Apple Plans to Kill Jailbroken iPhones

[Char. Limit]

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this thread, but I find I get the best discussions in this thread.

Take a look at this:

http://techland.com/2010/08/23/apple-plans-to-remotely-kill-your-iphone-if-its-jailbroken

In case you can't see, Apple plans to file a patent to remotely kill iPods, iPhones, and iPads that are jailbroken. As an owner of a jailbroken iPod, I'm quite surprised. After all, I was under the impression that I owned the iPod, and that it was my property. Finding out that it's not really, that Apple still retains enough ownership to SHUT IT DOWN PERMANENTLY shocked me. And if they do this, I'll either sue them for unlawful loss of property or... I don't know what.

 

[rootX]

I am neither shocked nor surprised. I was expecting something from Apple.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't see how this helps Apple, though I do see that it could benefit say, AT&T.

 

[Evo]

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this thread, but I find I get the best discussions in this thread.

Take a look at this:

http://techland.com/2010/08/23/apple-plans-to-remotely-kill-your-iphone-if-its-jailbroken

In case you can't see, Apple plans to file a patent to remotely kill iPods, iPhones, and iPads that are jailbroken. As an owner of a jailbroken iPod, I'm quite surprised. After all, I was under the impression that I owned the iPod, and that it was my property. Finding out that it's not really, that Apple still retains enough ownership to SHUT IT DOWN PERMANENTLY shocked me. And if they do this, I'll either sue them for unlawful loss of property or... I don't know what.

I'm suprised that you don't know that phones are tied to the cell company, in the US. Why do you think you had to be an AT&T customer to have an Iphone?

Cell phones can not legally be tampered with to make them work on other carriers.

I won't go into all of the obvious reasons for this such as subsidies paid by the carriers for the exclusivity. Char, sounds like you knew it was illegal since you even refer to have purchased a "jailbroken" device. Sorry, no sympathy here. You have no legal recourse for having purchased an illegal device and then using it illegally. Just be glad that all they will do is shut it down.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm suprised that you don't know that phones are tied to the cell company, in the US. Why do you think you had to be an AT&T customer to have an Iphone?

Cell phones can not legally be tampered with to make them work on other carriers.

I won't go into all of the obvious reasons for this such as subsidies paid by the carriers for the exclusivity. Char, sounds like you knew it was illegal since you even refer to have purchased a "jailbroken" device. Sorry, no sympathy here. You have no legal recourse for having purchased an illegal device and then using it illegally. Just be glad that all they will do is shut it down.

You... do know what "jailbreaking" is, don't you?

The Supreme Court ruled it legal. I'm not doing anything illegal.

Thanks for calling me a criminal.

EDIT: Here's a http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20011702-260.html on the Supreme Court ruling in question.

 

[Evo]

You... do know what "jailbreaking" is, don't you?

The Supreme Court ruled it legal. I'm not doing anything illegal.

Thanks for calling me a criminal.

EDIT: Here's a http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20011702-260.html on the Supreme Court ruling in question.

My bad, you were referring to using non Apple apps, not unlocking the phone. When I saw gokul's response I immediately thought unlocking since that is the only thing that would affect AT&T. AT&T doesn't care what apps you run.

Using non-Apple apps might be ok, but nothing else is

Apple would be able to remotely identify and wipe devices that have been hacked, jailbroken, unlocked or those without a SIM card

As long as all you are doing is using non-apple aps and nothing else, you might be safe.

Edit: Aha, I see the 2006 ruling has been expanded to approve unlocking. You can still have legal obligations if you bought the phone under contract to a carrier though.

 

[rootX]

Using non-Apple apps might be ok, but nothing else is

That's not the purpose of the jail-breaking IMO. It is done to run other carriers on the phone and I believe OP is referring to "unlocking the phone" for doing that.

 

[Char. Limit]

That's not the purpose of the jail-breaking IMO. It is done to run other carriers on the phone and I believe OP is referring to "unlocking the phone" for doing that.

