Slashdot Mirror
Apple's War Against Jailbreaking Now Makes Perfect Sense
An anonymous reader writes "Apple has always been extremely anti jailbreaking, but it might now have a good reason to plug up the exploits. As Hardware 2.0 argues, Apple's new iOS 7 Activation Lock anti-theft mechanism which renders stolen handsets useless (even after wiping) unless the owner's Apple ID is entered relies on having a secure, locked-down OS. Are the days of jailbreaking iOS coming to a close?" I can see a whole new variety of phone-based ransom-ware based on this capability, too.
timothy, you're going to have to explain how the implimentation of this feature by Apple in any way changes a developer's ability to create ransomware with similar functionality. 'Cause the way I see it, to be able to hijack the Authentication Lock, you're probably going to have to have sufficiently low-level access to just impliment your own lock.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The only way to be safe(ish) (except a replacement of the CPU) is a software lock in the CPU. (Or any other part that is a pita to fix.)
This is imo a bad excuse for fighting jailbreaks.
The problem is, as with most anti-theft technology like this, it won't hurt the thieves as much as it will screw-over buyers of used hardware.
This will not cut down on theft as much as it will simply cripple the trust of the secondary market. After all, you can still steal an iPhone, stick it on Craigslist for cash, sell it to some poor sucker and get leave before he charges up the phone and figures out it was stolen and won't work.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So what, the NSA has the inside track for all jailbreaking.
No good deed goes unpunished.
How about "war against security exploits that allow malicious users to gain unrestricted access to your phone?"
I guess Linux and Microsoft are both engaged in a 'war against jailbreaking' too, when they close fucking security exploits.
Jesus christ - if you want root on your device, get a device that is built to allow that. Don't bitch that a company closes fucking security holes in its software.
Wow, they really are cloning the Blackberry Z10. Didn't know about this feature that is being "borrowed". Atelast it doesn't involve rounded edges or something so Blackberry can't sue over it.
Whats wrong with IMEI blacklisting.
The summary implies they've had this in the works for multiple iterations of iOS and never did it. I find it highly doubtful they were ready to implement this, but didn't for what, 5 consecutive versions of iOS?
But we do want, insist actually, on root access for devices we own. If you can't log in as root, you don't own the device. Just give me the option to turn on root access using my Apple ID. Closing holes that allow for unauthorized privilege elevation is a good thing. Disallowing authorized use of the full functionality of a device is a bad thing.
Wow...
Would you steal a stereo? Would you steal a purse? Well, if you jailbreak your iPhone, you may as well!
Jailbreaking your iPhone prohibits Apple from protecting the safety of your loved ones. Think of the children.
TERRORISTS!!
Shenanigans!!
Anything to convince law-makers that having control over your own devices is evil.
Bah!
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Does that mean: PRISM-certified?
When you control the hardware the way Apple does, there is no problem in separating the lock-feature from the main operating system, similar to what happens with a Trusted Platform Module in a Laptop. In fact, one may argue that relying on the operating system to handle this as part of its regular codebase is hopeless, as it means any jailbroken device can also be "unlocked" again.
If they actually wanted to make this secure they would have separated it from the main OS.
Having said that, one can hardly argue against a company working to close known vulnerabilities and security issues within their software, so Apple really should be working hard to close these exploits regardless of the lock-feature.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
They want to prevent anyone else from starting an app store in competition with theirs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/20/iphone-tracking-prompts-privacy-fears
Lest we forget:
"Security researchers have discovered that Apple's iPhone keeps track of where you go – and saves every detail of it to a secret file on the device which is then copied to the owner's computer when the two are synchronised."
"The file contains the latitude and longitude of the phone's recorded coordinates along with a timestamp, meaning that anyone who stole the phone or the computer could discover details about the owner's movements using a simple program."
"For some phones, there could be almost a year's worth of data stored, as the recording of data seems to have started with Apple's iOS 4 update to the phone's operating system, released in June 2010."
And now we find out that Apple signed up to PRISM, the system that the FISC court already said was illegal under the constitution:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay
They simply kept the ruling secret and did it anyway.
There is a simple solution to theft - initialize each device with a unique key, and give a copy of that key to the owner. By all means pre-load it with trust for the vendor key as well so that it can auto-update by default, but the master key goes to the user. The key might be a $2 USB drive in a little envelope that says "keep safe and don't open unless you want to modify the OS software - Vendor may not be able to repair devices without this key."
