Slashdot Mirror
Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking Could Hurt Cell Towers
AHuxley writes "Apple suggests that the nation's cellphone networks could be open to 'potentially catastrophic' cyberattacks by iPhone-using hackers at home and abroad if iPhone owners are permitted to legally jailbreak their wireless devices. The Copyright Office is currently considering a request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to legalize the widespread practice of jailbreaking. Apple has responded to the request by saying that if the 'baseband processor' software — which enables a connection to cell phone towers — is exposed, then a user could crash the tower software, or use the Exclusive Chip Identification number to make calls anonymously. Apple also thinks its closed business model is what made the iPhone a success. The Vodafone scandal from a few years back showed how a network could be compromised, but that was from within. So, what do you think? Is Apple playing the 'evil genius' hacker card or can 'anyone' with a smartphone and a genius friend pop a US cell tower?"
Those poor little cell phone towers. I'm glad somebody is thinking about them.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Even Microsoft isn't this stupid... yet anyway.
I've been avoiding Apple products due to their control issues, but this is just ridiculous.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Ya bad people won't look for flaws in the system if only Apple can keep people tied to their contracts. I'm having a hard time seeing the logic.
Apple has picked up one from the playbook of the Bush Administration.
We should ban the sale of iPhones with this potentially dangerous bug until Apple can fix it, either by providing unlocked iPhones, or without this being handled by the iHpone's locking mechanism.
This seems like the equivalent of saying 'If you are allowed to install software on your PC you might bring down your ISP's entire network."
Speak for yourself.
...sounds more like what this is.
then only outlaws will own cracked iPhones!
Seriously - if you're going to do an illegal activity (hacking) anyway, then making another activity (jailbreaking) illegal isn't going to deter you.
If somebody's going to try to "pop" a cell tower they're certainly not going to care if step 1 of the process was legal or not.
Apple is just trying to bad monopolist and keep the cash rolling in. Next it would not have a lock on apps, hence anyone can load what they want as service (background) - so Skype or Google app can vut the phone use costs.
As I'm replying to you, there's 3 posts in the thread. All of them are against Apple's stance on this. Obviously Apple gets a free pass on this site.
If a jailbroken iPhone can potentially crash a cell tower but a regular run-of-the-mill cell phone cannot, it really makes me wonder what cool toys they've hidden in the jesus phone that makes it so life-threateningly dangerous that it needs to be encased in a kryptonite shield.
If a person is going to commit a felony "cyberattacks", why the hell would they worry about the legality of jailbreaking? It's like armed bank robbers worrying that they're fully automatic rifle isn't legal.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
The Exclusive Chip Identifier? Aka the ECID?
That thing was added solely to make it harder to unlock the phone for other carriers!
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
iPhone + Jailbreak = iPwn
At least, iPwn cellphone towers.
Instead of locking the whole thing down, just lock down the baseband processor. That way people who want to run their own apps can do so without having to jailbreak anything, and the baseband processor won't have any attention given to it. But of course this would still be a problem with AT&T, who provides the connectivity.
If these towers could be brought down from a user who jailbroke his iPhone, then it would have happened already.
No hacker is going to say "Oh well I guess I can't bring down this series of towers, ATT/Apple said it's not legal. Darn..."
This is the lamest excuse I've heard yet...
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Slashdot-Article
:)
then Apple will be forced to sell iphones unlocked from the factory leaving AT&T out in the cold
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It would be like saying that allowing PC/Mac programmers to use the IP sockets API will let them crash their local router.
Give us a break Apple, you're coming across as more and more control freaks and foolish every week.
We all know the deal. If I wanted to compromise said cellular network, I could use the current published, freely, and openly available jailbreaking techniques. If they legalize jailbreaking of the phones, it is not going to legalize hacking cellphone towers, so the people that are going to do it are already trying. This is just a another preemptive strike by Apple. They are going to lose credibility, because too much press in a short ammount of time for a company can be just as bad as flying under the wire. I think it is time they slip back into the ether and keep quiet for a few weeks.
There are other smartphones on the market, you know. And the rest of them aren't limited to apple's draconian app store submission process.
Surely such a hacker could just use another smartphone platform? Seems like a last-ditch attempt to justify their control-freakery.
In order for the towers to be protected, there must be a *law* against jailbreaking (a practice that is currently perfectly feasible, just questionably legal). Will the law, sensing a helpless tower is in danger, jump off the page and stop the evil hacker from using his jailbroken phone to expose flaws in the upstream hardware/software, and save the day?
Even if this is true, legislation is clearly NOT the way to go here. Either they are giving away too many secrets just by having easily exploited hardware/software in consumers hands, or they are running woefully unprotected towers (or both). In any case, a law against it isn't going to do a whole lot except speed the prosecution of said 'evil hacker' who would already be breaking numerous laws anyway.
Apples isn't so much worried about hacking as it's a possibility with any smartphone. It's worried more about it's profit margin with exclusive contracts; this allows them to take a percentage of the contracts rather while undercutting the price of their devices. If they were to lose this exclusivity, they would either have to raise the price of their devices again or accept that their profit margins have been cut... and that is the real thing they are arguing against.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Apple is partially right. Their closed business model has lead to the success of the iPhone. (Happy now?)
Seriously. The tight control on the user experience is what maintains the appeal of the device. For most people.
However, where they're wrong is in thinking that they need to prevent jailbreaking in order to maintain this. The people jailbreaking their phones aren't in the majority who bought the phone for the slick and stylish integration. They're a harmless minority, and Apple should be grateful for the extra revenue that a little bit of hacking has brought in.
Also, the part about being a risk to networks is nonsense.
Because it being illegal will stop those intent on using their phones for nefarious purposes FROM JAILBREAKING THEIR iPHONES? Sorta like how traffic laws will prevent robbers from double parking while pulling a bank heist (double parking the vehicle can speed the getaway!!).
The ability to make anonymous phone calls shouldn't be seen as such an evil.
If jailbroken iPhones can hurt cell towers, then it's already too late, because there are already jailbroken iPhones. So how does making jailbreaks illegal help this problem? It doesn't.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Wow are they full of crap. Or the iphone is crappy designed.
I se a GSM open module every day....
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=478
I use this thing and I have full access to all it's parts except for the sourcecode to the phone/modem.
If the iphone does not have one of these phone chipsets in it like the other 99.9987% of the cellphones on the planet, then they made a really crappy phone.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Most people jailbreak to access all of the apps that Apple refuses to make available via the App Store. Being able to unlock the phone is just a nice side effect of the process.
Ok people, the expression is:
If [performing some action] is outlawed,
Only outlaws will [result of performing previous action].
In the case of cracking iPhones:
If cracking iPhones is outlawed,
only outlaws will own cracked iPhones.
The inversion of order of the action and outlaw[ed][s] is the whole point of the expression. Please try to get this right. Thank you, that is all.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
ATT and the old bell system made the argument that phones they didn't make (and rent/lease to subscribers) would harm the network. It took the carterphone decision to make THAT lie go away
What a bunkerload of crap. it's either the IPhone OS that allows that because of a flaw, or just plain FUD (my friend Occam tells me his razor points to the second option). In both cases, why can't we do it with other phones that aren't IPhones? Huuuumm??
Apple doesn't learn. This very same strategy is what gave Microsoft such a big opening in the 80s. If Apple sticks to the closed system approach they will have higher price points in the short term, but long term will lose out to more open platforms like Android where the incentives for a more diverse network of partners will be greater. In the early 80s Apple outsold IBM and everybody else in PCs. They took their Apple II win and moved up-market with the Mac. Sure the technology and user experience were radically better than the competition, but they further closed down the platform to partners and end users. Pretty quickly the open platform, multi-vendor combination promoted by IBM, Microsoft, and Intel won the day - even though it didn't work as well.
If a few rouge iPhones are capable of messing up the cellphone network, then isn't that a general problem with the network rather than if the user has access to all the settings of the device? I mean, build a few phone-like devices in your garage, set them all to go off at a certain time, then drive around and drop the "bombs" near different towers. Why is the iPhone anything special?
Car companies announced today if people are allowed to work on their own cars and then buy gasoline from the wrong filling station, the gas station will explode.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I asked the DC Metro chief about open sourcing their control system code or even just publishing the control data on something like data.gov so that folks could write cool apps (iphone/Andriod/Blackberry/Pre/Web2.0) to encourage riding and make the system safer. He said no because that would allow people to hack into the system's. Instead, they are working with an unnamed "vendor". This is the same excuse a lot of folks (even Darl) gives when wanting to keep things closed.
--- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
If I had the points, I'd do it myself.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
They already have access to jailbreaked phones. If they are going to do something this nefarious intentionally, they aren't going to care if hacking iphones is illegal.
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius
I can't believe how many people here won't take Apple at their word. They're only looking out for your best interests. And anyway, with a bad attitude like that how do you expect to be allowed to buy the new improved iPhone? You don't want to miss out.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
You trust apple to read every single line of the applications? That's funny. Also this is completely irrelevant to jailbreaking. Apple could very well be certifying applications and sell them through their store with jailbreaking, and you could still be buying and using them from only if you're a scaredy cat. Obviously you'd be liable for damage caused to your info&phone by non certified application, but that's not a problem.
now that I know this...I'm interested >,
Most properly engineered cellphones have TWO processors, one holds the GSM stack and radio control, and really, *REALLY* looks like an over-smart, over-engineered modem with standard "AT" commands.
The second processor is more powerful, and the entire UI goes there. It talks to the baseband GSM stack over stuff that looks like serial links. And it is this second processor that you are jailbreaking.
If Apple allows anyone to mess with the GSM stack, then they have screwed up, plain and simple. It also menas the iPhone is a piece of shit security-wise. Which wouldn't suprise me any, but still... I very MUCH doubt Apple has bought or written a GSM (or CDMA, UMTS, HSDPA, etc) stack, they probably licensed one (if not the entire cell radio module), so it should be running on its own processor alright... which BTW is usually an ARM5 core inside a GSM/UMTS/whatever SoC module.
In other words, Apple is probably lying, and there is *NO* risk to any cell network on jailbraking the main (GUI) processor.
Just cut to the chase and release the right press release ...
"We are the Apple, open your wallets and surrender your monies. We will add you Dollars and Cents to our own. Your cash will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
(yeah, its old, but I'm just saying what everyone's thinking)
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss
You only agree because you are ignorant of how cell tower operate.
Educate yourself.
as far as QA goes, Apple is more then welcome to void the warranty on phones that have been jailbreaked.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If they know that their device is so dangerous and they are still selling it.
You want to crash a cell tower and bring down the national communications grid?
There's an app for that.
This all sounds like a scam by Apple to prevent users from jailbreaking their devices, I mean it just coincidentally comes out the same time the Copyright Office is considering this request.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Is the problem with any cellphone that allows you to install your own software or are jail broken iPhones the only potential terrorist threat? This could be really dumb for Apple, you know equating their own product to anthrax and missing nukes. It certainly didn't work for BioTerror Coke.
"or use the Exclusive Chip Identification number to make calls anonymously"
omfg, the horror!
A cellular base station (BTS) is designed to react gracefully under extreme loads. I was the company technical authority on this area for a major network equipment provider. For example, on the stroke of new year, everyone tries to call or SMS each other. This is effectively a global DDoS on the entire network. Manufacturers build their equipment to cope, and operators plan their neworks taking such events into consideration.
The closest I can envisage to a DoS attack on a cellular system would be a RACH DoS attack, where the phone makes repeated connection attempts on the RACH channel. However, all cellular BTSs are designed to degrade gracefully under an extremely high load. The BTS can either grant a RACH request, or deny it. If it denies it, it can state a back-off period. I would be extremely surprised if a baseband processor were not to implement this back-off period in hardware.
I have a cracked iPhone, although using the GPS was what probably did it. iPhone, now available in charred black.
Then in this case the service provider should use some of their monies to maintain the cell tower. The end.
Play the fear card whenever you want your political way...
By jailbreaking my iPod Touch, I can crash cell towers?
Cool!
and hahahahahaha!
Maybe if people put their jailbroken phones in trebuchets and fire them at cell towers...
They're not really playing to the ignorance of their base, as it's not their base that they're trying to convince. They're trying to convince the Copyright Office, which is almost as bad because they cannot be reasonably expected to understand the intricacies of cellular network technology. That burden lies with the network operators and the FCC. As for the question of whether jailbreaking is good policy from a copyright perspective, the Copyright Office shouldn't care much about potential network problems.
Now from a technical perspective: AT&T is a GSM/EDGE/UTMS network. If the iPhone is supposed to work on their network, it conforms to those international, well-vetted standards. (An part of those standards is the use of a SIM card specifically so a user can separate the handset from the network.) There shouldn't be anything that an iPhone can do on their network that any other cell modem couldn't do. TFA isn't coming up for me, so I'm not sure what Apple's specific claims are, but I have a hard time imagining that AT&T gave them some unique, magic software key to a very well-defined tower structure.
One company gouging you is a thief. It takes two to make for a price fixing conspiracy. thus AntiTrust, thus the Sherman Act.
That's why the FCC is up in arms about the whole ordeal.
It's time to shoot the torp that blasts their little battle station out of the sky.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
I would say that it's not the closed business model but the user experience that makes them a success. The user interface is actually not bad for inexperienced users but the limitations on the software and telecom operators that may be selected is what causes the jailbreaking.
If people were free to select operator and software then the jailbreaking would never occur. As it is there are people (me included) that avoids the Apple phones since they have those limitations.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
How has Apple's business model lead to success? Their "tight control" on the UI would be exactly the same for most users. The ones who want it different in the first place would still want it different. No change. The only difference would be that people with other carriers would be able to use the phone. You even say as much but still agree their closed business model lead to its success? I am in no way an Apple fan, but I think their snazzy UI and decent hardware lead to its success which would have been exactly the same if it were open.
-SaNo
this is the wtf of the yr. a couple of yrs back it was the RFID thing. i would even trust MS. not apple. never. i love my mac mini. but i hate the iphone. those who do illegal things will not need access through legal means anyway. so, this means to endorse the 'fact' that android was better designed???!! wtf!! there have been smartphones for eons now. get lost apple. hurray to EFF. apple tries to always do things by their engineering ... like blocking itunes to palm pre ... if they fail, they involve the lawyers.... well, nice joke though.
As always, they're playing upon the ignorance of their userbase. I give it, say, 35 minutes before someone here posts why Apple is full of balderdash for saying this. I give it 5 minutes before some iTard rushes to their defense.
Well, this is not exactly a technical explanation, but here we go... I live in Vietnam, where basically you can buy the latest and greatest of any brand (I own a HTC Touch HD), but the majority of cellphones are local brands (for example Bavapen) or clones of popular phones (mostly blackberries). I've just read a report on how they are done. Basically parts are imported from China, and assembled in mom & pop shops (Bavapen is a major brand, but you have dozens of smaller brands), loaded with whatever baseband processor software is available.
Now the thing is, it's incredibly easy to set up shop and assemble your own phones. This part of the market seems to be completely unregulated. And yet, in this 85+ million market I never heard anything about dangers to cell towers. We have basically 3 major and 5-6 minor carriers, 99,99% of all phones are not locked to any of these, and a good chunk of the phones are loaded with software from who knows what sources. I would assume that the situation is very similar in the rest of SE Asia and China.
Now I know this is not proof in itself, and I don't know for sure about the rest of Asia, but it is safe to assume that we have hundreds of millions of phones on the market with hundreds of different baseband processor software coming from shady sources, yet to my knowledge, there hasn't been in single attack on cell towers via software loaded on the phones themselves. And although this region is relatively stable, cyberattacks, just like elsewhere, are pretty common. I believe that if this could be done, it would have been done or tried already.
Your argument is irrelevant to the story. Also fairly uninformed:
I don't trust that the iPhone OS is secure enough to allow this.
The iPhone OS is a scaled-down OS X, built on a solid BSD foundation. If you're really going to argue this, then Apple should retain that same tight control over OS X apps, right? Because OS X can't be trusted to keep your Macbook secure?
And that assumes this is correct:
This QA that Apple provides is of great value.
Apple accepts and rejects apps pretty much arbitrarily -- and not just for security reasons. They reject apps that might compete with something they're doing, they reject apps that use an API in a way they don't like, they reject apps that just don't look pretty enough in the right ways. And if you re-submit your rejected app, maybe change a single line of code, there's a fair chance you'll get accepted.
The QA that apple provides is little better than random -- console manufacturers do a much better job, and even they occasionally let through some bug that will wipe a memory card. And even if it was useful, why would it be more useful for a phone than a laptop?
