Re: Unlock your iPhone; go to jail

[Jolly Roger]

In article <michelle-A9B571...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>
> <http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobile-ph
> ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>

*sigh*... This country is dominated by corporate and banking interests.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[nospam]

In article <michelle-A9B571...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>
> <http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobile-ph
> ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>

hardly. if that's one of the most idiotic things ever, then we're in
fantastic shape.

it actually affects relatively few people. any phone purchased before
saturday is exempt, you can continue to buy unlocked phones if you want
one and carriers can continue to unlock phones for customers after
saturday. most people don't care.

[Chris Blunt]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:15:05 -0700, Michelle Steiner

<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>
><http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobile-ph
>ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>

I'm so glad I don't live in the Land of the Free.

[Howard]

Ah yes ... the greatest freest country in the world.

Mind you - only idiots jailbreak.

Howard

[AV3]

Early on in iPhone history Steve Wozniak jailbroke his iPhone.


--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

[Davoud]

Howard:

> Mind you - only idiots jailbreak.

There is probably a better way to state that: Jailbreaking is neither a
wise idea nor an essential task for the overwhelming majority of iPhone
users.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[Todd Allcock]

At 24 Jan 2013 17:15:05 -0700 Michelle Steiner wrote:
> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>
> <http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-
mobile-ph
> ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>

It already was, thanks to the DMCA.

Unlocking phones has been illegal since the late 90s due to the DMCA.
The Librarian of Congress is required to make DMCA exceptions (which last
three years unless renewed) based on specific need (e.g. allowing the
removal of ebook DRM if it prohibits read-aloud functionality of reader
software, or cracking older software that requires no-longer-available
hardware dongles.) The phone unlocking exemption was fought for and won
(against Apple's arguments to the Librarian) back when all US-sold
iPhones were locked to AT&T, who refused to unlock them under any
circumstances.


Now that AT&T unlocks iPhones after contractual obligations are met, and
Apple sells unlocked iPhones at retail, that exemption is no longer
necessary, and the Librarian really couldn't justify renewing it.

Besides, from an end-user's standpoint this is just "mattress tag" law
that will allow phone manufacturers or carriers to go after vendors
selling unlock software. No one is going to go after individuals who buy
an unlock code and unlock their own phones, just like no one went after
individuals who unlocked their iphones illegally between 1998 and 2006.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <michelle-A9B571...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>
> <http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobile-ph
> ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but to me it appears this law applies
only to phones that are in contract. So once your contract is finished
or cancelled, it seems you are free to unlock your phone. Am I wrong?

[Jolly Roger]

In article <1kx8d5t.sa1yuq1og6l35N%Howar...@home.com>,

Wait... I'm an idiot? Crap - I better not let my boss find out! Or my
wife! : )

[Jolly Roger]

In article <kdt3pq$ju5$1...@dont-email.me>,

Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> Besides, from an end-user's standpoint this is just "mattress tag" law
> that will allow phone manufacturers or carriers to go after vendors
> selling unlock software. No one is going to go after individuals who buy
> an unlock code and unlock their own phones, just like no one went after
> individuals who unlocked their iphones illegally between 1998 and 2006.

Yep. That's my take on it. Good luck enforcing it, idiots! : )

[Jolly Roger]

In article <240120132304028323%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:

> Howard:
> > Mind you - only idiots jailbreak.
>
> There is probably a better way to state that: Jailbreaking is neither a
> wise idea nor an essential task for the overwhelming majority of iPhone
> users.

I'm not so sure I would go so far as saying it's unwise to jailbreak
either. If one is knowledgeable about the inherent risks involved in
jailbreaking, one can secure jailbroken iPhones such that those risks
are mitigated.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkg5f6a....@ananke.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > If one is knowledgeable about the inherent risks involved in
> > jailbreaking, one can secure jailbroken iPhones such that those risks
> > are mitigated.
>

> Right, but there are riss, and most people who jailbreak haven't a clue
> about the risks, they just see some nifty thing they think they want and
> it requires jailbreaking, so they do.
>
> That is why the ssh 'bug' hit so many people, because they were clueless
> gits.

actually, the ssh 'bug' only hit those who jailbroke *and* installed
sshd. simply jailbreaking was insufficient.

