Apple officially claims Jailbreaking Illegal

Here's a simple example. c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Code:
# Copyright (c) 1993-2006 Microsoft Corp.
#
# This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows.
#
# This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each
# entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should
# be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name.
# The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one
# space.
#
# Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual
# lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol.
#
# For example:
#
#      102.54.94.97     rhino.acme.com          # source server
#       38.25.63.10     x.acme.com              # x client host

127.0.0.1       localhost
::1             localhost
Have you ever modified that file to get the OS to behave differently, i.e., map a hostname to an ip address that is different from what DNS reports?

Granted, this is somewhat different than reverse engineering the boot binary in order to unlock some hidden "feature" or is it really? Just because this file's provided in plain text form and contains comments regarding how it should be modified, is no reason the copyright notice at the top is any less valid. By modifying it I have in effect done "reverse engineering" of how the Windows TCP/IP stack works, and by distributing it here I'm probably in violation of the license agreement somehow.

Somewhat different? That is a huge difference. A file provided by the manufacture that is designed to be modified by the user is one thing. The manufacture meant it to be modified. I guess if you want to go down that route any change you make by changing the network card settings to how the files are displayed is technically changing the application in your terms.

And have I modified that file before, NO as I don't do windows.
 
tomcrown- My point was not that in a future date Apple will aid hackers to unbrick the phone. If you read what I wrote correctly, I stated Apple had a history of bricking the iphone. I can't believe you would deny the thousands of reports, including a whole podcast from Leo Laporte and John Dvorak on this back in 2007 when it happened. I think you just didn't understand my point of it being historically accurate.

Scott- I would not be surprised about The Woz, supporting hacking, illegal hacking at that. Anyone who is as old as I am ( not that old) will remember back in late 60's, early 70's legendary stories about "The WOZ" the infamous hacker who developed the "black box" used to get free long distance phone calls. It was a very simple device and later he developed the "Blue Box" which used a more sophisticated double set of push button keypads to route long distance phone calls for free via AT&T's inward circuit using a simple 2300 Hz tone to activate the route tones. Then he published the secret inward circuit code numbers in the form of a chain letter. Point being that you can't justify a hacking software from the likes of a person who grew up becoming notorious world wide for his practice of illegal hacking. It would be like justifying hacking satellite smart cards because a guy who publishes directions on how to get free satellite and cable TV said it's OK.
Want some more? I happen to have proof! I tape recorded an actual demonstration of this blue box on quarter inch reel to reel audio of the Woz routing phone calls complete with verbal instructions how he was doing it around the country and then to Hawaii and Alaska for over 30 minutes broadcast on 75 meter ham band. I also don't think he was a ham radio op, legally, either. But he was often on using a fake broadcast station like call sign, guess what? WOZ. What else? :D For awhile I heard he was using W4OZ but stopped when he discovered that real ham like call sign was already in use by a real ham. He poses as a telephone operator hacking his way through the phone system. The tape is a classic piece of history. Someday I may dig out my reel to reel tape recorder and play that tape convert to an MP3 file, if it still works.

Oh and as for jailbreaking being illegal, it is not criminal law, unless a case can be made on the DMCA argument, but also and rather, civil contract law where you are in violation of your license agreement. As long as the owner of the software/firmware in the iphone says it is a violation of the terms of their contract with you, it is a case that may stick. It all depends on the judge / jury decision. At best, you can say it is a gray area as are all civil cases. At worse you lose and suffer the loss of your phone and service. out of warranty etc.

Jail breakers are not alone on this. I believe the use of software like PDANet may be a violation of Verizon's license forbidding tethering except through Verizon subscription service add-on. Haven't heard any public statements on this, however. Apple is different as they have made their case claim and now violators will have the opportunity to argue the case claim in court. Criminal for DMCA and civil for license violation.

To let folks in to a little secret Apple really couldn't care less if the IPHONE are Jailbroken.

It is ATT who is telling apple that JAILBROKEN phones are in violation of the contract apple has with ATT.

ATT is afraid of losing revenue because a jailbroken phone can be unlocked. Also a jailbroken phone can provide apps that will over-ride a new revenue stream for ATT

HINT the updated firmware 3 will include the ability to theater the IPHONE along with MMS texting. ATT will charge an extra $30.00 for these services.
 
To let folks in to a little secret Apple really couldn't care less if the IPHONE are Jailbroken.

It is ATT who is telling apple that JAILBROKEN phones are in violation of the contract apple has with ATT.

ATT is afraid of losing revenue because a jailbroken phone can be unlocked. Also a jailbroken phone can provide apps that will over-ride a new revenue stream for ATT

HINT the updated firmware 3 will include the ability to theater the IPHONE along with MMS texting. ATT will charge an extra $30.00 for these services.

Nah, I don't believe that. Look at Apple's long history of hardware/software control.

Besides, AT&T sells plenty of other smart phones that already have these capabilities, which they make no attempt to block.
 
Last edited:
LOL... being the techy I am, I'll never own a another phone that I can't flash custom firmware to it. If I want to write an app and put it on my phone, then I am. I don't want the manufacturer telling me no when I bought the phone.

Exactly, weel put Digi. Jailbreakin is the reason why so many people buy Iphones.
A lot of the programs and utilities available through Cydia enables users to do what apple let out in the first place. Sweetooth is a great example, enabling us to discover other bluetooth devices. You can also customize themes, which is something else Apple left out.
Apple does not believe in open platform, take the PC vs Mac senario, PC's are standars platforms where Mac's are propriotory.
 
Exactly, weel put Digi. Jailbreakin is the reason why so many people buy Iphones.
A lot of the programs and utilities available through Cydia enables users to do what apple let out in the first place. Sweetooth is a great example, enabling us to discover other bluetooth devices. You can also customize themes, which is something else Apple left out.
Apple does not believe in open platform, take the PC vs Mac senario, PC's are standars platforms where Mac's are propriotory.

Jailbreaking one didn't sell me one. No keyboard and GSM only shut that down for me. Wouldn't touch AT&T's network with a ten foot pole here...and TMobile barely covers this area unless you are on the interstate.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top