But let's pretend that is a relevant argument. In that case, how would opening up the platform harm you in any way? The App Store would still be the most popular way of distributing apps, and you could still choose to only trust Apple-vetted App Store apps. The fact that the rest of us could just download an app with the built-in Safari wouldn't make you any less secure.
Indeed, this is exactly how Android works. There's an official Android app store, but you're allowed to install apps through whatever channel you like. Other platforms (Windows Mobile) have been open for years (decades?) without significant problems -- to bring this back on topic, Win Mobile being open hasn't brought cell towers down.
Here's what I think: You've got an iPhone, and you're trying to justify it to yourself. Maybe you even have Stockholm Syndrome. But I can't see any sane argument why a manufacturer should prevent me from installing software "for my own good".
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
While you are correct, in the PARTICULAR case of the iphone, most of the "jailbreaking" has gone hand-in-hand with modifying the cellular baseband to carrier-unlock the phone. The same software pretty much always does both (jailbreak and carrier unlock)!
Nothing like throwing the word terrorist around to get your way; sounds like a bunch of bullshit from Apple. I love how now everyone like to use the 911 attack as the foundation of their argument and scare up a shit storm just to get stupid ass regulation set in place.
The only people who care whether a particular action is legal or not are the people who (generally) follow the law. If someone's prone to ignore the law they're prone to ignore the law. If someone's prone to follow the law they're prone to follow the law.
Changing the legality of owning a cracked iPhone doesn't change the legality of crashing a cell tower.
what i do with(/to) my phone is my own business. as long as I don't come to you for warranty issues, stfu. it clearly means that apple never thought it could be used for purposes other than calling?! God I have seen dumb people. this just tops it if they are to be believed.
Apple is trying to grand stand their argument to avoid being asked serious questions. The big one I want to know about this decision is do I own my phone or is there a legally supported TOS that I must follow to use a device I purchased. In other words do I own the phone out right or am I leasing it and Apple can seek legal recourse for perceived damages to the device. I don't like the connotations of what Apple is suggesting. I think it could have far reaching consequences that are extremely undesirable for consumers.
The network argument was core to protecting the old Ma Bell (former/real AT&T) for many years. They used the same argument that unapproved equipment could damage the network. Now the new AT&T (and Apple) is trying the same argument about "danger" to infrastructure. Although there many have been some technical reasons for both arguments, it's really about profit.
I hope the software/hardware on the towers and switching systems is robust enough to handle rouge events. Even if there aren't jail broken phones, a motivated hacker (with some significant RF engineering background) could whip up a device that could crash the network. THe argument for closed devices is all about profit.
If Apple didn't have its hoop-jumping content-based approval process, and just approved apps based on technical safety, then there wouldn't be any need for people to hack their devices and consequently install unsecure, potentially dangerous software.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
This is IDIOTIC. How can any reasonable person possibly buy this argument.
Anyone that wants to bring down a cell phone tower or cell network IS NOT GOING TO CARE whether or not it's LEGAL to screw with the cell radio baseband software. They are ALREADY attempting to do something much worse.
Let's be honest here, the "security" aspect of this argument is a smokescreen. It's blatantly all about the profit!
Furthermore, the cellular network should NOT be so fragile that a single rogue cell phone could take it down (AFAIK it is not). BUT if AT&T is truly insistent on making this argument, then I believe a full investigation by the FCC is mandated. The self-admitted fragile state of their network means that their stewardship of a public resource (radio spectrum) is being poorly managed and truly endangering national security.
Stupid rant of ignorant bulshit Ive ever heard since the release of Office SP3 with "oo.o" "support" that doesn't support crap.
Ok... if im a big bad hacker, you assholes, Id go through a couple of perfectly legal sites where I can make my own mini-netbook with an array of 3g chipsets and some real power and antena (not the little shit that the iphone is in that department) and perfectly fuck up the network using that, not a 400 usd piece of crap that is very nice for me as a bussiness person (im an iPhone user), but as a cracker, that shit is worthless with or without jailbreaking.
What they are saying, essencially, is that the telcos have their head up their butt and never actually learned anything from the first cracks of the 80's and 70's against Unix switches.
One wouldve thought they learned to not trust by default or use security through obscurity. If they havent, and still charge the rates they do, then it serves them well to be fubared by pimply girls with pink iphones.
NO SIG
If a single cell phone using hacked firmware can crash a cell tower, then the tower needs fixed.
This is nothing more than an attempt by Apple to retain control of and thus be able to profit more from their product to the detriment of their customers.
Question everything
Having worked with cell switches in the past, I have 2 words for Apple. BULL SHIT!!!
WinMo phones have been open to app developers for years, I don't see them crashing cell towers.
Similarly, people have been "cooking" custom OS image ROMs for WinMo phones for years, and I haven't heard of them crashing cell towers either.
So either the iPhone has no way of crashing cell towers if arbitrary applications are run on it, or it has a severely deficient hardware/software architecture compared to Windows Mobile in terms of security.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
No need for a phone at all....
Just because you cant "build a cell phone as good as the iphone" does not mean you are forced to be happy with / about it.... And AFAIK there were smartphones long before the iphone came out..........
If a law can't fix something, then a tax will pick up the slack. All problems solved.
You are a terrorist if you don't believe.
Their argument will not protect you from malware or attacks on the infrastructure. Take the recent SMS vulnerability as an example. Your phone is vulnerable right now; no jailbreaking required.
Keep in mind that if someone actually launched an attack using that SMS vulnerability, it is already illegal to do so. Additional laws will not help you here.
Additional research by Apple Labs has shown that unlocked iPhones cause erectile dysfunction, global warming, birth defects, and leprosy. Protect yourself by purchasing a new, locked iPhone with a five year contract extension. It's the only way to be safe.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
The someone writing Cell Tower Software needs to be fired.
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
This is a total load of crap. There is no difference between the iphone and any other smartphone as far as this capability is concerned. Why would a malicious person buy a $500 phone (and provide a credit card number) to do the same thing on one you can buy anonymously on ebay or any pawn shop for $20?
Apple is partially correct: If a malicious user has access to the basebase of the radio in the phone, they can use it to jam cellular signals. Anything that is radio communications based is susceptible to radio interference - that is not a problem with the design of the wireless network, it's a vulnerability that all radio based networks have. That being said, a simple jammer with an amplifier (in theory) could jam a cell site/tower. As far as making free phone calls - i doubt it, unless they are cloning or something (I don't know enough about cellular protocols to properly comment on that front). I'm speaking about Layer-1 primarily here.
If someone wanted to attack a cellphone network why wouldnÂt they just use a windows mobile phone which you can access the baseband, load custom ROMs, and do super low level programming right out of the box. I mean I unlocked my windows mobile phone for $10 and about 20 minutes of my time, and I didnÂt have to do any quirky and unreliable hacks like unlocking through jailbreaking.
Besides all of this is pretty much moot as the Copyright Office has declared unlocking a phone not to be copyright infringement...so if someone were to get sued for jailbreaking they could easily just cite that judgement in thier motion to dismiss.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So Apple is claiming that hardware THEY may be able to bring down a cell phone tower. Well like it or not, until Apple stops their draconian software approval process people are going to jailbreak their phones and do whatever they want with them. Seems like the only solution is to stop selling iPhones, and brick all phones currently in use.
People have been able to run any code they like on Windows Mobile phones for years, and nobody seems to have taken down any cell towers yet. The actual process of communicating with the tower is handled by the embedded baseband processor, rather than the CPU than runs the main OS. I'm fairly sure it's largely FUD.
Well said! In other words, Apple defines greed.
But then, you can't argue with the fanbois. (Hence AC)
First, it's probably a crime to defraud the telcos. Second, anyone doing such a thing would be geographically traceable, making it risky.
Third, going forward, telephone makers need to divide their phones into two or maybe 3 stacks:
* A "hardware" stack, which controls the basic communications with the tower and is "network neutral. Breaking this would void the FCC license on the phone, making it illegal to use in America.
* A "contract" stack which enforces contracts. Breaking this would potentially open you up to civil suits for enabling breach of contract, but would not be a criminal offense. This is where the phone-lock-enforcement would live. It would govern things like carrier-lock and what software could be downloaded, and whether it itself could be overwritten, etc.
* An "everything else" stack that includes non-phone, non-contract-enforcement software.
