Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking Could Hurt Cell Towers 495
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?"
Think of the towers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
Security by obscurity does not get you very far. If the cell tower software is so fragile, it needs to be secured correctly.
Play the fear card (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they have a problem with backwards compatibility and can't just replace all the software without breaking all the handsets out there.
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Informative)
I'd imagine that the software is locked down well enough for the current environment. Playing devil's advocate, you could see how somebody who had found an exploit in the iPhone OS could make anonymous calls. Or potentially launch a DoS on a tower is they had a large army of compromised iPhones. And, while I don't know jack about cell-phone-tower-handshaking-protocol, perhaps you could initiate some kind of DoS by doing the equivalent of a SYN flood with a smaller group of phones.
Apart from those possibilities, I don't see much danger.
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Funny)
"Blueboxing. There's an app for that!"
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Interesting)
The funniest part is... [google.com]
I guess you're not supposed to do such things when you run a company that makes handsets, though.
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
If the software is vulnerable, it is vulnerable with or without a jailbroken iPhone. Even confiscating every single iPhone in existence will not stop someone from taking advantage of the vulnerabilities, if they are so inclined.
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
True, this is like MS claiming allowing unauthorized applications and devices on the internet would break the ISP's or Tier 1 provider's routers and then locking up all applications with a App store raking in 30% of the cost compulsorily.
Also, from the response from Apple:
Looking at the four statutory fair use
factors,18 although the use per se of the modified iPhone bootloader and OS on an individual
handset is of a personal nature, it is not a transformative use, and because a jailbroken OS is
often used to play pirated content, the act of jailbreaking should be considered of a commercial
nature since it facilitates obtaining applications without paying fees for the them.
snip...
In sum, the value of the OS software to the iPhone, and therefore to Apple, is that it
enables the iPhone to function as a platform for the mobile computing experience that
differentiates the iPhone from its many competitors. This, in turn, increases the value of Appleâ(TM)s
iPhone copyrights and, again, overall consumer utility, making the iPhone a more attractive
product to consumers.
Huh? WTF? A jailbroken OS is often used to play pirated content? Apple keeps rejecting(censoring?) useful apps that developers and companies have spent lots of time and money on for silly reasons such as political content, duplication of functionality, mature content etc. The real reason is not piracy, it's because Apple wants to keep that 30% cut of all apps sold and control all the content while at the same time not angering AT&T with their approved Apps to keep the ~$17/month that Apple gets paid for each iPhone customer.
Is this what Apple calls the platform for the mobile computing experience? And there are a bunch of people including Jobs calling the iPod touch the equivalent of a netbook. http://www.osnews.com/story/20424/Jobs_on_Cheap_Computers_Netbooks [osnews.com] http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/the-iphone-and-ipod-touch-apples-netbook.ars [arstechnica.com] Please, no thanks.Do not pervert the word computer to mean a walled garden. Call it a phone, gaming console, e-book reader etc. if you wish. This makes the evil MS look like defenders of freedom in shining armor. God forbid if a company like Apple won the PC wars back in the 80s instead of IBM/PC compatibles. *shudder*
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just Apple wrapping themselves in the "Security" blanket to get what they want. Should we expect a series of PSAs about how iPhone jailbreaking aids the terrorists?
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we expect a series of PSAs about how iPhone jailbreaking aids the terrorists?
Might not be as far off as you think. "...could...use the Exclusive Chip Identification number to make calls anonymously." sounds like a good set-up for that kind of approach.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One cell phone a mile away from a tower can block the tower from all the other cellphones? I call pure unadulterated BS. This sounds like old wives' tales(esp. coming from a AC) like the tales the G4 and G5 are better than their Intel equivalents. Will not stop it from getting modded up though, as it already is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
WCDMA is the "3G" technology that the iPhone uses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA_(UMTS) [wikipedia.org]
UMTS uses a CDMA air interface (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to make everything crystal clear and expand on your post some...
UMTS/HS*PA use a code division multiple access scheme, but not the exact (CDMA-based) protocol that is commonly referred to as "CDMA," formally known as IS-95 (pre-1xRTT) and IS-2000 (1xRTT and EVDO.)
Also, the first iPhone also supports EDGE, which is GPRS with different encoding methods available (GPRS being a data standard using spare GSM time-divided channels to perform its transmissions.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Very true. People don't seem to understand that Smartphones are very different from the average nokia brick. To a smartphone the baseband is little more than a modem.
It exposes a couple of interfaces. One is the voice interface, one is that high-speed data interface (this might be the same as the voice interface), and last but not least we have a serial port interface that is used to control the modem, including a AT-style command set.
You can add such a modem to any laptop too. They sell them, and call them
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a giant company making shit-tons of money for lazy coding, would you pay for the security changes, or would you do the much cheaper and simpler option of passing legislation that makes breaking your crappy code illegal?
Remember, they've already bought the congresspersons and senators needed.