> There *are* reasons to jailbreak, but they are very few and far between
> and do not apply to the vast majority of users who do jailbreak.

people don't jailbreak just because it's fashionable. it's a pain,
especially when it comes to updating firmware, and it might involve
long waits until a jailbreak is even available.

those who do jailbreak do so because they need the additional
functionality, such as using software that's not available in the app
store and/or to pirate software.

people used to jailbreak to 'hacktivate' and/or unlock. those aren't
major reasons anymore, since unlocking can be done by the carrier or
just buy the phone unlocked.

[Bert]

In news:1kx8d5t.sa1yuq1og6l35N%Howar...@home.com Howar...@home.com

Unlocking a phone is not anything remotely like jailbreaking.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Chris Blunt]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:27:44 -0800, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
wrote:

>In article <michelle-A9B571...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>>
>> <http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobile-ph
>> ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>
>
>Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but to me it appears this law applies
>only to phones that are in contract. So once your contract is finished
>or cancelled, it seems you are free to unlock your phone. Am I wrong?

I guess the answer to this would vary from one country to another, but
in the USA who does a contact phone actually belong to?

If it is technically the property of the network operator until such
time as the contract has been completed then I can see some
justification for not allowing the user to unlock it.

Not so if it belongs to the end-user.

Chris

[nospam]

In article <XnsA15375636DF...@88.198.244.100>, Bert

<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> >> ><http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mo
> >> >bile-ph ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>
> >>
> >> I'm so glad I don't live in the Land of the Free.
> >
> > Ah yes ... the greatest freest country in the world.
> >
> > Mind you - only idiots jailbreak.
>
> Unlocking a phone is not anything remotely like jailbreaking.

depends how you unlock. if the carrier won't unlock, you need to
jailbreak to do an unofficial unlock.

if the carrier does unlock, you just satisfy whatever requirements they
have, such as completing your contract.

[nospam]

In article <teg5g85iocsg7hapv...@4ax.com>, Chris Blunt

<ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but to me it appears this law applies
> >only to phones that are in contract. So once your contract is finished
> >or cancelled, it seems you are free to unlock your phone. Am I wrong?
>
> I guess the answer to this would vary from one country to another, but
> in the USA who does a contact phone actually belong to?

the carriers, unless you buy it unsubsidized, no contract.

> If it is technically the property of the network operator until such
> time as the contract has been completed then I can see some
> justification for not allowing the user to unlock it.

they have partial ownership until the subsidy is paid off.

> Not so if it belongs to the end-user.

once it's fully owned by the user, there is very little justification
to prohibit it.

[Bert]

In news:michelle-A9B571...@news.eternal-september.org

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US
> government.
>
><http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobil
>e-phones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>

One of maybe, but far from the most. How about the "Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act?" That's the one that the feds were using to go after Aaron
Swartz, who committed suicide as a result of their threats.

Under its terms, anyone who

2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds
authorized access, and thereby obtains�
...
(C) information from any protected computer;

is guilty of a felony.

A "protected computer" is any computer "which is used in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce or communication"

So, violating your ISP's "terms of service" or a Web site's "agreement"
would almost certainly be "exceeding authorized access."

Have fun on the Internet, kiddies.

[Bert]

In news:michelle-B442DB...@news.eternal-september.org
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <XnsA15377F5BDA...@88.198.244.100>,

> Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> One of maybe, but far from the most.
>

> That's why I wrote "one of the most".

And that's why I wrote "maybe."

Are you always looking to start an argument?

[Salgud]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:11:38 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Right, but there are riss, and most people who jailbreak haven't a clue
> about the risks, they just see some nifty thing they think they want and
> it requires jailbreaking, so they do.

