Apple's products is their nearly impossible to brick. Worst case scenario, you can always go back to stock firmware from Apple.
Dismissing Apple's ability to take legal action against people who modify iPhone software is apart of taking away a lot of the power to protect their business model. Which is the whole point of the EFF pursuing these actions. No company would agree to such a thing.
Right now it is a stale mate. People are free to jailbreak, unlock, hack their iPhones if they so choose. Apple is free to not support jailbroken, unlocked, or hacked iPhones if they so choose. The EFF should leave it alone.
You, again, do not understand. The EFF wants this cat-and-mouse "stalemate" to continue, so much so that they want to put provisions on the DMCA to make sure that continues. If Apple had their way, they would shutdown and censor any website that so much as HINTS about modifying the iPhone.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, Apple has a reason to have that attitude. They've signed many exclusivity agreements all over the world, with carriers paying a huge subsidy per device, and its Apple's responsibility to uphold those agreements by fixing security flaws in the software that allow them to be used on unauthorized networks. They have legal and financial obligations to do so.
At the same time, I paid full retail price for my iPhone 3GS. I signed no additional contract with AT&T to have it (my contract is for my first iPhone 3G). Since I owe nothing more to the carrier, I should be free to take this iPhone and use it on any other network I choose. Apple still gets my money for the device itself, the music, the video, and the applications, and no longer receive a percentage of my service plan (which they haven't been since the release of the iPhone 3G last year). As far as Apple's concern, it shouldn't make a difference which network I'm on, so long as I own the device and pay for the applications.
*THAT* is what the EFF is looking to protect. As it stands right now, if I bought an unsubsidized iPhone for $600, I am still not allowed to use it on anyone except AT&T with a 2-year service contract. Subsidized or not, I'm still beholden to a single carrier.
Edit: Most phones, I believe, can be unlocked to use on other carriers once the original contract has been fulfilled. If you got a phone with a two year plan, that phone is yours after two years and most carriers will give you the unlock codes to use on any network you wish. AT&T and the iPhone are one of the few exceptions.
Right now it is a stale mate. People are free to jailbreak, unlock, hack their iPhones if they so choose. Apple is free to not support jailbroken, unlocked, or hacked iPhones if they so choose. The EFF should leave it alone.
Just wanted to respond to that statement for emphasis. Apple is free to not support jailbroken or unlocked phones. They're also free to *PREVENT* the phone from being jailbroken and unlocked with software updates. The 3GS, for example, is the first iPhone that allows Apple the ability to patch holes that lead to jailbreaks.
Apple can do more than sit around twiddling their thumbs. They're being very aggressive against jailbreaking and unlocking the device. One of the dev team members predicts that Apple will have an 'i-device' that won't be hackable at all through software-only methods in as little as 18 months. We'll see.
You, again, do not understand. The EFF wants this cat-and-mouse "stalemate" to continue, so much so that they want to put provisions on the DMCA to make sure that continues. If Apple had their way, they would shutdown and censor any website that so much as HINTS about modifying the iPhone.
Apple has done nothing to shut down or censor websites that talk about modifying the iPhone.
Quote:
*THAT* is what the EFF is looking to protect. As it stands right now, if I bought an unsubsidized iPhone for $600, I am still not allowed to use it on anyone except AT&T with a 2-year service contract. Subsidized or not, I'm still beholden to a single carrier.
Legally if you are not under contract with AT&T you are free to use the iPhone on any carrier that can support it. Apple simply does not directly support that right, but Apple does not directly stop it either.
Quote:
...most carriers will give you the unlock codes to use on any network you wish. AT&T and the iPhone are one of the few exceptions.
Not in the US. You are allowed to take your phone to another carrier, generally the carrier you are leaving will not provide you any help. The carrier you are going to may help you with the unlock codes.
Apple has done nothing to shut down or censor websites that talk about modifying the iPhone.
No, but they have sent legal threats to sites like Bluwiki in the past for discussing reverse-engineering of the iTunes/iPhone protocol to allow it to sync with other applications on unsupported operating systems (linux, for example). Recently they've backed off, probably for crossing the line. Point is, Apple does have a history of sending threatening notices to websites with content they don't like.
Quote:
Legally if you are not under contract with AT&T you are free to use the iPhone on any carrier that can support it. Apple simply does not directly support that right, but Apple does not directly stop it either.
No, Apple *does* directly stop that. If I approached Apple or AT&T about unlocking my phone to use on T-Mobile, they would both tell me to pound sand. Apple also takes steps in preventing me from unlocking the phone myself by pushing updates that are designed to close security holes with no way to reverse it. Once I update my phone, it could be forever-locked to AT&T. By removing my ability to use it on another GSM network through an update, Apple is directly stopping me.
