RSSApple using scare tactics to stop iPhone jailbreaking from becoming legal
By Nate Mook | Published July 30, 2009, 12:30 AM
In the more than two years since the iPhone has been available, Apple has largely remained quiet about "jailbreaking," in which users modify the device's software to run third-party applications. Now that the EFF is pushing to make this practice officially legal, Apple is finally speaking up, but is it too late?
In a support article published late Wednesday, Apple for the first time discussed jailbreaking, calling it "hacking" in order to make "unauthorized modifications" to the iPhone and iPod Touch.
What does jailbreaking lead to? If you listen to Apple, it sounds quite dangerous.
The company warns of, "Frequent and unexpected crashes of the device, crashes and freezes of built-in apps and third-party apps, and loss of data." More ominously, Apple says, "Security compromises have been introduced by these modifications that could allow hackers to steal personal information, damage the device, attack the wireless network, or introduce malware or viruses."
Perhaps the strangest claim, however, is that jailbreaking can lead to the iPhone OS being "damaged" like a cracked egg such that it is "not repairable." In turn, iPhones or iPods that have been jailbroken risk "becoming permanently inoperable."
If the practice is so dangerous, why is Apple only publicly raising concern now, when customers have been jailbreaking their iPhones since 2007? The answer to that question likely lies in a recent effort by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to officially legalize jailbreaking through a DMCA exemption.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, states that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." However, the United States Copyright Office makes exceptions to this rule every 3 years -- the last one in 2006 and the next one this year. The EFF has petitioned the Copyright Office to make jailbreaking exempt under fair use laws.
"Jailbreaking an iPhone in order to run lawfully obtained software does not constitute copyright infringement. Nothing in the Apple iPhone Software License Agreement changes this conclusion," EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann wrote in a letter to the Copyright Office dated July 13 (PDF from Wired).
Of course, Apple had an entirely different opinion on the matter. "Jailbreaking constitutes copyright infringement. Because jailbreaking involves unauthorized modifications to Apple's copyrighted bootloader and OS programs, it is a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) & (2), unless such modifications are either within the scope of the license granted under the IPSLA (which they are not), or are covered by the statutory rights under 17 U.S.C. § 117 or by the fair use doctrine (again, which they are not, as detailed below)," the company wrote (PDF from Wired).
"More pernicious forms of activity may also be enabled. For example, a local or international hacker could potentially initiate 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," Apple told the Copyright Office.
The weakest link in Apple's arguments, as the EFF's von Lohmann points out, is that millions of iPhones have long been jailbroken and none of the dire risks raised by the company have materialized. Apple also has largely been tolerant of those with jailbroken iPhones, admitting that it hasn't excluded them from warranty coverage (although, Apple indicates it will be forced to deny warranty coverage if jailbreaking becomes legal and thus more widespread).
Now, Apple can point to the support article that publicizes its position on jailbreaking as proof of the risks (it can't be made up if it's in an official document!), as well as its position that the practice violates the DMCA and should not be made exempt:
"It is also important to note that unauthorized modification of the iPhone OS is a violation of the iPhone end-user license agreement and because of this, Apple may deny service for an iPhone or iPod touch that has installed any unauthorized software."
What do you think: Should jailbreaking an iPhone or iPod Touch to run third party software be legal?
Surely Apple is on drugs or something. I almost choked when I read the following argument "More pernicious forms of activity may also be enabled.". That is pure and utter nonsense; when you buy a car, you can use it to bring your kids to school or you can use it to do a bank robery. So do you call your car dealer to ask permission to go wherever you want to go? Is it reasonable to have the keys taken from you if the car dealer does not like what you are doing with the car? This position is untenable. And if Apple can't stand to see people using it's OS in ways that it didn't expect than it should just refund it's clients, quit the playing field and do dougnuts instead.
Score: 2
|Hell yes jailbreaking should be allowed! It's MY damn phone, and Apple goes out of their way to prevent me from using it the way I would like to. I have no intention of distributing my modified OS or other such activities, so it's really none of Apple's business what I do. bas****s!
Score: 2
|This is quite scary. Apple has your data, folks. I see no reason why Apple can't and won't turn on their customers when/if it impacts Apple's bottom line.
Score: 0
|Just like Google....
Why is it people *expect* these companies to abuse their data? Have these specific companies done it in the past? Have they threatened it?
Score: 0
|This whole debate is no different than GM's "Built-in obsolesence" for automobiles which is now instituted by all automakers. Cars are designed to operate properly for a certain amount of time then WHAMMO! Ever wonder why after one or two repairs, the rest of the car seems to also go to hell at the same time requiring you to get a new one?
Hell, I still remember my first car, a 68 Cutlass Supreme. I bought in 1979. The guy I bought it from told me I'd be lucky to get six months out of it. That car ran for ten years. I put an additional 350,000 miles on it and all I had to do was chage the oil and tune it up once in a while. Try that with a car manufactured today.
Score: -3
|Logic FAIL.
If cars died after a certain amount of time that was unreasonable to the customer, they would lose repeat business, where another manufacturer could claim n+1 years of support, to gain a competitive advantage. Do ya think just maybe your anecdotal experience is coming into play here?
"Try that with a car manufactured today."
OK meet you in the parking lot in ten years. Whatever.