Some vendors would choose to lock the entire phone. Others would allow approved applications to run in the "everything else" stack. Others would allow overwriting everything but the hardware stack. Others would allow overwriting everything, with a caution that the FCC license depends on that part of the stack remaining intact. Some like Apple may not "allow" it but smart people would figure out a way to overwrite it anyways. Some companies might even open-source their entire phone *coughandroidcough*.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
it's the same game broadcom plays with FCC "power requirements" for Wireless card drivers under Linux. Much like when "winmodems" hit the scene and could only operate with the manufactures spam-filled drivers.
The Phone function code COULD be a separate rom from the operating system firmware and the SIM account firmware, but then they couldn't lock the phone to a vendor or lock applications out. Bundle the pieces in one big executable and then they gain protection under "telecommunications" hacking laws and not just normal copyright. It's quite clever and judges aren't quite smart enough to grasp that it didn't USED to be done this way because that's work done by "highly trained" engineers.
This is APPLE. This is who they are as a company. It's who they have always been. It's ironic that their most famous television spot was the 1984 commercial because that is how they have run their business. They brag about their stability... How hard is it to be stable in a closed environment? They have always held near NAZI level control over their hardware and software.
By that argument providers shouldn't let iPhones on there network.
This sounds a lot like the 40-year-old Carterfone decision, where AT&T argued that allowing people to connect third-party devices to their network could disrupt or degrade service. I'm pretty sure that modems and Panasonic phones didn't ruin the telephone system, and I have a feeling that jailbroken iPhones wouldn't be the end of the world, either.
--Bruce
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
How come 'jailbreaking' cellphones is not a problen for Europe? There it is a legal right.
Jailbreaking your iPhone also kills babies! Are you animals!
The reason that I myself am willing to download and install an app onto my iPhone is because I am sure that Apple has done some QA on it, and that the author values their relationship with Apple and so would not likely risk it by embedding malware. This QA that Apple provides is of great value.
i could agree with you if apple's decision to reject an app was based solely on qa grounds. when it gets to the "we're rejecting this app because it competes with an app we're giving away free with the os anyway", or "we're rejecting this app because it uses too much wireless data" or any of the myriad other reasons given for app rejection which have nothing to do with app quality is where i have to object.
If you accept the fact that a jailbroken iPhone can take down cell towers, and that cell towers are important for national security, and that it is common practice to jailbrake iPhones, there is one logical conclusion.
iPhones have to be made illegal.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
The kind of "education" that Apple is promoting is not only a disservice to the cell phone industry, but is an irresponsible way to describe questionable practices to their own customers.
Let's think about the implications news like this would have should it have been discussed on somewhere like CNN. Most customers who know what jailbreaking is already understand that it is strictly unsupported by Apple, but scaring the public to thinking that this practice turns the iPhone into a terrorist weapon of sorts could be devastating.
Let's not even mention the fact that it's super DUPER hyped up, since A) Smartphones are inherently capable of unleashing incredible amounts of damage and chaos, B) Terrorists or most savvy criminals wouldn't find their tools on Cydia or the like and C) There are few historical examples of cell phones causing damage to cell phone towers or even other cell phones, and those that exist support this logic weakly at best.
Caveat: My understanding of "jailbreaking" is that this allows people to run applications not available in the app store. IE, applications that haven't been blessed by Apple. This is different from unlocking the phone, which allows you to change carriers.
Given that, what is the difference between an iPhone running arbitrary apps and any other smartphone doing the same thing? I'm trying to get my mind around this. Is Apple saying that the fact I could install some third party app on my Treo 750 back when I had it, or can on my Blackberry now, does *not* present a threat to cell towers, but installing a non-blessed 3rd party app on the iPhone does? If so, what makes the iPhone different?
Or is it that this is a danger with all smartphones, and Apple is trying to be responsible with the platform under their control? If so, why haven't we seen widespread reports of people crashing cell towers willy-nilly with some poisonous app running on a Curve?
By this notice, is Apple saying that they have done a thorough security analysis of each and every one of the 65,000 apps available on the app store, and is offering assurance that none of these apps have the ability, say some hidden easter egg, of bringing down a cell tower? Is Apple thereby assuming liability for any cell tower damage that might incur from an app available from the app store? Apple's statement "The technological protection measures were designed into the iPhone precisely to prevent these kinds of pernicious activities, and if granted, the jailbreaking exemption would open the door to them" seems to infer an assumption of liability for non-jailbroken phones. I wonder if Apple has thought through the legal ramifications of these statements.
And finally, is Apple saying that "a local or international hacker" intent on "initiat[ing] commands (such as a denial of service attack) that could crash the tower software, rendering the tower entirely inoperable to process calls or transmit data" would be stopped in his nefarious (and extremely illegal) deeds by the (mild, in comparison) legal prohibition against jailbreaking the phone?
Is that what Apple is saying? I just want to be clear on this.
Or, could the real issue be that Apple has in their contract with AT&T (as RIM does also, unfortunately) that certain capabilities will not be available through the app store that could be used to side-step carrier fees? Is it possible that this is the real issue, and the security issue is a rather weak smoke screen? Mind you, if that really is the case, then fine. It's their product, they can assume any position they want. But have the intellectual honesty to cop to it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Jail breaking iPhones is really evil, it threatens the phone system, like blue boxes.
And we know the folks who made Blue Boxes were terrorists, pure evil incarnate. They should have been sent to prison for life!
If you ban guns, then only criminals have guns. If you ban jailbreaking, the people who would be likely to hack a cell tower would jailbreak their iPhones anyways. I suspect that it's a rare class of person who would be deterred by a law against jailbreaking and not a law against hacking a cell tower. As others have mentioned, the solution here is to secure the tower, because people are going to attempt to hack it, with or without jailbroken iPhones.
I really wish that some posters here would resist the urge to be rude and grandstand in order to bully their point. I am not "misinformed" as you say (I am very familiar with BSD), and my comment is indeed relevant. If it were not, you would not have had so much to say about it. ;-)
But back to the discussion:
You appear to be confusing the issue of "jailbreaking" with the issue of having an open platform. I agree that an open platform is a good thing in theory; and I agree that Apple is acting in its own interests when it approves or disapproves apps. What I am saying is that I agree (reluctantly) with Apple's argument that hacking the system (the OS) in order to install apps puts the system - and the underlying infrastructure - at risk.
With regard to whether the iPhone should be open, yes, it should, ideally. But we have to realize that an open platform introduces risk. Windows is an open platform, and look at the disaster we have there. If OS X had the same market penetration that Windows has, I would expect that we would have a similar security debacle. Android is too new. Windows Mobile - I don't know enough about that platform to comment.
I looked at the G1 (Android) before getting an iPhone. I was very reluctant to give all of my personal data to Google. Given the disastrous breach at Network Solutions recently, I don't think it is unwise to be reluctant to want to keep one's data on one's own system.
The issues are really quite simple: (1) hacking (jailbreaking) the OS puts the system at risk, as well as any part of the infrastructure that trusts the system; and (2) a platform should not be open unless the platform is secure and supports the secure installation of insecure apps.
Rule #1, an increase in attack surface area will increase the likelihood of an attacker targeting said technology. If the software is, as YayaY stated, so fragile and providers don't shape up then we're all f'd big time.
Consideration #1, Wireshark has supported GSM stacks for a few years. Nokia has had unlocked phones for some time. gnuRadio allows for cellular communications development. Considering an unlocked iPhone isn't the only means to access cellular signaling information this probably would have happened already.
My vote, its a ploy to keep iPhone users locked in.
The idea that the security of cellphone towers is required to be protected by every single client that uses them is ridiculous. It's obvious to even non-technically minded people that such an approach is ass-backwards. What strikes me as most worrying out of this is Apple equating the need to jailbreak a phone with acts of cyber-terrorism. Jailbreak your phone, get a free oneway ticket to gitmo!
any user with Apple's iPhone SDK installed could use it to build hacking software.
You are right - I don't disagree. I am not saying they are fair. I am just saying that in addition to rejecting apps they don't want, they also (hopefully) reject apps that are a risk. That is the QA that has value. Of course, I don't know what they are actually doing behind the scenes....
If I'm going to crash a cell tower, it will be with something that goes boom, not a cell phone. And the crash you hear will be the tower toppling to the ground. Let me know if a reboot fixes that!
... I can say this is utter crap. Partially.
Any true (13 year old) hacker can do this will the iPhone, Pre, and probably the Android based phones. Same with a Linux laptop using a 3G data card.
At the wireless provider server level, we're working on hardening the security, but it does take time. We know there are vulnerabilities. Unfortunately it may just take a crash for Sr. Management to fund us properly.