Quote:
Not in the US. You are allowed to take your phone to another carrier, generally the carrier you are leaving will not provide you any help. The carrier you are going to may help you with the unlock codes.
One reason for this is because we have no oversight in this area. I'm perfectly fine with being locked to a carrier in a contract if I choose to sign a contract with them. But if I exit that contract, or the two-years are up, the phone should be considered my own property. Instead, its treated like its on permanent loan from the carrier, even if I've fulfilled my end of the contract.
I'm not saying the EFF is always right. I'm just saying that on this issue, I side with them.
A big part of this is because hacks are using security holes to gain access. Of course Apple is aggresively working to close them.
But it's impossible for Apple to completly lock the iPhone to any particular GSM carrier. I don't beleive they are trying to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo
Apple can do more than sit around twiddling their thumbs. They're being very aggressive against jailbreaking and unlocking the device. One of the dev team members predicts that Apple will have an 'i-device' that won't be hackable at all through software-only methods in as little as 18 months. We'll see.
No, but they have sent legal threats to sites like Bluwiki in the past for discussing reverse-engineering of the iTunes/iPhone protocol to allow it to sync with other applications on unsupported operating systems (linux, for example). Recently they've backed off, probably for crossing the line. Point is, Apple does have a history of sending threatening notices to websites with content they don't like.
That's a very different matter. If someone attempted to revers-engineer iPhone OS to use on a different phone. Then Apple would likely be much more aggressive.
Quote:
No, Apple *does* directly stop that. If I approached Apple or AT&T about unlocking my phone to use on T-Mobile, they would both tell me to pound sand. Apple also takes steps in preventing me from unlocking the phone myself by pushing updates that are designed to close security holes with no way to reverse it. Once I update my phone, it could be forever-locked to AT&T. By removing my ability to use it on another GSM network through an update, Apple is directly stopping me.
Well yes Apple wants the iPhone to stay on AT&T, no they are not going to help you take it to T-Mobile, but the iPhone will work on T-Mobile. T-Mobile will help with unlock codes
Quote:
I'm not saying the EFF is always right. I'm just saying that on this issue, I side with them.
The rational want to have it both ways. It's an argument that recognizes Apple has the right to sell the iPhone the way it choses. But then complains when Apple protects it's choice.
IPhone 3GS encryption is easy to break. Hacking does making data on the iphone vulnerable and so does jail breaking and I fail to see the difference between the two.
I personally would love unlocked iPhones, but that is not the issue at hand.
IPhone 3GS encryption is easy to break. Hacking does making data on the iphone vulnerable and so does jail breaking and I fail to see the difference between the two.
I personally would love unlocked iPhones, but that is not the issue at hand.
Apple advertises iPhone 3GS encryption as a feature that allows users to instantly wipe the phone remotely, not as an impenetrable security feature.
What Wired reports in the link you cited was that data on a stolen phone could be recovered using the device's own ability to read its own encrypted data. That is not how it should work, obviously. Still, if you lose your phone the point is that you could hopefully wipe it before any data could be recovered. That's not something Android, Pre, Symbian, or other platforms offer. A lost phone should be regarded as a treasure trove of data for the thieves, which is why remote wipe is an important feature.
Comments
"videorecorder and the nes mod won't even open. a gps app keeps not finding me. the cycorder video app works fine but it's really choppy ugly video so it's just not been worth it so far. customizing the phone is nice, but really only when things work. i still think i'm gonna restore it"
Anybody with some experience in jailbreaking got any advice for him?
I have explained, perhaps you have missed it.
You need a fake certificate only to activate an iPhone in a carrier in which it can't be activated.
If you jailbreak a legally activated iPhone you actually are using your original certificate created when you activated it through iTunes
In addition, jailbreaking with Quickpwn does not totally restore the iPhone, it simply modifies the software on it through a known exploit. Using QuickPwn, you don't even need to re-activate it through iTunes assuming that you are on a carrier which Apple allows (such as AT&T).
Actually, you should. Any messages you send to someone who has used this "pushfix" hack will possibly be sent to random people - whether you are JB or not. In fact, the person mentioned in the article was sending a message from his mac in iChat to a hackitvated phone, not from it.
That being said, "pushfix" was only ever an alpha release. Once I heard of all the issues (well before this story) I steered clear (I'm on a hacktivated 2G iPhone). I'm sure the dev-team will find a better solution in the future.
