Hello, I'm a jailbreaker: Actor Justin Long demos hacked iPhone

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 110
    bcs123bcs123 Posts: 46member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post


    Only problem I see with your analogy is that in this case, Apple does actually sell stuff that's optimized to view on that "TV". They just won't sell you anything related to porn.







    I think the point he's trying to make is that Apple should lighten up on the cable accessories and let more third-party companies make them. They do it for cases and batteries, so why not a simple cable?







    Don't fit it... Isn't that a definition of elitism?



    The analogy is not flawed. Best buy, walmart, and numerous other retailers sell tvs and content for tvs, but do not sell porn. It is nobody's obligation to make porn readily available. Geez! What is with the obsession with needing porn related aps. Porn is not exactly difficult to locate on the Internet. It pretty much finds you.



    Also, apple does not restrict 3rd parties from making cables. They just require them to meet the standards of being iPhone ready. This is true of any case or accessory for the iPhone.
  • Reply 62 of 110
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Leonard View Post


    Do you have proof of that?



    There is a licensing program in place for anyone who wishes to make use of Apple's proprietary dock connector. To enforce the program all devices since the introduction of the iPhone have the ability to verify whether or not a peripheral device and the cable used to connect it are properly licensed.



    The ban on non-compliant devices also includes any products made prior to the introduction of the program including older versions of Apple products. You can physically plug an iPhone into an Apple Dock from 2005, but it won't work.
  • Reply 63 of 110
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post


    Even now it's hard to imagine. Apple, the rebels, dictating to it's users what software will be run on their devices. First the phone, then the iMaxipad, and soon the Appple TV. Some think Apple has lost their focus. I think they have lost their minds.



    But you don't mind, do you? When the new iTV comes out you will buy it and watch whatever Lord Jobs tells you to watch. You will do whatever he says or else you will be attacked, as Justin Long will surely be by the AI community for daring to defy Lord Jobs..



    Are you so thick that no matter how many times it is explained to you .... you still don't get it? Let's try one more time and I'll even use small words to increase your chances.



    Apple is not stopping anyone from jailbreaking their iPhone. But they refuse to support a phone that is jailbroken .... as they should do.



    While it's possible for Apple to stand behind the quality of something that they design and distribute .... and they do ... better than any of their competitors, btw .... it is next to impossible for them to guarantee the quality of any/all of the crap that a third party can introduce to the device ..... that is why they don't support jailbreaking. This is not rocket science, so please.... try a little harder, take your head out of your ass and get off your vendetta wagon ..... and get on with your life.
  • Reply 64 of 110
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bcs123 View Post


    The analogy is not flawed. Best buy, walmart, and numerous other retailers sell tvs and content for tvs, but do not sell porn. It is nobody's obligation to make porn readily available. Geez! What is with the obsession with needing porn related aps. Porn is not exactly difficult to locate on the Internet. It pretty much finds you.



    It sure does. I was browsing the site for a local theme park the other day and one of the links yielded a collection of "interesting" photographs with text in Russian or some other language that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.
  • Reply 65 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blackintosh View Post


    I see. So they're keeping flash videos off the iPhone for my good? They're banning porn from the iPad to keep me safe?



    That makes me sleep better at night.



    I don't get you. There not keeping flash off the iPhone, as you said JAILBREAK. IT'S EVEN LEGAL. You can play with your hardware as much as you want. Why are you complaining. THEY EVEN LET YOU HACK THE SOFTWARE. There is no control, you are free, the only thing you can't do is 'redistribute' the code. THAT'S IT! No Monopoly, no control. It's not the General Post Office or AT&T, where they own all the phone lines.
  • Reply 66 of 110
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Am I being dumb ..or.. was the point of the interview to show the audience what Long did on his phone.

    To show this they needed some solution to mirror the phone's screen onto a big TV.



    Not being Apple, the only way the show's producers could do this was to jailbreak the phone.



    There is no moral panic here. Why all the hysteria?



    C.
  • Reply 67 of 110
    asianbobasianbob Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bcs123 View Post


    The analogy is not flawed. Best buy, walmart, and numerous other retailers sell tvs and content for tvs, but do not sell porn. It is nobody's obligation to make porn readily available. Geez! What is with the obsession with needing porn related aps. Porn is not exactly difficult to locate on the Internet. It pretty much finds you.



    On a second thought, you're right, it does kind of make sense.



    There's no obsession on my end for a porn app. It's more of Steve Jobs making such a deal that there aren't any porn apps and using that as a kind of "better than thou" statement.



    Quote:

    Also, apple does not restrict 3rd parties from making cables. They just require them to meet the standards of being iPhone ready. This is true of any case or accessory for the iPhone.



    This I'm fine with. From all the previous posts, I was just under the impression that third-party cables were being rejected when they were connected and the only option was an Apple brand cable.
  • Reply 68 of 110
    bcs123bcs123 Posts: 46member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post


    On a second thought, you're right, it does kind of make sense.



    There's no obsession on my end for a porn app. It's more of Steve Jobs making such a deal that there aren't any porn apps and using that as a kind of "better than thou" statement.