I work for a wireless provider in Ontario that has a red logo. ;-)
I know the Blue team also has the same issues with the Pre and Androids; however, they do not have the iPhone.
Android's open source, people have root access, they can flash new ROMs any time, and you don't see cell towers bursting into flames from this. Apple's just spreading FUD. That horse has already left the barn, and Apple is left holding the door.
Its not enough that they are making a gazillion dollars with their iphone, but now they want to ensure they make more.
Anyone that has tried to get contracts to sell the iphones know its next to impossible to sell an iphone unless you have jumper through hoops, even then it is only to very few within a certain radius....etc.
So people have been buying them, cracking them then letting people add what they want to them, however they are not really supposed to hop back unto any big cell phones network. There might be a few that could allow it, but I believe it is apple's strong recommendation not to allow any iphone unto your network unless they have bought it from you.
All in all, they are being whiners about this, when most people breaking phones could hack those cell towers any which way from sunday, this is not their goals, but to add more functionality which is now a 2 month wait for any new apps coming into the market.
If this is true, EVERYONE should run screaming to apple, AT&T and their local government officials about how Apple has identified a large security hole in our cellular infrastructure!
Since iPhones (and other phones) ARE jailbreakable, this implies that a few terrorists with phones and cars could take down our countries cellular infrastructure. NOT GOOD.
They need to legalize jailbreaking IMMEDIATELY so that we are able to used the increased attention to force them to fix their faulty cellular infrastructure before it's too late.
I'd rather have some kind hacking their iPhone accidentally bring down a cell tower and get a bug pointed out now than have 10 terrorists bring half the nations communication ability to its knees in a few months!
How rude, to describe me as "ignorant". I am not ignorant: I have degrees in two branches of engineering, have studied EE extensively (both analog and digital signal processing, and have written microcode silicon compilers), and am quite familiar with many branches of telecommunications, although I admit that cell networks are not an area I know in depth. I have also written a book on application security. Please don't call me ignorant: it is very trailer-parkish to do so.
Back to the discussion:
The fundamental security issue is: If the infrastructure trusts the platform, and the platform is compromised, then the infrastructure can be compromised. It is possible (I defer to you on this, since you are a professed expert on cell networks) that the cell network does not trust the parts of the handset that are accessible to the handset OS - that is, that the interactions are in firmware or on another chip. But, I will point out that it is not only the cell tower that is at risk. A handset app can communicate with other users across the network, using the network as a mere conduit, without compromising the network. Imagine a bot herd of a hundred million cellphones....
If Apple has built a secure system to protect against this, then there is nothing to worry about; but I am not so sure that is the case.
Except AT&T and the iPhone are GSM not CDMA.
The original iPhone supports GSM, considered a 2G standard. The iPhone 3G supports GSM and a 3G standard called UMTS, which is designed to be used alongside GSM networks. UMTS uses a CDMA air interface.
How come 'jailbreaking' cellphones is not a problen for Europe?
Path dependence.
Apple has also invoked the threat of empowering 'drug dealers' in its skree vs. jailbreaking, thereby insinuating a tacit connection between the practice of jailbreaking and the trafficking of narcotics:
"With access to the BBP via jailbreaking, hackers may be able to change the ECID, which in turn can enable phone calls to be made anonymously (this would be desirable to drug dealers, for example) or charges for the calls to be avoided," Apple said.
Steve Jobs is full of suck. It's way easier to completely TAKE OUT a cell phone tower via physical assault with a super soaker full of chlorine bleach than a cracked iShit.
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
First off, the argument of a jailbroken iPhone causing damage to cell towers is a red herring. Given that most iPhone jailbreakers are likely subscribers of Apple's preferred providers, a fairly small proportion of them ever even touch the baseband. The Copyright Office could easily make a decision that states the OS of the iPhone is fair game while leaving the baseband off-limits. To use a baseband argument to pitch out the entire jailbreak issue does not follow valid logic. Furthermore, it's not hard to imagine that any hacker capable of doing damage with a jailbroken iPhone would also have the ability to create a custom platform capable of said damage. In today's world of software radios, published standards, et cetera, one hardly needs an Apple product to generate malevolent radio signals.
Secondly, it's possible that the decision has already been made. Oftentimes, arguments like this (especially ridiculous ones like the one in question) are merely 'cover' for government officials to make publicly-unpopular decisions. I'm not saying that's necessarily what's going on here, but it is certainly possible. The major evidence in favor of this, and the thing that made me think of the possibility at all, is the 'leading' nature of the questions provided to Apple from the Copyright Office. For example:
Now, I'm not a paid copyright expert but even *I* can spend 15 minutes with Apple's EULA and find out the answers to these questions. I also refuse to believe that, as incapable as the Copyright Office seems to be sometimes, they didn't know the answers to these questions before they asked them. Where instead are questions that frame the issue in terms of Fair Use? Apple did handily take advantage of Question 1 to dispute Fair Use, since it's always easier to frame such answers without the context of a question specifically probing said topic.
The above is obviously fairly speculative, and I fully disclaim any idea that it's not. However, even if the decision hasn't been made I believe that we may have an idea which way they're leaning.
Its only the minority because it is still a legally gray area.
If Apple, or a Judge, were to officially say that jailbreaking is okay, you could see businesses being build around it, making it more accessible, and potentially offering many alternatives features that would appeal to many.
These claims are smoke and mirrors that pray on those who dont know better. It is ridiculous to rely on cell phones to secure radio towers. One way or another, they will find a way to damage an unsecured radio tower. Furthermore, the only reason Apple and its closed platform was successful is that maybe the pro corporate media helped them hype it up, perhaps because it was a closed platform and the corporate elites, including the media, would rather see a closed platform than an open platform since it fits into their orwellian elitest vision better.
If Apple had opened the platform, they would have probably been ignored by the corporate media, as Linux is.
From their statement: "each iPhone contains a unique Exclusive Chip Identification (ECID) number that identifies the phone to the cell tower. With access to the BBP via jailbreaking, hackers may be able to change the ECID, which in turn can enable phone calls to be made anonymously (this would be desirable to drug dealers, for example) or charges for the calls to be avoided. If changing the ECID results in multiple phones having the same ECID being connected to a given tower simultaneously, the tower software might react in an unknown manner, including possibly kicking those phones off the network, making their users unable to make phone calls or send/receive data. By hacking the BBP software through a jailbroken phone"
I don't know who came up with this, but it is false on so many levels. The ECID is an Apple proprietary number that is used by Apple's servers to identify the phone and firmware. The tower couldn't care less about it. The tower uses the information on the SIM card that identifies a particular subscriber, and to a lesser extent, the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity). If you alter the SIM information, authentication will fail and you will be unable to make or recieve calls. If you alter the IMEI, you may be able to pretend you're using a different phone, but you'll still be identified as the same subscriber. This is not even the least bit of anonymity. If two subscribers claim to have the same IMEI, it shouldn't really confuse the system much, because it is only used by a module called the EIR (Equipment Identity Register) which is used to blacklist phones. The idea being if you tell the cell phone company that your phone was stolen, they can render it so the phone will never again work on their network, even if the thief puts in a new SIM card. So all the EIR should do is, "Is this equipment alright by me? if yes, go right ahead."
Having a separate baseband processor is a modern 'innovation' and is generally only used by smaller or less experienced smartphone manufacturers who cannot afford to spend the development effort coming up with a proper single-chip solution; the big players would not be willing to use a second processor, as this drives up the bill of materials cost
How? There's no reason that a core for the application processor and a core for the modem processor can't be put on the same die. Nintendo managed it on the DS and DSi. Or the modem processor could be put on the die with the graphics, like in the Wii.
But then so is the article.
What it should say is "iPhone Jailbreaking Could Hurt Providers' Profits".
As numerous posters have pointed out, most GSM handsets are not tied to a particular provider (which is one of the key points behind having a SIM card in the first place). Network armageddon hasn't happened yet.
The providers want this perception to spread though, because it helps them keep their precious lock-in (and allows them to exclude their competitors from getting a slice of the iPhone pie). If they can get some laws written to cement the lock-in, so much the better.
But why would Apple help perpetuate this? My guess is because they needed a provider's help to get the phone off the ground, so this is their end of the bargain. The current arrangement has allowed them to sell millions of handsets and tens of millions of apps, so they have no particular need to encourage competition -- the current model is working out just fine for them.