Interesting. Do you have any statistical evidence to back this statement
up, or is this just your impression of jailbreakers?

[Bert]

In news:michelle-04B38A...@news.eternal-september.org
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <XnsA153B8C5644...@88.198.244.100>,

> No, but it appears that you're looking for one. Sorry to disappoint
> you.

Then are you one who must get the last word in, regardless if it makes
any sense?

[Jolly Roger]

In article <XnsA15375636DF...@88.198.244.100>,
Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

Correct, though they can be /related/, in that one way to unlock is to
jailbreak first and then unlock from there.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <slrnkg5f6a....@ananke.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-2FCFB...@news.individual.net>

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > In article <240120132304028323%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Howard:
> >> > Mind you - only idiots jailbreak.
> >>
> >> There is probably a better way to state that: Jailbreaking is neither a
> >> wise idea nor an essential task for the overwhelming majority of iPhone
> >> users.
>
> > I'm not so sure I would go so far as saying it's unwise to jailbreak
> > either.
>

> Oh, it's certainly unwise. You are intentioanlly breaking the security
> of the phone.

You act as if the security issues are completely unknown; they are
fairly well known, and can be learned by anyone with sufficient
interest. Armed with that knowledge, it is perfectly plausible that one
could configure and use their phone in a manner that mitigates those
potential security issues. The same concepts apply as elsewhere - this
is nothing new. And it's not rocket science, either.

> > If one is knowledgeable about the inherent risks involved in
> > jailbreaking, one can secure jailbroken iPhones such that those risks
> > are mitigated.
>

> Right, but there are riss, and most people who jailbreak haven't a clue
> about the risks, they just see some nifty thing they think they want and
> it requires jailbreaking, so they do.

It is almost always unwise to do something that reduces security without
addressing those security issues, regardless of who you are or what you
know.

> That is why the ssh 'bug' hit so many people, because they were clueless
> gits.

They are acting foolishly.

Look, all I am saying is there is a way to do it securely, therefore,
it's not entirely correct to say that only the unwise would jailbreak.

> There *are* reasons to jailbreak, but they are very few and far between
> and do not apply to the vast majority of users who do jailbreak.

I'd say that there are many good reasons one might think of to jail
break their iPhone - some better reasons than others, but all are very
likely objectively reasonable to their owners. What may seem
inconsequential for you may be essential for someone else. I'm thankful
we have a choice.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <XnsA153CC2EC73...@88.198.244.100>,

Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> In news:michelle-04B38A...@news.eternal-september.org
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <XnsA153B8C5644...@88.198.244.100>,
> > Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In news:michelle-B442DB...@news.eternal-september.org
> >> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <XnsA15377F5BDA...@88.198.244.100>,
> >> > Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> One of maybe, but far from the most.
> >> >
> >> > That's why I wrote "one of the most".
> >>
> >> And that's why I wrote "maybe."
> >>
> >> Are you always looking to start an argument?
> >
> > No, but it appears that you're looking for one. Sorry to disappoint
> > you.
>
> Then are you one who must get the last word in, regardless if it makes
> any sense?

No, that's me. Now please scratchy fork egg dishes!

[JF Mezei]

On 13-01-24 19:15, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.

The US government pressured the canadian government do do the same a
couple years go for copyright reform here. The public backlash was
enough to cause canadian govt to back down on the provision against
unlocking of devices.

[Davoud]

Lewis:

> > Right, but there are riss, and most people who jailbreak haven't a clue
> > about the risks, they just see some nifty thing they think they want and
> > it requires jailbreaking, so they do.

Salgud:

> Interesting. Do you have any statistical evidence to back this statement
> up, or is this just your impression of jailbreakers?

I see that you are new to Usenet. Let me explain to you that Usenet is
a virtual place where people express opinions. Usenet opinions are not
subject to peer review in the sense that scientific papers are. No one
need respond to a supercilious demand for statistical evidence to
defend their expressed opinion.