Re:Think of the towers (Score:5, Insightful)
Attacking a cell tower is already illegal. No additional legislation is needed here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Attacking a cell tower is already illegal. No additional legislation is needed here.
People take drugs, speed on the highway, jaywalk, run red lights, improperly dispose of hazardous wastes, etc etc etc.
Legality is almost irrelevant when the capability and desire is widespread.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"When you outlaw hacking cellphones,
"then only criminals will have working phones!"
That meme doesn't quite work here, but the point is valid. Passing a law to stop people from hacking cellphones is Not going to ctop criminals from attacking towers anyway. Criminals don't give a fuck about laws.
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Even Microsoft isn't this stupid... yet anyway.
I've been avoiding Apple products due to their control issues, but this is just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*facepalm* Apple. God damn...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Why single out Apple products. The whole concept of a "smart phone" is ingsoc lies.
A phone is the piece of tech that you can never really own. Many people accept this and take the "free" phone, and pay the high monthly rental.
The built in obsolescence has got to be one of the worst in the industry.
MP3 player, calendar, organiser, GPS, ebook reader, camera, bomb, those can all converge as much as they like. Just not with anything that needs a SIM card.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"A phone is the piece of tech that you can never really own."
Not really.
I mean, theoretically anyway. The Neo Freerunner was a tragically badly run project with old technology, a huge price tag and general stink of FAIL. That said, it was a fully programmable phone that you owned and could be used just fine with a base station. Hell, dev models of the android phones are also like this.
Built in obsolescence is only a problem because the state of the art is advancing so rapidly. Like PCs in the late 90s and e
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
A phone is the piece of tech that you can never really own. Many people accept this and take the "free" phone, and pay the high monthly rental.
If people want a basic phone, and don't care about the fancy smartphone features, then why shouldn't they be able to pay less for a cheaper model? I do think they should give you a discount if you didn't have them subsidize the phone (use your own device, or pay full retail for the phone), as it does seem unfair that the person who got a $200 dollar subsidy, and is paying it off over two years, pays the same as someone who doesn't owe them that money.
Also, you can easily "own" a phone. Many online retailers, even official manufacturer's websites (Motorola.com for example), as well as physical retail stores, let you buy a phone at full price, without having to sign a contract. When you do sign up for a plan, there's no term commitment or ETF, because you've already payed full price for the phone.
In the US, the common plan for a mobile phone comes as a two-year contract. After that, you can cancel your service at any time, and they won't bug you to send the phone back or pay them back for it by paying the ETF.
The built in obsolescence has got to be one of the worst in the industry.
Are you expecting them to let you upgrade the RAM or something? Throw in some PCI slots?
MP3 player, calendar, organiser, GPS, ebook reader, camera, bomb, those can all converge as much as they like. Just not with anything that needs a SIM card.
My current smart phone (an HTC device) can do all that with the SIM card removed, no monthly fees or anything. Well, I haven't tried using it as a bomb, but I'd imagine that wouldn't need a SIM card either.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't there be some sort of consequences for just lying in a process like this? I know in courts there is perjury, for lying under oath, but what legal consequences are there for lying in this kind of situation?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't read the story but I guarantee that this argument was a product of the Lawyer's Algorithm, which is as follows:
List all objections to the matter at hand
While true {
List all conceivable objections premised on the prior objections being rejected
}
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but if it really is such a big problem, then fix the cell architecture. The thing I find truly laughable is the justification that a drug dealer could use this to make anonymous calls/data transfer/whatever. The whole point of this discussion is to give *legitimate, honest citizens* the right to modify their phones. Do you think the drug dealer is worried about whether or not it is legal or not? He's already breaking the law in trafficking drugs, what's running the Pwnage tool going to hu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have an iphone on pay as you go. I have no contract, and the phone is mine.. but I had to use jailbreaking software to unlock it. On *every* other phone I can get an unlock for free or near free just by phoning the phone company (some of them insist you add £30 or so to the pay as yo go account first).
This is why people end up modifying basebands.. it's an apple created problem. It's a bit rich that they then have a go at users for doing it.
THE TERR'STS! (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple has picked up one from the playbook of the Bush Administration.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is worrying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is worrying... (Score:5, Interesting)
hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
No, you're not able to access or change the baseband software. Also, jailbreaking the iPhone doesn't change the baseband AFAIK. Only the SIM-lock does require changing the baseband, which is a completely separate issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what Apple really wants, is to save us all from cellular catastrophe by locking us to AT&T and O2? The network that can't make MMS work and the network that lost a sizable chunk of its coverage because of a single, trivial fire last week? It's like saying you'll protect me from corruption by securing the jobs of MPs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The baseband hack is the thing they're actually arguing against, in practice. That's what their argument targets, even if they're nominally going for the necessary-but-not-sufficient step of jailbreaking. You can bet that's what they'll fall back to. In fact, it's a good rhetorical strategy: they'll decide to "meet us in the middle" with the compromise of allowing jailbreaking, but rendering baseband hacking (and thus unlocking) outlawed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they don't. cellphones use a phone chipset that is separate from the phone. you send it serial data to dial or do data or messaging, controls and you get audio out.