No, I'm not. I'm referring to jailbreaking an iPOD. Not an iPHONE. I use it to run third-party apps. Please, read the fine print in the OP that says that I'm an "iPOD owner", not an "iPHONE owner".

 

[rootX]

No, I'm not. I'm referring to jailbreaking an iPOD. Not an iPHONE. I use it to run third-party apps. Please, read the fine print in the OP that says that I'm an "iPOD owner", not an "iPHONE owner".

Sorry. Yes you clarified, and ipod does not need AT&T etc.

Edit:
Reading the two links you provided again:

Bypassing a manufacturer's protection mechanisms to allow "handsets to execute software applications" is now permitted.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20011702-260.html

Apple Plans To Remotely Kill Your iPhone If It's Jailbroken

Read more: http://techland.com/2010/08/23/appl...one-if-its-jailbroken/#ixzz0xUDWqs4VAccording to the “Systems and Methods for Identifying Unauthorized Users of an Electronic Device” patent that was filed back in February and published last week Apple would be able to remotely identify and wipe devices that have been hacked, jailbroken, unlocked or those without a SIM card.

http://techland.com/2010/08/23/apple-plans-to-remotely-kill-your-iphone-if-its-jailbroken/

The second link is vague about iPods and the first link does not say anything about using different SIM card as legal. Thus Apple seems not to be breaching any laws in preventing people from using different SIM cards.

 

[Evo]

No, I'm not. I'm referring to jailbreaking an iPOD. Not an iPHONE. I use it to run third-party apps. Please, read the fine print in the OP that says that I'm an "iPOD owner", not an "iPHONE owner".

But the thread title says iphones.

 

[D H]

The thread title also says "plans to." The cited article reports on a patent filed by Apple. No plans; it's just a patent.

 

[Char. Limit]

But the thread title says iphones.

Huh. Sorry about that, I thought this idea applied to iPods as well... I was sure it was in there. I guess I was wrong.

And the thread title is pretty much from the name of the article.

 

[Gokul43201]

The article cited in the OP says that jailbroken phones as well as unlocked phones could be remote killed.

 

[D H]

The cited article is a piece of excrement. It extrapolates from the existence of a patent to specific plans, and the extrapolation is wrong to boot. We don't know how, or even if, Apple plans to use these capabilities. I suspect that it will become an optional security feature that purchasers can enable should they desire to do so.

This patent represents a security measure that protect rightful owners against unauthorized users, aka thieves. Some people who carry sensitive data on their portable devices may prefer devices that have the ability to shut themselves off, and maybe even permanently, should the device itself detect that it has been stolen. Giving an Apple device the ability to detect that it is being jailbroken is one clue that hackers are trying to get at the sensitive data on the device.

Here are just a couple of many articles that present the same capability in a more positive light:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-identification-of-unauthorized-ios-users.ars
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20100823/bs_nf/74869

Note that the Yahoo article explicitly compares this capability to LoJack.

 

[IMP]

This is just like the issue of Amazon remotely deleting a book from someones Kindle, that they had already paid for!

Under no circumstance should any carrier or manufacture have the ability to remotely access, edit, change, or delete anything on a device you own for any reason at any time. This is just so in-your-face wrong that it should not even need discussion...

 

[Char. Limit]

This is just like the issue of Amazon remotely deleting a book from someones Kindle, that they had already paid for!

Under no circumstance should any carrier or manufacture have the ability to remotely access, edit, change, or delete anything on a device you own for any reason at any time. This is just so in-your-face wrong that it should not even need discussion...

That's what I was referencing in my OP. I'm shocked that no one really completely owns their iPhone. After all, if they did, Apple couldn't remotely kill it without their permission legally. Since Apple can, no one completely owns their iPhone. I thought they did, I'm surprised that that isn't the case.

 

[D H]

Under no circumstance should any carrier or manufacture have the ability to remotely access, edit, change, or delete anything on a device you own for any reason at any time. This is just so in-your-face wrong that it should not even need discussion...