As a consumer, I'd obviously rather avoid the multi-year contracts and being tied to one provider. It's a large part of the reason I don't have an iPhone. Maybe one of the Android handset makers will eventually get this right.
Isn't this the company that was founded by two guys into phreaking?
By the same reasoning, terrorism and mass murder are already illegal. Therefore, we do not need additional legislation banning civilian sales of nuclear weapons.
Are you adequate?
Criminal A: Hey.. let's crash that cell phone tower!
Criminal B: YEA! I love evil plans. Let's DO IT!
Criminal A: How can we do it?
Criminal B: I Know... with this jail-broke phone!
Criminal A: But that would be illegal.
Criminal B: Rats. Foiled again.
Out right lying about the implications of both, jailbraking messing up with baseband, and open devices roaming the network.
The networks are fine, much better than OS X, the old WinMO platform also has been mentioned.
This is just pure bull shit.
What is the spin Apple fans are going to put now? Isn't it clear enough that Apple is an enemy of consumer rights let alone open standards?
But... the future refused to change.
not only that, but i seem to recall steve jobs and woz use to play with blue boxes back in the 80s.
Funny enough woz uses a jailbroken iPhone. check his website.
As for steve, what kind of a hipocritical dick has he turned into?
red and blue boxing were far more dangerous to ATT's sense of entitlement to large profits than jailbreaking is.
I'm AC because I am an app developer and rather enjoy having apps in the app store.
In examinations of the code that runs the towers, it has been found that as long as jailbreaking remains illegal, the cell towers will continue to function properly.
#if IPHONE_JAILBREAK_LEGAL
crash_system(HARDDISK|TRANSCEIVER|WITH_FIRE);
#else
if (rand()%3490) {
drop_call();
set_customer_accidental_overcharge_multiplier(2.5);
}
#endif
It would be like saying that allowing PC/Mac programmers to use the IP sockets API will let them crash their local router.
The IP sockets API is at layer 3 (network). Phone subsidy locks operate at layer 2 (data link, including authentication) and possibly layer 1 (physical, including power and frequency band). Screwing with the layer 1 interface has the possibility of screwing other customers with noise that their devices cannot reject. Wired Ethernet signals, on the other hand, travel over a waveguide called a "twisted pair" that limits the potential for signals to leak in and out.
If the radios in the phones pass FCC test for the 3g or gsm standard then they emit radiation in the proper way.
If there not protecting the backend of the receiver from malicious attacks thats their problem and wouldnt be limited to the iphone.
So what you're saying is that Apple should create two versions: the Strict, "Safe" version; and the Open, "Dangerous -- Use at your own risk" version. They would get the crowd that wants to use the iPhone because of its sleek design, and they would get those who want to use the iPhone for its power and features. In their current business model, the people in the latter group are just going out and buying WinMos, Androids, and Palms..
Theres a nice little article over at the 360 blog here listing exactly what mobile operators frequently get wrong with their security architecture and execution. Once wonders if they understand the basics!
As an I-Phone user with a jailbroken 3GS and a network admin, I can say that AT&T's claims are FUD. If there is a problem with cell phone tower security, it's a cell phone tower problem.. Why did I jailbreak my cell phone? Do I have dozens of apps (from the store) I didn't purchase? Nope... Am I trying to hack a cell phone tower? Nope... I didn't it primarily because I can't hear the really quite "new e-mail" tone when there is the least bit of background noice (a fan running, someone talking in the same room, etc). Since Apple didn't provide a method for changing the tone, but jailbreaking did. Jailbreaking also allows me to purchase apps that Apple isn't allowing in their store (findmyi.org and now the GV Mobile app) just to name a couple.
The iPhone is one more example of a successful monoculture. History has shown that these attract infection. And so we have Dutch Elm disease, HIV/AIDS, whatever is causing honeybee colonies to collapse, and WinDoze hAck0rz. So, Apple, good luck keeping the condom on your thingy.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
I'm currently running a baseband firmware version that was not approved by T-Mobile on my ADP1. I got it directly from HTC and flashed it onto the phone. Its been there for a couple of months and I'm pretty sure I haven't crashed any towers.
Note that the facts below assume Apple's statements to be 100% true:
Fact 1, iPhones can be jailbroken. Fact 2, many people have done so, legal or not. Fact 3, The terrorists are already committed to commit criminal acts and so won't let a law against hacking their own cellphone stop them. Fact 4, a jailbroken phone endangers the entire telecommunications infrastructure of the United States. Fact 5, Apple released a phone into the wild that can be jailbroken. Fact 6, Apple is aware of this.
Conclusion 1, Apple knowingly and willfully endangered the entire telecommunications infrastructure of the United States! Conclusion 2, Apple is a manufacturer of tools for terrorists.
OR, perhaps it's not quite as bad as Apple claims and they are currently attempting to subvert the laws of a democratic government for their own gain. By spreading fear of not complying with their request. Hey, wait, that's terrorism!
Indeed in the UK every street corner has a shop that unlocks phones.. especially iphones that can't be simply unlocked by phoning the carrier.
(my favourite one is the one directly opposite Carphone Whorehouse that targets new iphone owners.. as they leave the shop they see an ad 'just bought an iphone? Get it unlocked here').
The majority still don't though, even though it's so freely available.
Pay Apple the hundred bucks they charge for developer access to your iPhone. Download the sources for the "illegal" software you wish to run on your phone. Build the software using the iPhone developer tools, install it and voila -- you're legally running the "illegal" software.
All this is a way of asking: why hasn't anyone hacked the developer-access PIN?
This would save the hackers a hundred bucks.
Apple is partially right. Their closed business model has lead to the success of the iPhone. (Happy now?)
Only time can answer exactly what lead to the success. It wouldn't be logical to claim that because the iPhone has been a success so far, every aspect of how they managed it is responsible for that success. My theory is that the iPhone has been a success because it's the first smart phone that didn't suck. The closed model came for the ride. It's also my theory that the closed model will eventually lead to the downfall of the iPhone, as closed models have historically done to other platforms. I don't know what website would be the best place to find rabid Apple fanboys, but at least on Macrumors the reaction to the news of Apple pulling GV Mobile and blocking Google's official app has been negative at a level rarely seen. The natives are restless.
I have a Tracfone (which works without issue). When I 'turned on' the service via the web, there was a link to register without giving any name, address, or ANY other info. [They did ask for a zip code so you can 7-digit dial in that area, but if you're willing to 10-digit dial, you could use any random zip.] Periodically, I go to Wal-Mart and buy a refill card with cash and type the digits into the phone.
So explain again how I'm not anonymous to the tower? Where is it finding my name exactly?
BTW, one nice side effect: my average monthly cost since Feb08 has been less than $8. Who else has such a cheap plan?
Using National Security and Terrorism to scare the copyright office.
This is like saying we should ban all computers becuse someone can use them to hack anything.
Or just get rid of all the cars becuse some people drive drunk.
If you ban jailbreaking, only criminals will jailbreak.
you are not following Apple's logic here. What they want to prevent is an everyday iphone user crashing a cell tower for various reasons -
- you had a fight with your parents, you are pissed, so you decide to crash the cell tower, that'll teach them!
- you forgot to call your gf/wife, so you crash the cell tower, and blame it on the tower.
- you are tired of your kidsbeing on the cellphone all the time, so you crash the cell tower.
*this is assuming there'll be a "Crash tha tower!" app available soon.
You've finally done it.
I've been a user of your hardware and software for a short time now (about two years), and have thoroughly enjoyed every moment of it. You have made sure to be on the cutting edge (of fashion, if nothing else), one step ahead of the curve, as it were. But these latest shenanigans...I don't know.
Beating the war-drum of terrorism (cyber or otherwise) to further your own business agenda? That's so 2008. Kudos for acknowledging that governments are afraid of the T word, and will basically give you anything you want just to avoid having to deal with it, but really- you're not the first to acknowledge this. Just one of the very few sleazy enough to capitalize on it.
However, should your claims be true - which I find doubtful - you should be held accountable for releasing such a dangerous device into the wild. Many harmless chemicals are illegal to sell, as they could be combined to create very lethal substances by someone with the proper motivation and knowledge. Many types of weapons are illegal to sell, as they can be used to kill a large number of people in a relatively short period of time - again, with the proper motivation. If you are claiming to sell a device that has the capability to cripple the nation's cellular network (and you really must be the only one selling such a device, as so many other open platforms haven't caused this catastrophe you speak of), I call "Terrorist!" on you.