The average user just sticks the key in a drawer and gets the default experience. A user who wants to unlock the device just downloads their alternate firmware installer of choice and it will ask them to insert their key so that it can reflash the phone. Users could also disable the Vendor's keys if they wish. By all means let users generate their own keys and install those on the device as well (obviously this will require the previous key). In the case of business-owned phones the business would procure the phone and keep the key, and thus they can stay in control of the hardware even if they allow employees to use it.
Now users can reflash at will, but if somebody steals the phone they will be unable to do so. It would have minimal cost, and since the defaults are all idiot-proof those who don't care about the feature can ignore it and as long as they don't remove the Vendor key the vendor can still do anything they can do today. However, it would establish that the person who paid for the phone is the one who owns it. Since the key is a tangible object, it can be transferred if the owner wishes to do so, and I'd just make it a read-only simple USB drive so that it could be copied if desired as well - just like a car key.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They already support blacklisting IMEI serials on phones, but the problem being that there is no global IMEI blacklist, so stolen phones get shipped around the world very quickly. This solution from apple allows them to seize this control from the network operators, which is a good and bad thing.
Currently most phone security exists in its baseband. The baseband could easily have a hardware security mode that requires the equivalent of unlocking by the manufacturer to make it work again. Unlocking modern phones is still pretty tricky and is much harder to defeat than the standard OS security, for example, you can root an android phone, but still not unlock the baseband very easily. This whole thing could be standardised across all manufacturers too, yet allow freedom of OS on the device.
I am a little tired of being spoon-fed lies(at least it wasn;t another Ars "open"[sic] article) on how I'm being raped as a consumer by mega-corporations. Everone knows why Apple Locks down devices...its so they can bleed every bit of cash from you with their cheap Chinese Foxconn devices. The EFF called it “corporate paternalism”
Here from when Apple filed a response to an Electronic Frontier Foundation request that the US Copyright Office exempt from the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple asserts that jailbreaking fails all four “nonexclusive statutory fair use factors prescribed in 107 of the copyright statute,” essentially calling jailbreaking a crime http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf .
Its easy boycott Apple. Its not like their is a shortage of better value, better hardware and software, running open standards products from more ethical companies.
Jesus christ - if you want root on your device, get a device that is built to allow that. Don't bitch that a company closes fucking security holes in its software.
I agree it is time to boycott apple for their anti-consumer practices than excusing their behaviour.
Apple was fighting jailbreaking since iOS 1.0 because they knew in iOS 7 they were going to roll out an anti-theft measure.
Of course Apple can do things like that because the iphone you're holding is a loaner. It will be yours once it is dead.
I guess Linux and Microsoft are both engaged in a 'war against jailbreaking' too, when they close fucking security exploits.
Closing security exploits isn't a "war against jailbreaking" if there's no "jail", that is, if the operating system's publisher doesn't monopolize distribution of applications. Each GNU/Linux distribution has a central repository of applications, but PC owners are free to add more repositories or to install the compiler at no additional charge. Users are likewise free to add desktop applications whencever obtained for Windows on x86 and x86-64.
Jesus christ - if you want root on your device, get a device that is built to allow that.
What make and model of pocket-size tablet would you recommend for that? Most Android devices smaller than 7" are priced to be subsidized by a 2-year full-price cellular voice and data service commitment.
I'm so sure that after someone steals an iPhone, they'll give it back to the owner once they realize that it can't be used because it's in lockdown mode. In reality, they'll destroy it and/or sell it for parts. It won't be a deterrent either. A thief can't tell the difference between the versions so if it has an Apple logo, it's getting stolen regardless.
it still has resale value.
as parts.
which is how thieves are selling hem.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
So, call me a pessimist but this 'feature' seems to just be a gateway into requiring Apple to approve the resale of any piece of hardware they sell.
Apple is killing the whole second market, and has been for sometime. It has even turned its computers into glorified disposable electronics.
I has more than willing to hail this as part end of Apple...it seemed bad business practice(making a great product is the good business practice), but recent news has seen Apple offering what is essentially part exchange on their(not your) products. It makes sense to me that Apples final goal is to get you to hire the hardware. I would argue Apple is already doing this in America with its phones to great success.
Its great anti-consumer lock-in.
Jailbreaking is a personal choice..Apple, nor any other company should be allowed to tell me what I can do with my purchased hardware. If I want to take a chance by jailbreaking my phone it should be up to me.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
If you're selling your phone you'd disable the lock feature, disassociate the phone from your account and sell it. It only hurts those who are selling stolen iPhones, not those who are legitimately reselling the device.