I can't defend or oppose Mr. Lewis's post because I don't know if he is
correct or not. I think, however, that the percentage of iPhone users
who jailbreak (statistically zero) says something about the practice.
Don't bother to ask how I know that the percentage is practically zero.

[nospam]

In article <250120132047358234%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:

> Lewis:
> > > Right, but there are riss, and most people who jailbreak haven't a clue
> > > about the risks, they just see some nifty thing they think they want and
> > > it requires jailbreaking, so they do.
>
> Salgud:
> > Interesting. Do you have any statistical evidence to back this statement
> > up, or is this just your impression of jailbreakers?
>
> I see that you are new to Usenet. Let me explain to you that Usenet is
> a virtual place where people express opinions. Usenet opinions are not
> subject to peer review in the sense that scientific papers are. No one
> need respond to a supercilious demand for statistical evidence to
> defend their expressed opinion.

perhaps it's you who is new to usenet. anyone who makes a questionable
claim will more than likely be called on it and asked to back it up. if
they don't or can't, then the claim is discarded as being bogus. it
happens every day, and applies to every forum, not just usenet.

> I can't defend or oppose Mr. Lewis's post because I don't know if he is
> correct or not. I think, however, that the percentage of iPhone users
> who jailbreak (statistically zero) says something about the practice.
> Don't bother to ask how I know that the percentage is practically zero.

no need to ask. according to saurik, the author of cydia (which gets
installed on almost all jailbroken devices), it's around 10%. it's
probably a little lower right now because of the delay for the iphone 5
jailbreak.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.01.24 20:52 , Howard wrote:
> Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:15:05 -0700, Michelle Steiner

>> <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>>>

>>> <http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobile-ph

>>> ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>
>>
>> I'm so glad I don't live in the Land of the Free.
>
> Ah yes ... the greatest freest country in the world.
>

> Mind you - only idiots jailbreak.

Has nothing to do with jailbreaking.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

[jtees4]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:15:05 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>This is one of the most idiotic things to come out of the US government.
>
><http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/24/unauthorized-unlocking-of-new-mobile-ph
>ones-set-to-become-illegal-in-u-s/>

That really sucks!
*************
Some of my music:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=789610

[JF Mezei]

On 13-01-27 18:57, Lewis wrote:

> That's not what I said, exactly. I said the act of jailbreaking was
> unwise. You *ARE* circumventing the phone's security; there *are* risks;

Actually, you're not circumventing the phone's security. You are
circumventing the checksums/whatever that prevent apps from being added
to the iPhone without going through the iTunes store.

If you add ssh daemon, or the Netatalk AFP server on the iphone, you are
not circumventing the security, you must still authenticate. Both those
applications use standard unix security that exists in the iPhone and do
not circumvent it.


Sure, we can debate about having to use "root" to access your iphone's
command line and manage files on the iphone. I guess once could create a
new account to do those tasks.

In my case, my jailbreaking is needed because of a stupid policy from
Apple which applies to unlocked phones when it shoudln't. Once I have
deleted the relevant carrier bundles (actually renamed), those menus are
enabled and I don't need to use jailbreaking features.

However, there was a time when my "home" button was broken, and it was
through a Cydia app that I was able to regain the functionality with an
unapproved app that replaced the "home" button with a gesture on screen.
Once I fixed the home button, I removed the app since I no longer needed
it. (and of course, Apple also disapproves of people fixing their
iphones as I did).

[Jolly Roger]

In article <slrnkgbfna....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-70614...@news.individual.net>

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnkg5f6a....@ananke.local>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> In message <jollyroger-2FCFB...@news.individual.net>
> >> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <240120132304028323%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Howard:
> >> >> > Mind you - only idiots jailbreak.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is probably a better way to state that: Jailbreaking is neither a
> >> >> wise idea nor an essential task for the overwhelming majority of iPhone
> >> >> users.
> >>
> >> > I'm not so sure I would go so far as saying it's unwise to jailbreak
> >> > either.
> >>
> >> Oh, it's certainly unwise. You are intentioanlly breaking the security
> >> of the phone.
>
> > You act as if the security issues are completely unknown;
>

> They are completely unknown to most jailbreakers. Not the serious ones.
> Not the ones who know what they are doing, but these are the minority.