Since this is essentially spoofing, wouldn't this also mean if you sent a message to someone whose cert was spoofed, that message would also go to everyone else using that spoofed certificate?
The reason these types of stories hurt the case is because Apple can argue such actions could potentially negatively impact the reliability and reputation of their product. If jailbreaking and hacking became common, people who have no idea what they are doing, or bugs in the hacking software hurt the experience of using the iPhone. That could hurt the perception of the iPhone in the larger market. Apple wants the freedom to fight against such scenarios.
Why should this hurt the EFF case? Jailbreaking should be totally ok. If you want to void the warranty and support for your device and use it how you please, you should be able to.
Apple has made the consequences clear, ignore the idiots who jailbreak and expect support. It should be legal.
By carrier-locking the iPhone, they pretty much are responsible.
a friend of mine recently jailbroke his iphone but said it caused problems with his apps. Heres what he told me:
"videorecorder and the nes mod won't even open. a gps app keeps not finding me. the cycorder video app works fine but it's really choppy ugly video so it's just not been worth it so far. customizing the phone is nice, but really only when things work. i still think i'm gonna restore it"
Anybody with some experience in jailbreaking got any advice for him?
He probably had an issue in the middle of jailbreaking it that caused it to go wacky, or he made the mistake of restoring the phone from a previous backup, instead of setting it up as a new phone (one of the downsides to jailbreaking is this backup glitch).
If he's using a 3G or 2G iPhone and has no plans to unlock the phone to use on another carrier, then he can simply his "restore" within iTunes and try again with Quickpwn or Redsn0w. Or, he can use PwnageTool to create a custom firmware that is already jailbroken and restore to that instead (press and hold option+restore on the Mac, shift+restore on Windows).
If he's using a 3GS, however, he should look up how to capture his iBEC and iBSS files *first and foremost.* This will allow him to jailbreak in the future when Apple closes the iBoot hole. Then, simply restore to 3.0 and use redsn0w again. It should work.
Nice thing about Apple's products is their nearly impossible to brick. Worst case scenario, you can always go back to stock firmware from Apple.
"The reality is that this issue is being reported almost everywhere else as being a security problem Apple is responsible for."
By carrier-locking the iPhone, they pretty much are responsible.
Apple is not at fault. That is why they are taking aggressive measures against jailbreaking and unlocking the iPhone this time around - essentially to prevent these situations from occurring on their devices (a PR-related move if anything).
The EFF want to take away Apple's ability to take legal action for tampering with the iPhone software. Apple may not have any immediate plans to take any legal action, Apple does want the option to do so.
The reason these types of stories hurt the case is because Apple can argue such actions could potentially negatively impact the reliability and reputation of their product. If jailbreaking and hacking became common, people who have no idea what they are doing, or bugs in the hacking software hurt the experience of using the iPhone. That could hurt the perception of the iPhone in the larger market. Apple wants the freedom to fight against such scenarios.
While I feel that Apple has every right to minimize situations like this, I still side with the EFF saying that if a person wants to run unauthorized software on their device, they should be able to. Yes, they should also deal with the consequences and not get upset when Apple's system no longer works as intended, no argument there.
While I feel that Apple has every right to minimize situations like this, I still side with the EFF saying that if a person wants to run unauthorized software on their device, they should be able to. Yes, they should also deal with the consequences and not get upset when Apple's system no longer works as intended, no argument there.
This goes against the free market and the freedom for any company to market and sell their products in the way they feel will benefit them most. Within the limits of fair and open competition.
Who's preventing Apple from selling their products in the way they feel will benefit them the most? There are 35+ million iPhone and iPod Touch devices out there, and I'm willing to bet there are more unmodified phones on the market than modified ones -- FAR more.
I think you misinterpret the EFF's stance on this issue. They want to protect consumers and developers who wish to tinker and modify the devices that they own from legal action against Apple. They're not trying to force Apple to allow them to do it. Its a cat-and-mouse game, the same game that they've been playing for years now.
Its my choice whether or not I want to jailbreak my phone, and its Apple's choice to make it increasingly difficult, if not flat-out-impossible, in the near future.
Right now it is a stale mate. People are free to jailbreak, unlock, hack their iPhones if they so choose. Apple is free to not support jailbroken, unlocked, or hacked iPhones if they so choose. The EFF should leave it alone.
I think you misinterpret the EFF's stance on this issue. They want to protect consumers and developers who wish to tinker and modify the devices that they own from legal action against Apple. They're not trying to force Apple to allow them to do it. Its a cat-and-mouse game, the same game that they've been playing for years now.