The reason Apple cares so much about jailbreaking has always been about preventing piracy of apps.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
1. You need the Apple ID to enable the lockout. If the ex has that they can already remotely wipe the phone and change the login.
Your other two points are too retarded to merit a reply.
The article asserts "Apple's new iOS 7 Activation Lock anti-theft mechanism which renders stolen handsets useless (even after wiping) unless the owner's Apple ID is entered relies on having a secure, locked-down OS".
That assertion is entirely false. Activation Lock does require a secure pre-activation OS, but after that, it makes no difference.
The problem is that if getting an Android phone out of contract is harder or more expensive or both than getting an iPod touch, Apple has won a new convert.
They want control of your hardware, and you are going to let them have it.
And then you'll live in Apple's comfortable little cage, and they'll give you everything you need.
I would take issue with the description of the practice as "anti-consumer," since the bulk of consumers don't give a toss
That is why consumer groups, and governments woldwide are questioning Apples anti-comumer practices(in china for godsakes). Ignoring Apple I am getting increasingly aware of a battle of ecosystems(Microsoft's Term as they don't have a successful mobile strategy they have metro). I see some great looking phone OS's coming out from Ubuntu and Jolla, and the barriers for switching are getting higher.
We have seen this before and even though Microsoft & Intel walk away with 70% Gross Margin, And Apple taking its Obscene Mark-up (I think they get kidneys). Its bad for consumers, bad for competition.
Apple's view towards jailbreaking can likely be summed up thus: Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their devices. Just don't expect support for unsupported things if it breaks. Found a security exploit in the OS? Thanks, we'll fix that right up.
Apple's view towards jailbreaking can likely be summed up thus: Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their devices. Just don't expect support for unsupported things if it breaks. Found a security exploit in the OS? Thanks, we'll fix that right up.
Apples view is your a criminal breaking DMCA http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pdf
And then you'll live in Apple's comfortable little cage, and they'll give you everything you need.
Except its not like that. They block alternative stores, access to replacement for Apple first party tools, because they want to take your money. Its about starving you of alternatives, and making you dependant on them....Like a Feeder.
This is *not* about permanently disabling or blacklisting a phone. This is about making the phone unusable for the thief, but keeping it technically sound so the rightful owner could still use it if it has been recovered. It'd be trivial to blacklist an IMEI, just as it would be to circumvent the blacklist by reprogramming the baseband controller. It'd be trivial to implement a "self destruct" on the phone that could be triggered remotely, but then you'd have a phone that would need at least one chip replaced before it'd work again. This is about non-destructive locking and it relies on the OS not being rooted. They may find a way to do that on newer hardware, but as I understand it, all current hardware has been "owned" sufficiently for a software-only compromise to be sufficient.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
This blogger does not get it. Big time.
Jailbreaking did not come about for bypassing security or stealing iPhones. It came about because Apple wouldn't sell their GSM-capable phones on vendors other than AT&T, which meant that they also could not be used outside the US, which is the only place the things were being sold. So some Russian hackers came up with a jailbreak, but it wasn't so they could run arbitrary applications, it was so they could run a single application to rewrite the SIM vendor check, disable the carrier lock, and use the damn things on GSM carriers other than AT&T. T-Mobile in the US is one such carrier, and AT&T had demanded, and got, the carrier lock in exchange for letting Apple demand infrastructure changes to AT&T's network for things like "Visual Voice Mail".
The vast majority of these iPhones were legally sold for the full price in the US; Apple put a limit on the number of iPhones you could buy, in order to thwart this thriving export business, because technically, the carrier networks are fairly fragile things, and the phones had not been certified to the carrier networks on which they were being used, or by the regional equivalent of the FCC -- hence they were called "gray market" iPhones in these countries.
The benefit to Apple turned out to be immense, since with tools available for writing *an app* for the unlocking, it was relatively easy to classdump the objC files, and use the other APIs -- and apps were born. Steve actually didn't *want* Apps on the iPhone: he was deathly afraid of building another Newton, and the Apps he gave you were the ones he thought you needed, and no more. He didn't even want there to be ringtones that he and Jon Ivy hadn't approved (a pain in the ass when there are a small number of ringtones, 11,000 employees, and about half of them ate lunch in Cafe Macs in a two hour window).
For six months, many engineers inside Apple, including myself, were jailbreaking our own phones, and using the hacker tools because there *was no* formal API or dev kit. I personally wrote an X Code plugin for making iPhone Apps using the hacker tools, and we passed it around internally at Apple.