Most jail breakers? Sorry, but before I swallow that, you'll need to
back it up with proof. Like I said, the issues can be learned by anyone
with an interest.

> > they are
> > fairly well known, and can be learned by anyone with sufficient
> > interest. Armed with that knowledge, it is perfectly plausible that one
> > could configure and use their phone in a manner that mitigates those
> > potential security issues. The same concepts apply as elsewhere - this
> > is nothing new. And it's not rocket science, either.
>

> True, but it is far beyond the interest of capabilities of most of the
> jailbreakers who are along the lines of "I Hax0r3d my iphone! I R 1337!"

Most again? Back it up with proof, or I call bullshit.

[Chris Blunt]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:56:21 -0500, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>However, there was a time when my "home" button was broken, and it was
>through a Cydia app that I was able to regain the functionality with an
>unapproved app that replaced the "home" button with a gesture on screen.
>Once I fixed the home button, I removed the app since I no longer needed
>it. (and of course, Apple also disapproves of people fixing their
>iphones as I did).

You don't need to jailbreak your iPhone or use an app as a fix for a
broken "home" button. Just go to SettingsŚGeneralŚAccessibility and
turn on AssistiveTouch.

Chris

[JF Mezei]

On 13-01-27 21:01, Chris Blunt wrote:

> You don't need to jailbreak your iPhone or use an app as a fix for a
> broken "home" button. Just go to SettingsŚGeneralŚAccessibility and
> turn on AssistiveTouch.

Thanks ! That is good to know. I guess this wasn't there in 2011 when my
iPhone lost its home button (my guess is I was still at 4.something)

[Jolly Roger]

In article <51062ad8$0$5950$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>,

When my wife's iPhone 4 home button started missing clicks a lot, I
ordered a new home button from ifixit for a few bucks and replaced it
myself.

[Chris Blunt]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:44:51 -0800, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
wrote:

>In article <51062ad8$0$5950$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 13-01-27 21:01, Chris Blunt wrote:
>>
>> > You don't need to jailbreak your iPhone or use an app as a fix for a
>> > broken "home" button. Just go to SettingsŚGeneralŚAccessibility and
>> > turn on AssistiveTouch.
>>
>> Thanks ! That is good to know. I guess this wasn't there in 2011 when my
>> iPhone lost its home button (my guess is I was still at 4.something)
>
>When my wife's iPhone 4 home button started missing clicks a lot, I
>ordered a new home button from ifixit for a few bucks and replaced it
>myself.

You're a brave man. Replacing the home button requires major
dismantling of the phone. The iFixit instructions are 26 pages long!.
I did the same thing once and spread the work out over a couple of
days. I wouldn't want to go through all that again.

Chris

[Jolly Roger]

In article <ms6dg8lp0tcbkif7e...@4ax.com>,

Well I admit to being technically skilled. The whole operation took me
and my wife (a pair of helping hands are extremely helpful for this kind
of thing) a couple hours to do it. Not bad for the cost of a replacement
button ($15)! It's a tricky operation, but I'd definitely do it again.

[Matt Simpson]

In article <teg5g85iocsg7hapv...@4ax.com>,

Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:

> I guess the answer to this would vary from one country to another, but
> in the USA who does a contact phone actually belong to?
>

> If it is technically the property of the network operator until such
> time as the contract has been completed then I can see some
> justification for not allowing the user to unlock it.

I haven't read a contract closely enough to know whether the carrier
technically retains ownership of the phone. But regardless of who
"legally" owns the phone, I see no justification for prohibition of
unlocking.