Score: 0
|"Ever wonder why after one or two repairs, the rest of the car seems to also go to hell"
This is what happens when you put new parts next to old parts. The new parts increase the wear on the old parts at a faster rate than the parts you replaced them with. Studies have been done, reports have been made. This conspiracy theory was squashed ages ago. Hell, I can walk onto the manufacturing floor of any of our machine-shop clients and see it first-hand. Replace a pulley system on one side of the machine....next week, wouldn't you know it, the pulley system on the other side is toast.
Score: 2
|I was reminded of this old favorite:
"If Microsoft Made Cars"
If you bought and drove an automobile made by Microsoft...
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Score: -6
|You buy an iPhone you know what you are getting. Apple and AT&T have setup a structure where they both feel they can make money by selling the iPhone. If you do not like Apple, the iPhone, or AT&T, simply do not buy one. Unlike the desktop OS market, there is actually competition in the phone market, although no other phone comes close the the iPhone.
So go buy a crappy Pre and hope you do not get one of the 30%+ defective ones. Or maybe buy one of those cheapo unusable RIM devices, or even one of those turd WinMo phones....well maybe do something quite so bad.
Score: -7
|"Unlike the desktop OS market, there is actually competition in the phone market, although no other phone comes close the the iPhone."
Right now there are ~100 client desktop operating systems with support that I can install on my desktop. Seems competitive enough to me. You might not like the competition, but it is still there.
Score: 0
|Apple to me is like a Socialist country trying very hard not to let Democracy in. Everything they touch and make is like that. If you like that sort of self centeredness and lack of freedom...buy an Apple. If not, buy anything else.
Score: 1
|I think you have Apple and Microsoft confused. If you use a Microsoft OS you are treated to proprietary file formats and proprietary protocols every step of the way. You use Microsoft Office you are again treated to proprietary file formats and proprietary protocols which do nothing but eliminate choice and drive prices up. Look at how outrageously expensive vista and Vista 7 are. Look at the price of Office. LOL.
Score: -8
|Oh really?? Microsft does not sell Windows users Service packs. like apple. 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 etc.. Mac OS X v10.5.6 Leopard = $129.
Simple question are you running ANY version of OSx for 9 years?? Like Windows XP and STILL supported by apple? iWork = $79 (It should be free) If MS Office sucks don't use it. There are free solutions. But I'm still using Office 2003 and yes it's still supported after 7 years!! Damn good ROI!
a 2 month old iTouch costs $9.99 just to upgrade to OS 3.
Bottom line apple users like to spend money on apple it makes them feel good!
Score: -1
|What service pack does Apple charge for? dot releases for Apple are major revisions. You can not be that dumb, can you? Speaking of charging for service packs....why does Microsoft charge to get from Vista to Vista 7? Why do people have to pay to make Vista usable?
Score: -10
|You claim 10.6 is not a service pack but Windows 7 is? You are an idiot.
Score: 4
|Office was like $140 6 years ago and is still running fine, Windows was about $40 when coming with the cost of the PC. These costs are so miniscule when compared to other office costs that they are afterthoughts. Most businesses probably pay more for just hiring employees than putting them in front of a computer.
Score: 1
|I can't imagine why people continue to buy Apple products. This behavior is absolutely their standard operating procedure. There ARE competing products that have the same functionality and even aesthetics. What Apple has is cachet -- from a lot of people who are easily led around by their noses. I'd be embarrased to be among them.
Score: 2
|well its like this i buy a car i should be able to paint the dam thing pull the engine out drop a big block in it turn the dam thing into a garbage bin if i want to i paid good money for my phone i should be able to customize its looks and performance its mine everything on it belongs to me including the battery if i want to run a app that sucks it dry in five minutes that's my prerogative and i don't really care for at&t i like being able to tether my phone to my laptop oh yea i own it to paid for it with hard earned cash but when i bought it it came with a OS that sucks i should be able to choose what OS i want on the device i paid for. yes sir what OS would you like on that we have a great deal on windows 2000 today with all updates runs smooth and it will knock a hundred off the price of the vista version that they stuck on it.its all about power they sit up there and laugh about the idea that they control the stuff you paid for if the owners of GM had told my grandfather that he couldn't put white wall tires on his car or a bigger corroborator or he could only use Texaco fuel he would have said oh yeah you like selling cars then sell them to the commies you commie pig
Score: 2
|"Jailbreaking constitutes copyright infringement. Because jailbreaking involves unauthorized modifications to Apple's copyrighted bootloader and OS programs"
if you modify a product, that doesn't mean that you are copying it.
Steve Jobs is listening too much to AT&T advice.
Score: 4
|Jail breaking your iPhone is stupid since it will only cause incompatibly issue with your iPhone in the future, especially when Apple issues an update.
Your iPhone was not intended to be hacked like this and Apple does not approve of it.
Score: -8
|Polly want a cracker?
Score: 2
|lol
Score: 2
|And the Apple sheep run to the defense. OUR GOD IS KING!
Score: 0
|Bottom line to me is companies continue to try to take away rights from customers under the guise of DRM and 'proprietary' software in this day and age, be it with over-spun PR or not; what totally boggles me though are laws like DMCA that give companies with cash (from their customers) to prosecute the average joe (the customer who bought their hardware at a premium price) when the customer decides they want it to do what they want (be it a better interface skin, different OS entirely, or whatever) when they find out their favorite hardware manufacturer clearly does not want to deliver their sort of individualism.
GO EFF! 3 years is too long in between for exceptions to be considered...
Score: 7
|what do i think? you don't wanna know :)
scare tactics check, should it be legal? yes, locking devices down to the extent apple has is wrong
nobody would be jailbreaking if they weren't in love with their walled garden approach
Score: 5
|