Hackers release 'unc0ver' 5.0 jailbreak tool that works on iOS 13.5

Comments

• Reply 1 of 13

  acheron2018 Posts: 33member

  May 24, 2020 5:10PM

  It seems to me the only reason to jailbreak an iPhone is so you can run valid and useful apps that go against the political views of Apple.  

  
  

  For example I think Alex Jones is somewhere between scam artist and a psychopath.  But banning the info wars app was a political basses suppression of speech that no company should legally possess.

  
  

  If Apple banned the Chinese spyware iPhones would just be banned from China the same day.  No great moral dilemma about poor Apple’s right over their hardware and to control what people use it for.  

  
  

   No organization is beyond corruption. This is why the US Constitution is written as a THOU SHALT NOT document for government.  

  
  

  It is past time to level the playing field for living people vs corporations.  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.  Plan B is you don’t get to have the sole App Store.  Plan C is Tim is going to federal prison for a few decades.  

  
  

  One way or another the problem of discrimination against unpopular opinions would be fixed.   

  
• Reply 2 of 13

  Steve’sWorld Posts: 23member

  May 24, 2020 8:08PM

  acheron2018 said:

  It seems to me the only reason to jailbreak an iPhone is so you can run valid and useful apps that go against the political views of Apple.  

  
  

  For example I think Alex Jones is somewhere between scam artist and a psychopath.  But banning the info wars app was a political basses suppression of speech that no company should legally possess.

  
  

  If Apple banned the Chinese spyware iPhones would just be banned from China the same day.  No great moral dilemma about poor Apple’s right over their hardware and to control what people use it for.  

  
  

   No organization is beyond corruption. This is why the US Constitution is written as a THOU SHALT NOT document for government.  

  
  

  It is past time to level the playing field for living people vs corporations.  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.  Plan B is you don’t get to have the sole App Store.  Plan C is Tim is going to federal prison for a few decades.  

  
  

  One way or another the problem of discrimination against unpopular opinions would be fixed.   

  Bribery lobbying system in America won't allow change for the better.

  edited May 2020
• Reply 3 of 13

  JamesBrickley Posts: 104member

  May 24, 2020 9:19PM

  Just in time for iOS 14 to be announced and Apple to squash the exploit.  There are some definite good reasons to Jailbreak. But most of those have gone away since the early days.  Now it's more about perhaps being able to run a Wi-Fi explorer and analysis tool whose basic functionality is not allowed.  But for the most part, Jailbreaking is not that interesting until you get into forensics and want to deep dive on the hidden metadata that stays on device.  The sort of data the FBI desires.  

  
• Reply 4 of 13

  eideard Posts: 428member

  May 24, 2020 9:41PM

  The all-inclusive anti-corporate whine is as much of a religion as any of the official variety.  As useless, as boring.  
  
  I've fought many individual corporations, generally, on the shop floor organizing employees into a union to have a mechanism to fight for their rights.  That does not, however, prescribe that some corporations can't and won't continue to reflect humanist values held important important by founders, support education broadly rather than only useful to corporate ends, etc., etc..
  
  
  

  
• Reply 5 of 13

  CloudTalkin Posts: 919member

  May 25, 2020 2:11AM

  A few interesting things one can do on their jailbroken phone. 
  
  

  
• Reply 6 of 13

  svanstrom Posts: 702member

  May 25, 2020 7:13AM

  acheron2018 said:

  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.

  So your freedom loving perspective is that the government are to control all businesses in the sense that all businesses are to be forced to spend money on developing their products to be open for other companies to profit from, even when that lowers the quality and security of the products?
  
  It's not enough that people are free to not spend like 1k+ USD on an iPhone?

  
• Reply 7 of 13

  redraider11 Posts: 186member

  May 25, 2020 2:49PM

  svanstrom said:

  acheron2018 said:

  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.

  So your freedom loving perspective is that the government are to control all businesses in the sense that all businesses are to be forced to spend money on developing their products to be open for other companies to profit from, even when that lowers the quality and security of the products?
  
  It's not enough that people are free to not spend like 1k+ USD on an iPhone?