Really, Apple. Why do you hate America?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am certain making it illegal will stop the practice and have the desired outcome of protecting physical assets and network access from malicious people.
So what you're saying is that Apple should create two versions
No, what I'm saying is that they should ignore hacking. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth though.
In their current business model, the people in the latter group are just going out and buying WinMos, Androids
This is so untrue that it's laughable.
If they are saying they are locking the iPhones to prevent malicious activity from disabling cell towers shouldn't we also then ban drivers from operating vehicles that could be used to crash into towers to disable them?
This is also like saying we should outlaw breathing, since breating is helping terrorists to live long enough to terrorize.
Thankfully, this is only possible on an Iphone so I don't have to worry about armed gangs of angry hackers stealing my G1. Of course this is a publicity stunt by the likes of Apple... Cmon guys...
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
The thing Apple will not consider is the LEGAL jailbreak is what is under consideration. The people who would be Terrorists would not care if there was a DMCA exception to explicitly allow jailbreaking, just as there is an explicit exception to allow unlocking locked cell phones. The argument in the iPhone case is to take advantage of the current allowed exception that jailbreaking is implicit. And as such should be made clear and positive in the exceptions. I think if Apple is concerned about the corruption of the baseband firmware causing disruptions then they should just allow a easier path to unlock the phone. Personally I think that the FCC should disallow carrier locks that extend past the subscribers normal region. I'd happily pay AT&T the carrier subsidy (though it out be a rational amount, like 1 year not two, the actual cost of an iPhone over two years is outrageous when you compare a comparable Sprint, T-Mobile or even Verizon plan versus the AT&T plan for iPhone. Or even other AT&T plans!). But, When I travel overseas outside the range of the deathstar I use alternate SIMs from local carriers. Hmmm... less than 3 cents a minute using a local SIM card picked up at a phone shop overseas versus $3 to $5 depending on where I am for AT&T roaming. Not a hard choice. I think I'll jailbreak and unlock my phone. AT&T was not always this way (well Cingular at least) My trendy new RAZR fresh to the marketplace was factory unlocked. My friends Nokia was unlocked by a simple request and saying they'd be traveling overseas. They volunteered to unlock my "backup" Nokia E61 when I went looking for a new adapter for the "pop port" and some advice on data usage plans when roaming (mentioned trip to Ukraine, etc. very nice and knowledgeable staffer). Under the deathstar they are not nearly so accommodating to their customers. But. Apple holds the cards. They can change the game if they want to. Apple should "just say no" to AT&T when the restrictions are unreasonable. For example almost all original iPhones sold are out of contract. Allow them to be automatically unlocked next iTunes sync 2 years after activation.
Apple also is not accurate when talking about the jailbreak. Unlock has more chance of disturbing the baseband operation. Jailbreak is a much simpler operation that overrides security checks for execution of signed code. So jailbreaks per se are not a threat to national security, er cell phone towers, only to Apple's APP store. Unlock in its current form on the 3GS is very benign. It as one very clever hacker put it, leaves no traces on the baseband when done.
The tighter Apple closes their market on the iPhone, the more hacks will slip through their grasp.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
The majority still don't though, even though it's so freely available.
I'm not sure the phone companies are even locking them any more, Someone I know bought a supposedly locked Nokia from T-Mobile, saw a better tarrif on O2 so bought the SIM and when he tried it in the phone it worked fine, no unlocking needed. I did the same thing with my phone when moving from O2 to 3 I got my number ported across. As this takes several days I put my old O2 SIM into my new 3 phone and didn't have a problem.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
AT&T did the same thing back in the day. They were all paranoid about people plugging anything into the PSTN that they didn't own (including home phones). The Hushaphone and Carterphone cases were prime examples of this.
Didn't Jobs and Woz get started in this business by hacking the phone system in the first place? I seem to recall something about blue boxes. :-)
My 3Gs is not jailbroken or unlocked but I had to jailbreak and unlock my 3G before I sold it as it was sold to someone on the Rogers network and that phone was bought at Fido. I would rather not have to risk using untested and forensically unverified just to be able to use foreign sims in my 3GS and I'd be willing to pay a fee to Fido to be able to unlock the device.
Carriers should give consumers a break but giving a legal/official option for unlocking phones especially if we bought it unsubsidized.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Carrier lock and "jailbreak" are two different things though.... Apple already sell carrier-unlocked iPhone in countries where it is not legal to lock the phone to a carrier (I think Belgium is one of them)
And although Jailbreak maybe used to remove the carrier lock, it is a lot more than that. The main goal is that it is used to run modified and untrusted code.
The thing is I dont see why they still need carrier lock, since we are effectively locked to the carrier with contract. With phone being upgraded faster than contract expire, I dont think the carrier lock is actually having much of an effect on customer retention.
If you read Apple's answer, you would see that the supposed threat of user breaking cell towers is only a very small part of the arguments.
The answer is actually pretty well worded (easy enough to read) and repeatedly set in the context of Copyright (and not focused on a regulatory, FCC perspective).
They are not saying that jailbreak should be forbidden because terrorist could use it, but that it should be forbidden because it could harm Apple's business (and as such can not be considered under Fair Use)
Second reaction : if it was really so dangerous so modify the baseband (assuming that the the GSM protocol is so badly designed that a bad behaving client can trash the network...), then Apple has a very simple solution at hand : stop doing SIM-locking. Nobody would then need to change the baseband software, which is not required for jailbreaking (only unlocking requires to change the baseband software).
Third reaction : Apple now has a semi-good reason to stop SIM-locking phone. When they do it:
From Apple's point of view, three good reasons to do it !
This is not an argument. Apple wouldn't be giving implicit permission to DDoS and exploit towers by allowing jail breaking. They don't own the towers.
You could do that now by illegally breaking the phone and exposing the software anyway. Regardless of whether or not jail breaking the phone is illegal, disrupting ATT's cell tower communication is illegal.
So what have they gained in this regard by not allowing jail breaking?
Using the phone to DDoS or exploit towers would still be illegal and "technically" it's already possible do it now.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
"This is so untrue that it's laughable."
What you call untrue is the reason I bought an ADP. Which is unlocked so I can use my own SIM, no need to root it and lastly cheaper than both an iphone or a g1.
By the same token, I propose that banning the act of jailbreaking an Iphone isn't sufficient. Following the logic of your nuclear weapon example, mere possession of an Iphone should be banned!
(Of course I don't really believe that - but it would serve Apple right. If they're going to fearmonger about Iphones being a terrorist threat in an underhand attempt to ban people from using phones they have bought, then I'd love to see the Government turn round and ban Apple from selling Iphones at all. In the meantime, I suggest using a phone that Just Works, and doesn't need jailbreaking.)
from what i understand there have been rejections of apps which crash spontaneously while running. and they do have a reputation of rejecting apps that use unpublished api's. how much deeper they go i don't know.
You appear to be arguing "Why I personally choose to use Apple's App store".
The argument that the rest of us are having is "Why should Apple stop people from downloading from non-Apple stores, if that user wants?"
That's reassuring. I would hope they would care about quality. But then again, I have an Apple TV, and it has to be restarted about once every two days or it can no longer connect to the Internet, starts running very slowly (memory leak???), and so on. A beautifully conceived but unreliable product - from Apple. My motto for the thing: It just doesn't work. ;-) But I use it because I won't run Windows as a media center because I expect it would be worse (since it's Windows underneath), and I don't have the time to fiddle with Linux unfortunately.
Apple's argument against "Why should Apple stop people from downloading from non-Apple stores, if that user wants?" is that it requires hacking the OS, and I have pointed out that doing so does in fact put the handset at risk (from installed malware), and that it is possible that a vulnerable handset could compromise the other users on the network if not the network itself. Knowing which of the latter scenarios applies requires an in-depth analysis of the security model of the iPhone and the network protocol. So I think I have been on point. From a philosophical point of view, I am in agreement that we should be allowed to install what we want on something that we own; but the unfortunate fact is that this stuff is just too unreliable and insecure. It's like allowing people to drive race cars on the highway. Anyone should be allowed to drive any car they want at any speed they want - but not on a public highway. The mobile networks are public highways. To put a device on one of these networks there should be a certification regime of some kind, to ensure that the other devices on the network and the network itself are protected from a rogue device. Apple's app system is a certification regime. It is proprietary and that is not good, but until we have a non-proprietary system to replace it, we should abide by it.
