[LINK] Jailbreaking (was: Inaccessible web sites)

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:00:13PM +1100, Ivan Trundle wrote:
> 
> On 17/02/2010, at 12:36 PM, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
> 
> > what does Jailbroken mean
>
> iPhone OS is a locked-down ecosystem out of the box, and
> 'jailbreaking' is the (illegal) process of hacking the OS to allow
                        ^^^^^^^^^

ahem.  PERFECTLY LEGAL process of enabling the use of hardware you have
purchased to suit your particular needs.

> code not authorised by Apple to run on the device.

which is the entire point of jailbreaking an iphone - some people want
to run software that doesn't come from Apple or through their approvals
process.

IMO, any attempt by Apple to prevent is a breach of Australia's
anti-competition laws and should be closely monitored, investigated, and
prosecuted by the ACCC.


> It's also the main way of allowing people to load stolen apps on their
> phone or iPod, or

"stolen apps" is loaded, emotional and deceptively misleading
terminology.  and flat-out wrong.

the phrase you are looking for is "copyright infringement". not "steal"
or "stolen".

installing infringing copies of a program may be in breach of various
civil and even criminal laws, but jailbreaking is not in itself illegal
as there are numerous legal and non-infringing reasons for doing it.


> to install applications which have not been vetted by Apple's control
> process.

again, that's the entire point.

Apple have a habit of refusing (or revoking) applications which conflict
with their own business plans or which their partners don't like
(e.g. VOIP apps were banned until recently due to their partnership with
AT&T in the US)

Apple do not have the right to dictate what you do with the hardware
you have purchased.


> And in places where phones are locked to a carrier, it's a way of
> unlocking them and freeing them from being tied to a carrier.

there's nothing wrong with unlocking phones. as long as you're keeping
up your side of the contract (e.g. by paying it regularly) or are
willing to pay out the remainder of the contract, then the telco
has nothing to complain about.

even if you don't keep up your side of the contract, that's a matter for
them to chase up through the usual processes (debt collectors, court)
and is not a valid excuse for them to lock the phone.

some telcos seemingly have no problem with that and either sell unlocked
phones or will unlock a phone on request (sometimes for a small fee,
sometimes for free if you have passed their minimum-spend amount for
that phone).

IMO, just as with apple's App store monopoloy, locking phones to a
carrier is anti-competitive and should be prosecued by the ACCC.

> Apple have, over the years, found ways to inhibit jailbreaking, but in
> general, the hackers are one small half step ahead. AS with most phone
> OS'es, the general path has been via privilege escalation.
>
> Apple is disputing the exemptions in the Digital Millennium Copyright
> Act which make the legality of jailbreaking unclear, suggesting that
> their copyright is being infringed: no decision is likely until later
> this year.

then why the hell are you calling it illegal?

Apple has made an assertion (and one which is absurd - jailbreaking
a phone does not in itself infringe their copyright), it hasn't been
tested in court, and no decision is likely until at least later this
year, yet you are somehow able to call jailbreaking illegal?


> Apple have also found ways to block particular hackers from using the
> Apple Apps store,

they recently cancelled the app store accounts of at least two developers
who had contributed to jailbreaking efforts.

it's Apple who are behaving illegally here.  They've certainly breached
the consumer rights of those individuals.

> and are also seeking to employ experts in the field to prevent further
> jailbreaking with future OS revisions. One such (recently introduced)
> method is to prevent older copies of the OS to be stored on your
> computer (so there is no turning back once an update is applied) and
> to bundle firmware updates so as to fix existing loopholes, but which
> inhibit the use of jailbreaking routines.

anti-features like that will eventually kill the iphone and other
devices that use them. and good riddance. the world doesn't need crap
like that.

esp. when open alternatives like android phones become readily
available.

maybe apple will wake up when the smart-phone market is taken away from
them by open competition.


> The numbers of jailbroken phones is incredibly small (estimated to be
> less than 5%). However, people in the jailbroken community often quote
> (unsubstantiated) figures of non-Apple community app downloads (i.e.
> jailbroken apps) in half-million units. I am unable to verify these
> numbers, yet I have a personal interest as an app developer.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

of course.  there had to be a huge element of self-interest in your
false statements about the legality of jailbreaking.

and before you whine "but some people might 'steal' my software", just
remember that nobody owes you a living. your desire to make a profit
does not overide other people's rights. just as i have no right to
kneecap people walking past my house ("because some of them might be
burglars"), you do not have the right to criminalise perfectly normal
and legit behaviour like jailbreaking an iphone, nor do you (or Apple)
have the right to cripple/break their property.



> The reasons for people to jailbreak their OS are varied, but it is
> now mostly to run stolen (er, 'pirated') apps. 

actually, the main reason why people jailbreak their iphones (and other
locked devices) is exactly the same as why i haven't bought an iphone
and am waiting for google's nexus one or some other open phone: i
don't want apple, or google, or any company, telling me what i can and
can't do with hardware i have purchased. i don't want them installing
"updates"(*) that break some function or feature or app that they
disapprove of for any reason. i don't want them to have the ability
to install spyware to monitor my usage and movement (and certainly
not without me having the ability to know about it AND be able to
disable/delete it).

many (most?) are like me and have exactly as much interest in
"pirating"(**) iphone apps as they do in pirating Windows or OS X apps -
i.e. absolutely none. as a general rule(***), i don't want proprietary
apps at any price, including $0 - whether legitimately free, or pirated.
I want GPL or other FOSS apps from a multitude of sources.



(*) IMO they should face criminal charges for these acts of sabotage and
vandalism. they are deliberately breaking a device belonging to their
customer. there is precedent too, sony lost their court case over the
rootkit they installed on Windows machines with their DRM-protected CDs
(which, of course, didn't protect the music at all. it just disabled
anti-virus software and created back-doors for malware).

(**) "pirating" is misleading propaganda terminology, i know, but ICBF
writing some convoluted variation of "infringe copyright". i use it now
only with the disclaimer that it's a false, misleading, and defamatory
term to use to describe the act of infringing copyright. blame the
brainwashers/memetic-engineers of the copyright maximalist lobby.


(**) i make an exception for good quality games. wine has become quite
good in the last year or so, capable of playing many windows games
without problem. i've spent well over $200 on games from valve/steam
since the new year (steam had a fantastic sale btwn xmas and NY, 50-90%
off all games). most of them work fine on wine. some don't. i knew i was
gambling when i bought them...and eventually they will work on wine and
i'll get to play them.



> Initially, it was to work around some of the limitations of the OS
> generally, and to use APIs that Apple won't permit to be used (for
> various reasons, mostly altruistic), or to run apps which Apple would
> not allow. These days,

that's still the reason. and always will be.

anti-features will *always* provide motivation for someone to remove
them.
 

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>