A startup was going to make a business of selling an SDK for the iPhone -- Apple _bought them_, and *that's* where Apple got their formal SDK, which they then went through and cleaned up APIs, and partitioned the data you could access from one app to another.
Everything that people jailbreak the things for these days is to get around data partitioning or carrier usage restrictions, i.e. things like using the phone as a WiFi hotspot for a laptop, without paying additional fees or metered rates to the carriers for the greater laptop bandwidth usage capability, or to be able to do the carrier unlock to get around per-region carrier lock-in contracts that Apple had signed.
The bottom line is that Apple could have avoided almost of of the hacking that happened fairly early on by not putting the carrier lock in the baseband firmware, which was a dumbass design decision based on the Samsung baseband chip having the feature implemented already, and having it up in user space in the commcenter program instead.
And their device would be a lot less interesting, and Android might have followed that lead, and been a lot less interesting as well. And Apple wouldn't have made tons of money on Apps because there would be no AppStore.
But as long as there are carrier locks, and more or less absurd carrier restrictions on bandwidth for phones s. hotspots (yes, Sprint, I'm talking to you), there will be jailbreaking. This is a DRM issue, and if jailbreaking is the only way to bypass DRM, then jailbreaking will happen.
Bottom line philosophy lesson: There will always be people who say "These devices are made of atoms. I paid for these atoms. I own them. They will God Damn Well Do What I Tell Them To Do".
It isn't their device. It is mine.
Don't worry. Just call the NSA they know where your phone is all the time
the fact that everything from the new mac pro to the ipad actively resists attempts to load any other operating system than the one its packaged with
Not quite. The new Mac Pro still lets you use Bootcamp to install Windows or you can do a direct EFI install of Windows Vista/7/8 without Bootcamp. You just have to copy the files on the DVD to a GPT partitioned USB drive and the Mac will natively boot the installer.
My guess is not more than 3-4 months. May also be mere weeks. Of course, this prevents the average nil-whit street thief from removing the lock, which may or may not be a good thing. In the worst case, said nil-whit will just have to sell the phones to an underground lock-removal services and consequentially will have to steal more of them to keep previous criminal income rates going. In the best case, this makes iPhone theft economically unattractive, which can still happen even if the lock is broken. If Apple did this right, breaking one lock does not help at all breaking others, and the effort needed is pretty high, like several weeks of CPU time. Cryptography used right can implement things like this. On the other hand, schemes like these have typically turned out to be defective in the past and far easier to break than intended.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Jailbreaking has next to nothing to do with this. The jailbreaking community is already helpless to crack Apple's activation process for the latest phones (making it impossible to restore to any firmware that Apple is not currently signing.) If Apple deactivates a phone and will not sign the firmware for that device, they are shit out of luck. There will be no pety phone thief with enough technical knowledge to be able to sign an activated firmware and deactivate the code that allows Apple to lockdown stolen devices.
Their war on jailbreaking has to do with two things:
1) DRM - They have an obligation to publishers to make it as hard as possible to pirate games on their platform.
2) They are control freaks, and do not want people to be able to easily run things they do not want them to run for fear that it might sour their product's perception among the unknowledgable customer base. It is easy to jailbreak a phone, even with no real computer knowledge, and they don't like that.
apple should give us run 3rd party apps and no network locking if they want to lock down ios like this.
These two things really are orthogonal. Activation Lock can be done even with jailbreaking. Apple could allow jailbreaking on a properly activated phone. But they won't and we all know that it is NOT for preventing theft. Activation lock can help the theft issue. It can also tighten down the jailbreaking (even though it is a different thing).
St^H^HTim: I'm still not gonna buy your junk ... even less so now.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If this feature is so important, why didn't they introduce it sooner?
You do realize WHATEVER you happened to have typed this silly post on ... it HAS FOXCONN components in it ... RIGHT?
Except Samsung make CPU's is Austin, Texas. Ironically Apples inability to compete is because they are not in change of their manufacturing process, and are being outmanoeuvred...ironically by Samsung :)
The fact is the iPhone is is a cheap Foxconn device get over it.
How does this stop me from stealing a phone, plugging it into my computer and clicking "Wipe this Device" ? As long as their is a user accessible "recovery" feature (ie event of a password loss) I don't see what this prevents? We need IMEI blacklisting from ALL CARRIERS. It's simple, what's the problem? The only thing I can think of is that stolen phones means more sales from handset manufacturers so they just don't really care about theft, if anything it's DRIVING SALES!