If they succeed in getting this through, does this mean I can cancel my contract because they changed the terms? I'm sure several thousand people canceling their accounts will tick AT&T off.
I'm not sure the phone companies are even locking them any more [...]
Here in the US, subsidy locking is still common practice.
However, at least with the big GSM operators - AT&T and T-Mobile - you can generally call them and request the codes needed to undo the subsidy lock. You just can't do it right after you get the phone, you need to wait a couple of months. I've done that with last 3 BlackBerrys I've had through AT&T. It takes more than a week sometimes, but you don't have to fight them to get it (except when you get an idiot customer service rep). They even e-mailed me instructions on exactly how to do it.
I have no idea how the big CDMA operators (Verizon, Sprint, etc) handle this.
Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
The tight control on the user experience is what maintains the appeal of the device.
They could maintain the quality of the software offered in the App Store without (completely) locking people out of installing non-App-Store software--people who want the Apple Quality User Experience(tm) could stick with App Store software, and people who wanted extra functionality could try alternatives. That would broaden their appeal without reducing the appeal among the existing base. Which pretty much contradicts the sentence above, although we do arrive at similar conclusions, eventually. :)
Heck, with Android, which is generally perceived as being so much more open, you still have to go through the settings to find the proper checkbox before you can install non-Marketplace apps. Joe Sixpack doesn't have the patience or interest to find and click that checkbox, let alone hunt down non-Marketplace apps, so in practical terms, Android-based phones are just as locked down as iPhones as far as the average user is concerned. But for someone like me, who won't consider a system that doesn't at least have that checkbox or some equivalent, Apple's not even an option.
I just cooked some delicious beef ravioli. The instructions clearly state "boil 5 minutes, or to your taste." I think if it were Apple brand ravioli, the ravioli would probably be toxic if I cooked it less than 5 minutes, and would completely disintegrate if I cooked it any longer. Also, the ravioli would be rendered completely inedible unless I cooked it in Apple brand cookware, ate off of an Apple brand plate, and used Apple brand silverware.
Of course, I would probably also need to use Apple brand toilet paper some time after that.
I guess I'll stick with this brand of ravioli, it seems to allow me more freedoms.
Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
Steve Jobs IS the Evil Genius on the card.
He's not better than Gates, he's just better at making his poison taste good. Apple products have been based heavily on buy-in and proprietary control. Once you've got an apple product, you are almost obligated to buy more apple products.
This is, of course, where you start to use a virtualised OS with a proven-secure hypervisor designed for exactly this job... Like OKL4.
Dave.
The FCC would not have given approval to phones like the FIC Neo OpenMoko phone.
I really wish that some posters here would resist the urge to be rude and grandstand in order to bully their point.
I was having a bad day... I really do need to learn to not post on bad days.
an open platform introduces risk
This is where we disagree.
Given that a closed platform will simply be jailbroken, an open platform introduces nothing more than legitimate apps delivered through other channels.
So, the real question here is whether other legitimate channels necessarily introduce risk.
I argue that they don't, or at least, that it is an acceptable risk, as a consumer can always choose to stay with the safer channels.
Windows is an open platform, and look at the disaster we have there.
It is actually quite easy to run a secure Windows system. The problem is, it requires a moderately educated, motivated, and disciplined user. I don't think it's too much to ask -- people have more discipline with cars than with computers.
I looked at the G1 (Android) before getting an iPhone. I was very reluctant to give all of my personal data to Google. Given the disastrous breach at Network Solutions recently, I don't think it is unwise to be reluctant to want to keep one's data on one's own system.
Maybe there's something I'm missing, but how is the Android going to give more of your data to Google than the iPhone gives to Apple?
supports the secure installation of insecure apps.
That's a good point, and one I wish a modern OS would address, beyond the web browser.
However, even here, I would want an OS to allow the insecure installation of apps it cannot verify. It can complain loudly -- think Firefox 3 when it sees a bad/untrusted SSL cert -- but it should be possible to override (again, think Firefox 3).
And again, even if Apple has a point, it only applies if the review process is better than completely random. Right now, it's not.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Doesn't anyone remember the origional iPhone launch where it DID take down the AT&T network for several hours until they patched the core (ok not the radio) network. I'd say that is proof that it is a dangerous phone architecture.
Sorry, but after this "Google Voice is simply duplicate functionality", Apple has lost pretty much all legitimacy in anything they say. Everything they say lately, one has to think "why are they really doing this," and there is always an obvious alternative answer.
Sigh, I really want to like them, I really do.
But my hopes are fading.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Apple is going about this completely wrong. Instead of pissing millions in some legal brouhaha, Apple should send each and every congressional representative a brand new fully paid iPhone to get the legislation they need. After all we have the best politicians a shiny iPhone can buy.
Come to think of it, maybe this should be the EFF's strategy.
No one knows more about how to hack a telco better than Jobs.
He and Woz's first commercial venture together was building blue boxes; so people could make illegal free phone calls...
Yes, Jailbreaking violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is why they're asking the copyright office for an exemption.
On November 27, 2006 the U.S. Copyright office granted the following exception to the DMCA:
5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network. [ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ ]
Unfortunately, this exception (like all exceptions to the DMCA) only last for 3 years.
To date, there has been no extension granted, which means on November 28 2009, it will become illegal again.
"Omnis tuus capsa sunt inesse nos"
2 words. Blue Box.
'nuff said.
---
Free the Mouse
I assume that the risk for a cell tower is low, very low, almost indefinitely low, but Apple needs an argument against jail breaking iPhones. And BTW when US cell towers could be compromised that easily, then that should be fixed. Otherwise any evil genius could jail break his iPhone (they do such things even if it is illegal; think of all these illegal downloads) and terrorize the US. Therefore theri argument is invalid.
Hurt cell towers, make Baby Jebus cry and don't even mention what it does to the kittens!
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
I disagree. No matter what roadblocks and warnings you put in the way, any third party application that made the device malfunction would cause the user to think negatively of Apple and Apple's device. As soon as some killer third-party app was released outside the app store, everybody would be installing it, and if it caused instability the prevailing attitude would be that the iPhone is unstable.
I'm pretty sure "anonymous" means "not having any person's identity associated with it."
I vaguely recall my information theory class and if "anonymous" means "not having any information at all associated with it" (as it would seem you claim), then I'm not sure any communication is possible.
Even if you scrawl a message on the bathroom wall, that wouldn't be totally anonymous (according to your definition) since there's lots of axillary information in the message beyond the content. But, c'mon.
If base stations are that vulnerable, then shut down all work on SDR. While the upper bands may be a little beyond the reach of today's hobbyist hardware, it won't stay that way. Then anyone can program their own baseband processor.
The point is: fix the towers and/or protocols. Don't use it as an excuse to keep the iPhone locked.
or use the Exclusive Chip Identification number to make calls anonymously
Wait.. Anonymous phone calls... So what Apple is Saying Jailbraking is actually worth it... :D
So, jailbreaking makes cell tower hacking possible, so jailbreaking should be illegal?
If you're going to do this kind of thing, why not take it a step further? Owning an iPhone makes jailbreaking possible, which makes cell tower hacking possible. Therefore, the iPhone should be illegal.
My subscriber ID is NOT associated with any person's information, so it is not equivalent to a "person's identity." It is anonymous by definition.
It is true they can distinguish my anonymous calls from someone else's anonymous calls (by ID). But they cannot get to my identity--so the calls are anonymous.
It seems to me that everybody is skirting the actual point:
the iPhone, with its (partially) open-source unix kernel is an incredibly flexible device, and is poised to become the single most widespread mobile computer at a time when the smartphone market is only just beginning to explode.
The danger isn't the *individual* jailbroken iPhone.
The danger, as I understand it with my limited technical grasp, is a whole mass of these things cracked with a method that possibly introduces security issues that are COMPLETELY beyond apple's control.
A single iPhone is irrelevant. Five million hacked iPhones, compromised through a security hole that apple has no way of fixing, might well be a real problem - both for the networks, and more importantly, for public perception of the iPhone.
Apple must do what they can to maintain the iphone's image as a secure platform. Apple's corporate future hinges in part upon it.
I can understand that they have real problems with relinquishing any control over this platform.
That's why it took them over a year to implement a third-party app market.
Obviously, they're making some money off it, as well, but everybody who touts that seems to ignore that if the iphone's reputation as a safe phone for the non-technically-inclined is seriously tarnished, apple might as well not be taking a cut of the app store at all, since no sold phones means no store dowloads.
Fire away.
-chris.