  I think his point is that you don’t get to be a platform claiming to be for free speech and then ban people or ideas you disagree with. Either you’re an open platform or an editorial, but you can’t be both. For instance AT&T is protected from being sued from anything that is done on their network because they are merely a platform for communication and free speech, but the NYT is an editorial and must be vigilant about what they publish because they can be sued for slander and what not. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are having their cake and eating it too because they have these platforms supposedly for “free speech” but then continue to edit out what they don’t like and/or prop up certain view points they agree with to make them more noticeable on their platforms. 
  

  
• Reply 8 of 13

  spheric Posts: 2,708member

  May 25, 2020 3:32PM

  redraider11 said:

  svanstrom said:

  acheron2018 said:

  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.

  So your freedom loving perspective is that the government are to control all businesses in the sense that all businesses are to be forced to spend money on developing their products to be open for other companies to profit from, even when that lowers the quality and security of the products?
  
  It's not enough that people are free to not spend like 1k+ USD on an iPhone?

  I think his point is that you don’t get to be a platform claiming to be for free speech and then ban people or ideas you disagree with. Either you’re an open platform or an editorial, but you can’t be both. For instance AT&T is protected from being sued from anything that is done on their network because they are merely a platform for communication and free speech, but the NYT is an editorial and must be vigilant about what they publish because they can be sued for slander and what not. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are having their cake and eating it too because they have these platforms supposedly for “free speech” but then continue to edit out what they don’t like and/or prop up certain view points they agree with to make them more noticeable on their platforms. 
  

  Apple hasn't made "free speech" a platform. 
  
  They are outspoken about inclusion and diversity, however, but that, ironically, means that they must weed out intolerance and hate. 
  It's a phenomenon called Popper's paradox, after Karl Popper. 
  
  Tolerance towards the intolerant merely allows them to flourish and poison society, which eventually destroys tolerance and the openness that allowed them to exist in the first place. 
  
  They took over and are destroying America, for example, not because the democracy was weak, but because they exploited its greatest strength: its freedom. They ran unchecked for too long and are now in the process of dismantling everything America ever stood for.

  
• Reply 9 of 13

  svanstrom Posts: 702member

  May 25, 2020 4:27PM

  redraider11 said:

  svanstrom said:

  acheron2018 said:

  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.

  So your freedom loving perspective is that the government are to control all businesses in the sense that all businesses are to be forced to spend money on developing their products to be open for other companies to profit from, even when that lowers the quality and security of the products?
  
  It's not enough that people are free to not spend like 1k+ USD on an iPhone?

  I think his point is that you don’t get to be a platform claiming to be for free speech and then ban people or ideas you disagree with. Either you’re an open platform or an editorial, but you can’t be both. For instance AT&T is protected from being sued from anything that is done on their network because they are merely a platform for communication and free speech, but the NYT is an editorial and must be vigilant about what they publish because they can be sued for slander and what not. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are having their cake and eating it too because they have these platforms supposedly for “free speech” but then continue to edit out what they don’t like and/or prop up certain view points they agree with to make them more noticeable on their platforms. 
  

  There's a difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech, as in the government not preventing you from speaking (*limited by things like hate-speech etc), and a private business being forced to help you spread your speech.

  
• Reply 10 of 13

  beowulfschmidt Posts: 2,375member

  May 26, 2020 1:51PM

  redraider11 said:

  svanstrom said:

  acheron2018 said:

  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.

  So your freedom loving perspective is that the government are to control all businesses in the sense that all businesses are to be forced to spend money on developing their products to be open for other companies to profit from, even when that lowers the quality and security of the products?
  
  It's not enough that people are free to not spend like 1k+ USD on an iPhone?

  I think his point is that you don’t get to be a platform claiming to be for free speech and then ban people or ideas you disagree with. Either you’re an open platform or an editorial, but you can’t be both. For instance AT&T is protected from being sued from anything that is done on their network because they are merely a platform for communication and free speech, but the NYT is an editorial and must be vigilant about what they publish because they can be sued for slander and what not. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are having their cake and eating it too because they have these platforms supposedly for “free speech” but then continue to edit out what they don’t like and/or prop up certain view points they agree with to make them more noticeable on their platforms. 
  