Obama's plan to force ever newborn child to have a chip implanted in their skull was opposed by many people at first, but now we can reveal such a plan makes perfect sense, and you can all rejoice at your governments over-riding concern for your safety.
Before the chip, it was easy for any-one to grab your child and claim it as their own. Now your child is 'locked-down' and clearly for the control of the legitimate 'owner' only. The problem with 'freedom' is it means the ability for people to abuse their freedom in all kinds of ways none of you want.
True freedom means the freedom of the authorities to impose rules and regulations on the sheep they control in the name of freedom. Freedom doesn't mean the sheep free to go where they wish and do what they wish. Freedom refers to the 'farmer' obviously.
If Obama is free, and Apple is free, then you are 'free'. If, on the other hand, you are given true freedom, how on Earth can Obama or Apple be free. You miss understand the concept of freedom. You are far too dumb and reckless to be given true freedom. Why do you think god has placed Obama and Apple over you? Are you against god's will?
It is GOOD that only Apple determines what you can do with your IOS computer. It is GOOD that Obama gives Apple the freedom to control your freedoms. It is good that Apple is destroying the long standing principle that what you buy and own is yours to use as you wish.
The fantasy analogy with Obama chipping people is sadly closer than you think. Obama had a young woman thrown out of school for refusing to be chipped. Obama's shills, with the approval of Slashdot's owners, ridiculed the woman for using 'religion' as the reason to object to the chip, but under US law, you are ONLY able to oppose certain school policies (in some states) by reason of religious beliefs. She had no choice. If she merely stated "I object to being chipped" she would have been thrown out the same day. By using the 'faith' argument, she was able to appeal the decision, and stood some chance of winning.
In the UK, Blair has the kids fingerprinted in every school were the parents are too weak willed to put up resistance. In the USA, they are now scanning the eyes of pupils attending school. These Fabian programs (designed by people in the UK, and rolled out across the planet) are designed to 'groom' future generations for a massive expansion of police state powers. The 'locking-down' of the computers you own is just part of the same process.
Internet Explorer can't be removed because it is the core windows program that runs everything. And a gun's safety switch is required because the gun will not fire with that enabled. Apple sure doesn't like their stuff being used in ways they don't want them used. Now the phone can't be unlocked because it will allow thieves to use your phone (duh). Don't like it? Don't buy it - watch apple be pushed out of the market or buy an older model phone - it's not like anyone has a monopoly on anything with or without them.
The broadcast just need to be signed using a private key. Every handset can hold the public part. If the private key is 2048 bits or longer you can assign the IDs sequentially if you prefer; faking the broadcast will be as hard as it is to break the 2048 bit key - which takes *a lot* of time for 2048 bit keys.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Apple cares far more (as they should) for the people that buy their stuff new (and produce revenue for Apple) than they care for the economic well-being of secondary-market resellers. Which makes total business sense.
Since buyers can purchase from internet-based businesses with no fear via the mighty eBay/PayPal or Credit Card chargeback, the only resellers that will be hurt will be those that were moving stolen equipment and will have their product source dry up. (Or sketchy cash-only sellers on Craigslist... lets just say they weren't that trustworthy of a source to begin with.)
While detering theft is useful for the consumer, how long until this tool is used to lock a device to a specific consumer, eliminating any resale value that the phone may have?
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Because if so, locking it down isn't locked down at all, since it can be unlocked with a simple jailbreak.
And if not, then I fail to see why Apple should be terribly worried about jailbreaking at all if it can permanently lock down a phone... since people who do jailbreak are voluntarily creating a situation where a thief could profit by stealing their phone where they otherwise would not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When does Apple say it's for anybody's protection?
It's their fee. Plain and simple.
Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity. They are allowed to profit from charging for whatever they think that people might want, and they are reasonably entitled to charge as much as they believe the market can bear.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
... you can still buy Android phones. Even Samsungs. Go figure.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Apple's logical falacy in this case is called "bifurcation". Deconstruct the argument as: 1) Technological measures to combat theft are good 2) Effective technical measures can only be implemented using a locked down ROM. The bifurcation is the unproved claim that locking down a ROM is the only effective technological measure, when in fact there may be other possibilities.
Moral of the story: be skeptical of any claim Apple makes, particularly when they earnest explain why a user's rights over their own purchased product should be abridged to the benefit of Apple.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It's important to note that a "war on jailbreaking" is really a "war on exploits."