Nonsense. If you have either an Apple or a Microsoft-based machine, your computer probably performs automated updates. Most places with Linux machines configure them to do automated updates. If you have antivirus software it does automated updates.

That's what I was referencing in my OP. I'm shocked that no one really completely owns their iPhone. After all, if they did, Apple couldn't remotely kill it without their permission legally. Since Apple can, no one completely owns their iPhone. I thought they did, I'm surprised that that isn't the case.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath, stop acting emotionally, and start thinking rationally. Think about it for a bit: If Apple really did have nefarious plans to kill your iPhone, would they advertise those plans in the form of a patent?

The only reason companies to go to the trouble of obtaining a patent is because the company thinks the intellectual property in question has some value and would be fairly easy to reverse engineer. The patent keeps the competition's grubby hands at bay, at least for a while. Apple thinks that this will be a selling point when they implement it in some future release of their OS.

Apple will not use this capability to disable your jailbroken iPad/iPod/iPhone. It is now legal to jailbreak those devices. Killing those machines would be an act of suicide on Apple's part. About all Apple can do with that is note that the machine was jailbroken. No kill, no deletion; just a report. Later when your machine becomes reallybroken you won't be able go crying to Apple; you broke the warranty and Apple will know that you did so.

Anyhow, your concerns are not what this patent is about. This patent represents a future security feature and is aimed at people who would never dream of jailbreaking their device. These are the same kind of people who buy LoJack and home alarm systems. They will eat this stuff up.

 

[IMP]

That's what I was referencing in my OP. I'm shocked that no one really completely owns their iPhone. After all, if they did, Apple couldn't remotely kill it without their permission legally. Since Apple can, no one completely owns their iPhone. I thought they did, I'm surprised that that isn't the case.

But that must be a misconception. If you lease a device, sure, they might be able to have some control of the device. However, if you purchase the device, it is out of their reach to control remotely for any reason. To me this is clearly criminal activity on the part of Apple/Amazon. The Amazon example is so easy to see, they stole a book from someone (while the device was in his home) and then gave him a refund after the fact. This is hardly different than someone from Sears taking back a pair of jeans out of your closet that you purchased, and then crediting your credit card later. Amazon reached into that guys house and took his property without his permission.

 

[IMP]

Nonsense. If you have either an Apple or a Microsoft-based machine, your computer probably performs automated updates. Most places with Linux machines configure them to do automated updates. If you have antivirus software it does automated updates.

Not one single piece of software on my computer ever phones home, they are blocked by multiple means, to the best of my ability. But I should not have to do this, and users who are not tech savvy are being taken advantage of. No, it should be unlawful to access your personal property without your permission without a warrant.

 

[D H]

IMP, where did you get the idea that this will be done against the rightful owner's will? The article in the OP leaps to (bad) conclusions, and you are leaping beyond that.

 

[IMP]

IMP, where did you get the idea that this will be done against the rightful owner's will? The article in the OP leaps to (bad) conclusions, and you are leaping beyond that.

Well, if "kill" means to render inoperable then Apple would be guilty of damaging someone else's property. I fail to see the mystery here...

 

[D H]

Well, if "kill" means to render inoperable then Apple would be guilty of damaging someone else's property. I fail to see the mystery here...

I fail to see why people are leaping to conclusions.

I'll say this one more time: Apple will not use this technology to kill your legitimately jailbroken iPhone. That would be committing business suicide.

So if the technology is not going to be used to go after the techie, jailbreaking crowd, what is it for?

The typical smart cellphone users are not all that savvy technically. They use their cellphone as a phone, use it read and write email, use it take notes, etc. Some use it for business, and their phones are chock full of stuff that they really shouldn't have on their phones: Things like business plans, sensitive emails, etc.

The last thing these kind of users worry about is "how can I hack this cellphone?" What they do worry about is "What if my cellphone is stolen? How can you (the cellphone provider) keep my data out of the thieves hands? What if I don't even know my cellphone has been stolen?" Those are the people who will switch to an iPhone because it has these safeguards while their current phone doesn't have anything like it.