The chipset for the cellular network is SEPARATE from the phone's system that runs the screen, keypad, ringer,etc....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most cellphones do *not* use a separate baseband processor, because this is expensive. Almost all non-smartphones only have one processor which runs a realtime proprietary OS responsible for both the UI and the modem stack: Nokia S40 is the prime example of this.
Some smartphones have a separate baseband processor, true, but only because the OS the application processor runs is not realtime and thus not capable of supporting a modem stack; and even then many of them just run the application OS as a subtask o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
it's is cheaper to use pre-manufactured chips than to make your own setup. You are telling me that apple had a customer cellphone radio chipset made for their phone instead of using a OTS part?
Wow. When was the last time you looked inside a cellphone? the GPS is a standard chipset that is a part of most cellphone chipsets. it's why gps's are in most phones.
P.S. Iphone uses a normal Cellphone baseband processor chipset and not a special one that allows the main cpu to do all the processing. Infei
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
The hackers have already been granted an exception to unlock the phone, and ACTUALLY screw with the baseband, jailbreaking just takes away Apples control of the OS running on the main processor, and they don't like that. They are full of shit if this is their excuse, because as i said, unlocking is already legal.
If we outlaw cracking iPhones (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously - if you're going to do an illegal activity (hacking) anyway, then making another activity (jailbreaking) illegal isn't going to deter you.
I suppose nobody's missed the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Makes you wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is true then they all apps potentially have complete access to the raw cell network, surely this is a bad idea?
On a normal phone, or any other smartphone the cell layer and the application layer are almost completely separate ....
Either Apple have done some severely sloppy programming or they are lying ?
Ya, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Assholes! (Score:5, Informative)
That thing was added solely to make it harder to unlock the phone for other carriers!
iPwn (Score:2)
iPhone + Jailbreak = iPwn
At least, iPwn cellphone towers.
The protect the baseband processor only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what every other mobile operating system does. Apple is essentially suggesting that they are less competent.
Remember how they were playing up the "security flaws" of the other mobile devices, to rationalize not having an SDK, then to rationalize having a closed SDK, and yet, every jailbreak technique roots the device. The iPhone is demonstratively the least secure mobile device out there.
Oh please... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If these towers could be brought down from a user who jailbroke his iPhone, then it would have happened already."
That, my friend, is a logical fallacy. Right up there with; "If it's doable, then it's already been done."
hopefully this will fix it (Score:2)
then Apple will be forced to sell iphones unlocked from the factory leaving AT&T out in the cold
Total crap (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yet another nonsensical response. (Score:5, Insightful)
Other smartphones? (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely such a hacker could just use another smartphone platform? Seems like a last-ditch attempt to justify their control-freakery.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And besides - if every AT&T tower melted into a heap of slag tomorrow, wouldn't we all be cheering?
That wouldn't scare the fuck out of you?
Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Protecting Profit Margins (Score:4, Insightful)
This will save us! (Score:5, Funny)
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!!).
Re: (Score:2)
(Not to compare the social harm of double parking to iPhone jailbreaking..... sorry jailbreakers, didn't mean to compare you to double parkers! )
Re: (Score:2)
Except when double parking results in them being noticed by a cop before they even come out of the bank.
To be, or not to be (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If jailbroken iPhones can hurt cell towers, then it's already too late, because there are already jailbroken iPhones.
If jailbroken iPhones can hurt towers, so can un-jailbroken (incarcerated?) ones. All it takes is a bug . . .
Lying like dogs... (Score:3, Informative)
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 [sparkfun.com]
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.
Keep in mind (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Where is Ma Bell when you need them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope the software/hardware on the towers and switching systems is robust enough to handle rouge events. Even if there aren't jail bro
I love you Apple - you lie better than M$ (Score:2)
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??
Same Old Apple - 1980s Over Again (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem with the phone or the network? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
a few rouge iPhones
I thought they only came in black?
Let me gets this straight. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
hahahahaha (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe if people put their jailbroken phones in trebuchets and fire them at cell towers...
Idiotic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Bad Apple, no biscuit (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
They assume Cell tower security is as bad as OSX (Score:3, Informative)
Having worked with cell switches in the past, I have 2 words for Apple. BULL SHIT!!!
Bad phone design? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Additional Research (Score:5, Funny)
Not the first time (Score:3, Informative)
This sounds a lot like the 40-year-old Carterfone decision [arstechnica.com], 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
What makes the iPhone special in this case? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org] 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.
Unlocking currently requires a jailbreak. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ignorance is bliss (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Reluctantly agree (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Defective by design... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to run software in the background?
Theres an app for.. Oh, wait.