I don't see how you can be against Apple trying to get rid of every exploit that it knows about. All these jailbreaks are really exploits that could be used to install bad things. You could argue that Apple should provide a way to install alternate firmware, but that's another discussion. (and one that will not get very far, I think)
Jailbreaking is getting pretty tough these days. Even SHSH blobs are not useful, even if one saves activation tickets via Cydia or iFaith.
Jailbreaking is becoming harder and harder. There was only one period of time when it was possible for the iPhone 5, and that time is long gone. Even activation tickets can't be restored (as per Cydia), so if one can't boot the phone into safe mode, one has to DFU restore and kiss the JB goodbye. To boot, known exploits to the top tier Dev Team guys are few and far between... and they have to ration them carefully, only presenting a JB after an OS and hardware release cycle.
This gets old after a while. Things like being able to pull up an app to check which channels are in use via Wi-fi (a great help when setting up an AP) are impossible on iOS.
Android has its warts, but to have complete control of a HTC device from the kernel on up, all it takes is registering for a dev account and getting an unlock code for that phone. Nexus phones are even simpler with "fastboot oem unlock". I prefer iOS's usability, and the fact that app quality seems a notch above Android's, but I much rather have control of the hardware I pay for.
I wouldn't mind if Apple had a compromise, perhaps allowing registered developers to have a way to have a UNIX userland and a root shell, but I doubt that will ever happen.
Actually there is a much simpler way to go about this problem (with theft) which would leave both Apple and the NSA out of the loop.
Every cellphone is equipped with an EMEI number which works similar to a network MAC address. It is a unique hardware identifier for each phone - on a global scale.
The EMEI is visible in the settings/control-panel section of any modern phone, and often also printed on either the box the device is supplied in, or a piece of paper inside. And it is used by every carrier on the planet as a part of the calling infrastructure.
All the carriers would need to do, is to allow a "blacklist" of EMEI numbers, so when your device is stolen you simply report the EMEI to the carrier and they blacklist it. To prevent abuse each device could be supplied with an anti-theft key generated by the initial operator or by the manufacturer (so only the holder of both the EMEI and theft-key can have it blacklisted).
The technical capability to do this already exists. Some operators have even implemented it in trials. Their reasons for not using it today is the fact that not all operators actually want to bust customers with stolen phones, and this system would be kind of pointless if only half the carriers implement it.
Enter regulation. The political system could easily pass a law that forces all carriers to implement this kind of EMEI-based anti theft system. It would take little to design, it would work for every phone on the planet regardless of make/model, and it would include only known technology (just a few bits and pieces to extend the existing EMEI database plus a front-office system to operate it).
Not implementing this is pure laziness (from carriers).
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
It's not Apple's decision to make. If I buy an iPhone, and decide to jailbreak it, that's my choice, and my risk.
I hope consumers smarten up. When we buy hardware we should be able to do with it what we want. If we are smart enough to jailbreak our phones we should be able to do so. I don't care if the warranty applies or no. If a device is locked down, I won't buy it.
I just hope the average consumer smartens up and stop the "sheep" mentality.
I'm thinking about building a small EMP device LOL.. Google for Information Unlimited. They have some cool kits. With the proper waveguide even the small EMP
device can take out a cell phone.. LOL.
These are exactly the questions that need to be asked - or will have to be asked when iOS7 is gold.
I do have a concern that this, while not crippling the 2nd hand market, might force Apple into the gatekeeper of resales - a position that is very powerful and corrupting.
I hope they make it easy to facilitate resales, or I might consider alternatives for my next smartphone.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You don't want to pay for your device.
I want to pay for a device. But I want to pay for the features of the hardware that I plan to use, not for the features of the hardware that I do not plan to use. The pricing of an unlocked iPhone vs. an iPod touch shows that a device with a cellular radio costs approximately twice as much as a device with no cellular radio. Because I don't plan to use a cellular radio, I don't feel I should have to pay for a cellular radio. But right now, it appears all 4" class devices sold in stores come with either iOS or a cellular radio or both. Why do only three people want no iOS and no cellular radio?
Most Android devices smaller than 7" are priced to be subsidized by a 2-year full-price cellular voice and data service commitment.
Wait, what? And the iPhone isn't?
The iPhone is. The iPod touch isn't.
Google for the unsubsidized price of an iPhone 5 and compare it to the unsubsidized price of a Galaxy S4.
iPhone 5 is to iPod touch as Galaxy S4 is to what?
Oh... were you guys talking?