  "Free speech" applies to Apple as well (rightly or wrongly, based on the idiotic equation of "corporation" to "person"), and means that they can't be required to be a platform for others' speech with which they don't agree, or constitutes a business conflict.  There is no conflict of principle when one says "you can say anything you want; you just can't use our platform to do it."

  
• Reply 11 of 13

  fastasleep Posts: 6,453member

  May 27, 2020 2:32AM

  acheron2018 said:

  It seems to me the only reason to jailbreak an iPhone is so you can run valid and useful apps that go against the political views of Apple.  

  
  

  For example I think Alex Jones is somewhere between scam artist and a psychopath.  But banning the info wars app was a political basses suppression of speech that no company should legally possess.

  
  

  If Apple banned the Chinese spyware iPhones would just be banned from China the same day.  No great moral dilemma about poor Apple’s right over their hardware and to control what people use it for.  

  
  

   No organization is beyond corruption. This is why the US Constitution is written as a THOU SHALT NOT document for government.  

  
  

  It is past time to level the playing field for living people vs corporations.  If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.  Plan B is you don’t get to have the sole App Store.  

  
  

  One way or another the problem of discrimination against unpopular opinions would be fixed.   

  On the contrary, no company should be forced to allow "defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group" on their platforms. 
  
  Apple has guidelines on this for a reason. Jones violated those.
  https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#objectionable-content
  
  He can go use whatever other platform still allows his messagez within their terms of service (if there are any) or create his own. 
  
  

  Plan C is Tim is going to federal prison for a few decades.  

  
  LOL

  
• Reply 12 of 13

  [Deleted User] Posts: 55

  May 28, 2020 9:05AM

  No one likes to hear hate, but if we try to shut it rather than simply ignore it we know from history it will absolutely grow stronger. Also unchecked-hate tends to disappear exponentially faster than any controlling measure ever managed. As easily verifiable on a smaller scale at home, trying to counter a tantrum only works to increase it (and using violence always comes back at us later) - this holds true in military discipline too. And later one day it can be our hate for whatever reason, and unvoiced hate becomes madness if repressed, gaining a momentum beyond anything it ever had - further unbalancing society's collective mental health. Info-Wars are stronger than ever, and  Governments know this too since Roman times, for a nothing helps Controlling Powers more than a divided society. The First Amendment is first for a good reason: without trust in citizens there can be no freedom. We all make mistakes but given time Humans are good and will always gravitate to peace; repression hampers this natural balance in favour of those who benefit from an unbalanced society, and no-people power.
  
  Since Jailbreaking was legally allowed, has it increased at all or actually regressed in numbers? Has Apple paid attention to external apps and made the system better also security-wise because of this possibility? There are always going to be things we dislike, but we are always free to give it our attention or not, and in this way we also acquire a sort of intellectual heard-immunity by being exposed and evaluating ourselves in time what benefits us or not. A good longtime example are Christian vs. Other Ideologies specifically in Sexuality, as still to the day the consumption of Pornography is exactly higher where this aspect was historically repressed - not to mention some extreme own religious representatives' sexual-deviations, that - are totally absent in religions and societies that do not focus on this aspect. So if we care about harmony in society, we better dilute lunatic power by letting it be, as this is the fastest way to peace.. and also, just sometimes, this lunacy turns out to be the way forward, just so revolutionary that it is hard to spot early on, as Apple's moto inspires from the very beginning.. it has been a long time since i last heard or saw it, and for me it is probably the best marketing ad in history.. never gets old though perhaps now out of fashion. May the First Amendment protect "the Crazy Ones", for the whole world may now depend on this.
• Reply 13 of 13

  crowley Posts: 10,453member

  May 28, 2020 11:25AM

  acheron2018 said:

   If you want sole control of the App Store you don’t get to ban people you don’t like.  Plan B is you don’t get to have the sole App Store. 
  

  Apple's view is that if you can't get the trash you want on the app store then there's a whole internet out there for you.