    This I'm fine with. From all the previous posts, I was just under the impression that third-party cables were being rejected when they were connected and the only option was an Apple brand cable.



    I think Jobs is just responding to 'walled garden' complaints when he references Apples decision not to allow porn on the iTunes store. It's not holy than though, it's common business practice. You have millions of teenager with idevices, probably not gonna sell parents on many more with HD porn supplied by apple.
  • Reply 69 of 110
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post


    [B] tired of waiting for Apple to do what customers want.



    If Apple only did what customers want .... we'd still be using floppy discs.
  • Reply 70 of 110
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,122member
    Jimmy Kimmel is on ABC, which is owned by Disney, which has a very big shareholder named Steve Jobs.



    I'm sure there was no "jailbreak". Apple probably helped set this up as everything looked very rehearsed, plus "Jimmy" shills for products on his show all the time.



    Connect the dots, kids.
  • Reply 71 of 110
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post


    It sure does. I was browsing the site for a local theme park the other day and one of the links yielded a collection of "interesting" photographs with text in Russian or some other language that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.





    You still got the url? ....
  • Reply 72 of 110
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Is it really necessary to have to explain that you are free to do what you want, within the constraints of the law? Sorry, I thought that much was obvious.



    What the constraints of the law are is very much not obvious. It is kind of you to apologise though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    DMCA...huh, it's almost like there was a recent LoC ruling about this. Pretty sure that when it made a clear exception for consumers to open their mobile phones up, there was no caveat about the vendor's being able to retaliate by bricking those legally opened devices that belong to the consumers and not to Apple.



    The Library of Congress did recently express an opinion regarding circumvention of copyright controls. Many say this means jailbreaking is now legal. I'm not so sure. First, the LoC is not an article III court. While their construction of their rules might be instructive (and under the Chevron USA case perhaps dispositive) it is not the final say on the matter. Secondly, the opinion seems to be directed at criminal penalties under the DMCA for circumventing DRM. Thus, it is possible that seeking a criminal penalty for jailbreaking for purposes of gaining access to copyrighted material is now unlikely, this is not the same as there is no legal consequence for doing so. The LoC opinion did not address any other parts of the DMCA, and most certianly rule on enforcability of any of its provisions. If Apple license specifically said "if you jailbreak this thing, we are gonna shut it off" that would be very much enforcable. But, as you rightfully point out below, they are not going to do that for business reasons. But in the future? The license does say they can unilaterally change it without notice. heh heh. Beware.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Similarly, you might wonder if Apple is allowed to castrate you if you are found to have jailbroken and installed some porn. Rest easy, they may not.



    Agreed. But their license may be terminated if you don't comply with the terms, and continuing to use their software with no valid license violates the contract. Under the DMCA they can retain the ability to brick or technologically disable it. Interestingly, using the software in violation of the license makes one an infringer, subject to criminal penalties outside of the LoC's recent opinion.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    It would also be a PR nightmare that no reasonable company would consider.



    Again, agreed. Apple is very much not enforcing their legal rights to the fullest in this matter.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    Not really sure what you are talking about here. You hit someone intentionally or because of your own recklessness, they don't sue Ford. If they did, would Ford demand you pay their legal expenses? Probably not. .



    Aside from the business decision we agreed on above, the concept of indemnification is common. I looked at the Apple license for iPhone software, and it contains an indeminty for, of all things, YouTube use. If I buy a Ford, and agree to indemnify them as part of that purchase, and I then cause damage with the car, the persons injured may sue Ford (they have money) because of Ford's negligence in not warning me not to hit them. They in fact might not have, and while Ford ultimately might prevail, they would much prefer to win by simply making a contractual demand for me to indemnify them. If I had not caused the injury, they wouldn't have been sued. Indemnity agreements are designed to shift that risk. And who writes those clauses? It ain't the buyers...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    You mean the contract that has likely lapsed, as the reports are that the line of ads has been cancelled? Hell, Whoopi is/was under contract to TMobile for their phones but went on national TV and discussed the iPhone she owned. Pretty sure no one would consider him jailbreaking his iphone to be 'disparagement' of Apple or the iPhone. Pretty sure. maybe some could make that type of leap.



    All depends on the money, doesn't it? I'd be willing to bet there are many willing to make that leap if the price was right. Maybe not Apple (busienss reasons above) but imagine a small startup getting dissed by a personthought to be the face of their whole company.



    Contracts typically have long survival clauses, particularly for such things.
  • Reply 73 of 110
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AsianBob View Post


    On a second thought, you're right, it does kind of make sense.

    It's more of Steve Jobs making such a deal that there aren't any porn apps and using that as a kind of "better than thou" statement.

    .





    Not sure why you took it that way ..... I never took it that way at all.
  • Reply 74 of 110
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    For the life of me, I can not understand why Apple did not include this functionality. It was crippled on purpose. I am quite happy to un-cripple it.



    C.