Its my choice whether or not I want to jailbreak my phone, and its Apple's choice to make it increasingly difficult, if not flat-out-impossible, in the near future.
He probably had an issue in the middle of jailbreaking it that caused it to go wacky, or he made the mistake of restoring the phone from a previous backup, instead of setting it up as a new phone (one of the downsides to jailbreaking is this backup glitch).
If he's using a 3G or 2G iPhone and has no plans to unlock the phone to use on another carrier, then he can simply his "restore" within iTunes and try again with Quickpwn or Redsn0w. Or, he can use PwnageTool to create a custom firmware that is already jailbroken and restore to that instead (press and hold option+restore on the Mac, shift+restore on Windows).
If he's using a 3GS, however, he should look up how to capture his iBEC and iBSS files *first and foremost.* This will allow him to jailbreak in the future when Apple closes the iBoot hole. Then, simply restore to 3.0 and use redsn0w again. It should work.
Nice thing about Apple's products is their nearly impossible to brick. Worst case scenario, you can always go back to stock firmware from Apple.
thanks for the reply. I'll pass this info along.
Dismissing Apple's ability to take legal action against people who modify iPhone software is apart of taking away a lot of the power to protect their business model. Which is the whole point of the EFF pursuing these actions. No company would agree to such a thing.
Right now it is a stale mate. People are free to jailbreak, unlock, hack their iPhones if they so choose. Apple is free to not support jailbroken, unlocked, or hacked iPhones if they so choose. The EFF should leave it alone.
You, again, do not understand. The EFF wants this cat-and-mouse "stalemate" to continue, so much so that they want to put provisions on the DMCA to make sure that continues. If Apple had their way, they would shutdown and censor any website that so much as HINTS about modifying the iPhone.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, Apple has a reason to have that attitude. They've signed many exclusivity agreements all over the world, with carriers paying a huge subsidy per device, and its Apple's responsibility to uphold those agreements by fixing security flaws in the software that allow them to be used on unauthorized networks. They have legal and financial obligations to do so.
At the same time, I paid full retail price for my iPhone 3GS. I signed no additional contract with AT&T to have it (my contract is for my first iPhone 3G). Since I owe nothing more to the carrier, I should be free to take this iPhone and use it on any other network I choose. Apple still gets my money for the device itself, the music, the video, and the applications, and no longer receive a percentage of my service plan (which they haven't been since the release of the iPhone 3G last year). As far as Apple's concern, it shouldn't make a difference which network I'm on, so long as I own the device and pay for the applications.
*THAT* is what the EFF is looking to protect. As it stands right now, if I bought an unsubsidized iPhone for $600, I am still not allowed to use it on anyone except AT&T with a 2-year service contract. Subsidized or not, I'm still beholden to a single carrier.
Edit: Most phones, I believe, can be unlocked to use on other carriers once the original contract has been fulfilled. If you got a phone with a two year plan, that phone is yours after two years and most carriers will give you the unlock codes to use on any network you wish. AT&T and the iPhone are one of the few exceptions.
Right now it is a stale mate. People are free to jailbreak, unlock, hack their iPhones if they so choose. Apple is free to not support jailbroken, unlocked, or hacked iPhones if they so choose. The EFF should leave it alone.
Just wanted to respond to that statement for emphasis. Apple is free to not support jailbroken or unlocked phones. They're also free to *PREVENT* the phone from being jailbroken and unlocked with software updates. The 3GS, for example, is the first iPhone that allows Apple the ability to patch holes that lead to jailbreaks.
Apple can do more than sit around twiddling their thumbs. They're being very aggressive against jailbreaking and unlocking the device. One of the dev team members predicts that Apple will have an 'i-device' that won't be hackable at all through software-only methods in as little as 18 months. We'll see.
You, again, do not understand. The EFF wants this cat-and-mouse "stalemate" to continue, so much so that they want to put provisions on the DMCA to make sure that continues. If Apple had their way, they would shutdown and censor any website that so much as HINTS about modifying the iPhone.
Apple has done nothing to shut down or censor websites that talk about modifying the iPhone.
*THAT* is what the EFF is looking to protect. As it stands right now, if I bought an unsubsidized iPhone for $600, I am still not allowed to use it on anyone except AT&T with a 2-year service contract. Subsidized or not, I'm still beholden to a single carrier.
Legally if you are not under contract with AT&T you are free to use the iPhone on any carrier that can support it. Apple simply does not directly support that right, but Apple does not directly stop it either.
...most carriers will give you the unlock codes to use on any network you wish. AT&T and the iPhone are one of the few exceptions.
Not in the US. You are allowed to take your phone to another carrier, generally the carrier you are leaving will not provide you any help. The carrier you are going to may help you with the unlock codes.
Apple has done nothing to shut down or censor websites that talk about modifying the iPhone.
No, but they have sent legal threats to sites like Bluwiki in the past for discussing reverse-engineering of the iTunes/iPhone protocol to allow it to sync with other applications on unsupported operating systems (linux, for example). Recently they've backed off, probably for crossing the line. Point is, Apple does have a history of sending threatening notices to websites with content they don't like.
Legally if you are not under contract with AT&T you are free to use the iPhone on any carrier that can support it. Apple simply does not directly support that right, but Apple does not directly stop it either.
No, Apple *does* directly stop that. If I approached Apple or AT&T about unlocking my phone to use on T-Mobile, they would both tell me to pound sand. Apple also takes steps in preventing me from unlocking the phone myself by pushing updates that are designed to close security holes with no way to reverse it. Once I update my phone, it could be forever-locked to AT&T. By removing my ability to use it on another GSM network through an update, Apple is directly stopping me.
Not in the US. You are allowed to take your phone to another carrier, generally the carrier you are leaving will not provide you any help. The carrier you are going to may help you with the unlock codes.
One reason for this is because we have no oversight in this area. I'm perfectly fine with being locked to a carrier in a contract if I choose to sign a contract with them. But if I exit that contract, or the two-years are up, the phone should be considered my own property. Instead, its treated like its on permanent loan from the carrier, even if I've fulfilled my end of the contract.
I'm not saying the EFF is always right. I'm just saying that on this issue, I side with them.
But it's impossible for Apple to completly lock the iPhone to any particular GSM carrier. I don't beleive they are trying to.
Apple can do more than sit around twiddling their thumbs. They're being very aggressive against jailbreaking and unlocking the device. One of the dev team members predicts that Apple will have an 'i-device' that won't be hackable at all through software-only methods in as little as 18 months. We'll see.
Jailbreaking is not the issue here, it's what people do with it. Simply jailbreaking the phone is not a guarantee to break the PNS.
Yes it is. The hack requires a certificate to allow the phone to be identified properly and it's THAT certificate that is causing the problem.
WTF? Who has writed this piece of crap?
Funny I can say the same about this question.
Amen. People seem to be confusing jailbreaking with jailbreaking + hacktivating
Except Daniel did not. Read the first sentence he said "Hacking" not jailbreaking so really the writer is not to blame for confusion.
No, but they have sent legal threats to sites like Bluwiki in the past for discussing reverse-engineering of the iTunes/iPhone protocol to allow it to sync with other applications on unsupported operating systems (linux, for example). Recently they've backed off, probably for crossing the line. Point is, Apple does have a history of sending threatening notices to websites with content they don't like.
That's a very different matter. If someone attempted to revers-engineer iPhone OS to use on a different phone. Then Apple would likely be much more aggressive.
No, Apple *does* directly stop that. If I approached Apple or AT&T about unlocking my phone to use on T-Mobile, they would both tell me to pound sand. Apple also takes steps in preventing me from unlocking the phone myself by pushing updates that are designed to close security holes with no way to reverse it. Once I update my phone, it could be forever-locked to AT&T. By removing my ability to use it on another GSM network through an update, Apple is directly stopping me.
Well yes Apple wants the iPhone to stay on AT&T, no they are not going to help you take it to T-Mobile, but the iPhone will work on T-Mobile. T-Mobile will help with unlock codes
I'm not saying the EFF is always right. I'm just saying that on this issue, I side with them.
The rational want to have it both ways. It's an argument that recognizes Apple has the right to sell the iPhone the way it choses. But then complains when Apple protects it's choice.
I personally would love unlocked iPhones, but that is not the issue at hand.
IPhone 3GS encryption is easy to break. Hacking does making data on the iphone vulnerable and so does jail breaking and I fail to see the difference between the two.
I personally would love unlocked iPhones, but that is not the issue at hand.
Apple advertises iPhone 3GS encryption as a feature that allows users to instantly wipe the phone remotely, not as an impenetrable security feature.
What Wired reports in the link you cited was that data on a stolen phone could be recovered using the device's own ability to read its own encrypted data. That is not how it should work, obviously. Still, if you lose your phone the point is that you could hopefully wipe it before any data could be recovered. That's not something Android, Pre, Symbian, or other platforms offer. A lost phone should be regarded as a treasure trove of data for the thieves, which is why remote wipe is an important feature.