    They did so because they can make you pay for a second data plan. Un-crippling it also likely violates your ATT agreement. Many won't care, but ATT probably reserves the right to shut you off, send you a termination fee etc etc etc. Will they? Likely not for business reasons. Unless many, many people do and they feel they have no choice.



    For you techies out there, can the service provider (ATT) easily see the MAC address of the device that is consuming/connected to the data stream?
  • Reply 75 of 110
    aiaddictaiaddict Posts: 487member
    [QUOTE=eightzero;1698520]The Library of Congress did recently express an opinion regarding circumvention of copyright controls. Many say this means jailbreaking is now legal. I'm not so sure. First, the LoC is not an article III court. While their construction of their rules might be instructive (and under the Chevron USA case perhaps dispositive) it is not the final say on the matter. QUOTE]



    The LoC was given the power to make that ruling by Congress specifically spelled out in the DMCA. There is no legitimate question of the legality, jurisdiction etc. of the the LoC ruling.
  • Reply 76 of 110
    aiaddictaiaddict Posts: 487member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eightzero View Post


    They did so because they can make you pay for a second data plan. Un-crippling it also likely violates your ATT agreement. Many won't care, but ATT probably reserves the right to shut you off, send you a termination fee etc etc etc. Will they? Likely not for business reasons. Unless many, many people do and they feel they have no choice.



    For you techies out there, can the service provider (ATT) easily see the MAC address of the device that is consuming/connected to the data stream?



    If you have a non-3G iPad you do not have an AT&T agreement to violate. If you have a tether plan for your iPhone, there is no additional contract that specifically exclude iPads as tethered devices.
  • Reply 77 of 110
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eightzero View Post


    The Library of Congress did recently express an opinion regarding circumvention of copyright controls. Many say this means jailbreaking is now legal. I'm not so sure. First, the LoC is not an article III court. While their construction of their rules might be instructive (and under the Chevron USA case perhaps dispositive) it is not the final say on the matter.



    The LoC was given the power to make that ruling by Congress specifically spelled out in the DMCA. There is no legitimate question of the legality, jurisdiction etc. of the the LoC ruling.



    Indeed. The opinion by the librarian cited that section of the statute. The vailidity of the expressed opinion and subsequent enforcability, of course, if still exclusively within the perview of the courts. That said, courts generally defer to administrative opinion (see Chevron). Even so, the opinion only seems to be reflective of the DMCA's prohibition on circumvention of DRM schemes. This is not the same as "jailbreaking has no legal consequence."
  • Reply 78 of 110
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post


    If you have a non-3G iPad you do not have an AT&T agreement to violate. If you have a tether plan for your iPhone, there is no additional contract that specifically exclude iPads as tethered devices.



    You do have a ATT contract for your iPhone though. And if you don't have a tether plan, could ATT see you using your iPhone to tether in violation of your agreement? Can they see the MAC address of the tethered device, like the iPad?
  • Reply 79 of 110
    aiaddictaiaddict Posts: 487member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BartBuzz View Post


    Can anyone out there tell me why the "average" iPhone user wants to jailbreak? I can understand the computer nerds doing it but not Aunt Sue. Don't most users just want to use the existing capabilities w/out worrying about accessing apps and/or cables that aren't Apple sanctioned? Making a call, surfing the net, playing some games, listening to music and taking a photo don't require jailbreaking for the iPhone to be fun and useful.



    The majority of iPhone uses do not want to jailbreak, but for someone with a minimum of technical knowledge, there are many reasons that may pop up.



    For example, say you are a teacher or lecturere or actor or... and you want to show what is on your iPhone to an audience.



    Or perhaps you would like to turn the different radios on and off without going through the settings menus and would prefer the ease of SBSettings.



    Perhaps you want to see the full version of websites that only give you a crappy mobile version, so you install UAfaker to make them think you are using a desktop browser.



    Maybe you want to see additional info on the lockscreen like new messages, calander apointments, weather info etc. or maybe you want dynamic icons like the current weather in the weather icon.



    For more technically savy, there are even more reasons, like SSH and SSL, a command line, file storage and management, and so forth.
  • Reply 80 of 110
    aiaddictaiaddict Posts: 487member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by eightzero View Post


    You do have a ATT contract for your iPhone though. And if you don't have a tether plan, could ATT see you using your iPhone to tether in violation of your agreement? Can they see the MAC address of the tethered device, like the iPad?



    For the case in question, the poster seemed to imply only his iPad was jailbroken, not the iPhone. Therefore, the iPhone must have a legitimate tether plan that he is paying for. He can connect devices to the iPhone to use the tethering, except the stock iPad does not have the software to allow it to connect to anything but WiFi, hence the need to either JB the phone to allow tethering over WiFi, or JB the iPad to allow it to connect to the iPhone, or any other phone for that matter.



    To answer the second question, AT&T could probably figure out there was an iPad tethered to your phone based on the traffic. Using stock Safari for example will have an iPad identifier in the user agent data sent to websites. If they were really bored, AT&T could spot this through packet inspection, but I highly doubt they would bother.
Sign In or Register to comment.