I understand the carrier's right to recover the phone subsidy through
service charges. But I don't see why unlocking has anything to do with
that.

If I buy a $600 iPhone from Carrier A for $200, they make me sign a
contract promising to pay them $x/month for 2 years, or pay a
significant penalty if I terminate the service earlier. I'm on the hook
to pay the service fees or ETF regardless of whether I use the phone on
their network, or unlock it for use on another network, or drop it out
of a plane to see how high it bounces and never use it again. They're
going to get their money. So why should they care if I unlock it? They
don't care if I break it.

[Bert]

In news:net-news69-C1A25...@news.eternal-september.org Matt

Simpson <net-n...@jmatt.net> wrote:

> But regardless of who "legally" owns the phone, I see no justification
> for prohibition of unlocking.

There are lots of laws for which there is no rational justification.

This restriction is included in the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act,"
probably put there at the urging of the CTIA (they used to call
themselves the Cellular Telephone Industry Association).

The DMCA give the Librarian of Congress, of all people, authority to
grant exceptions to the DMCA or to take them away, apparently on a whim.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <slrnkgdet0....@ananke.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-1C014...@news.individual.net>

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > In article <ms6dg8lp0tcbkif7e...@4ax.com>,
> > Chris Blunt <ma...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:44:51 -0800, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <51062ad8$0$5950$c3e8da3$5077...@news.astraweb.com>,
> >> > JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 13-01-27 21:01, Chris Blunt wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > You don't need to jailbreak your iPhone or use an app as a fix for a

> >> >> > broken "home" button. Just go to Settings�General�Accessibility and

> >> >> > turn on AssistiveTouch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks ! That is good to know. I guess this wasn't there in 2011 when my
> >> >> iPhone lost its home button (my guess is I was still at 4.something)
> >> >
> >> >When my wife's iPhone 4 home button started missing clicks a lot, I
> >> >ordered a new home button from ifixit for a few bucks and replaced it
> >> >myself.
> >>
> >> You're a brave man. Replacing the home button requires major
> >> dismantling of the phone. The iFixit instructions are 26 pages long!.
> >> I did the same thing once and spread the work out over a couple of
> >> days. I wouldn't want to go through all that again.
> >>
> >> Chris
>
> > Well I admit to being technically skilled. The whole operation took me
> > and my wife (a pair of helping hands are extremely helpful for this kind
> > of thing) a couple hours to do it. Not bad for the cost of a replacement
> > button ($15)! It's a tricky operation, but I'd definitely do it again.
>

> Good. If I have that problem I know where to send my phone!

You laugh... I'm kinda the de facto go to guy for this sort of thing for
my friends and family.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-01-28 12:35, Matt Simpson wrote:

> I understand the carrier's right to recover the phone subsidy through
> service charges. But I don't see why unlocking has anything to do with
> that.

consider that it is illegal to break the locks on a DVD or BlueRay
designed to limit your access to only what the MAFIAA has decided you
could do (play it on an official BlueRay player with HDMI outputs etc).

Countervening those locks to extract DRM free content from the BlueRay
is against the wishes of the copyright holder.

Similarly, countervening the locks on a phone to use it beyond what the
manufacturer has decided to allow is "against the law" since you are
breaking the copyright on the software.

This is of course ludicrous and silly. But the MAFIAA was able to get
that into Canadian law on copyright reform and it is only due to
backlash that the jailbreaking was removed.

[Davoud]

Bert:

> The DMCA give the Librarian of Congress, of all people, authority to
> grant exceptions to the DMCA or to take them away, apparently on a whim.

"Of all people," this authority naturally fell to the Librarian of
Congress, as such matters are the statutory responsibility of that
office, along with other such duties as appointing the Poet Laureate of
the United States, holding a couple of Stradivarius violins, and
curating a collection of 6,000 comic-book titles.

[Chris Blunt]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:39:56 -0500, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>Similarly, countervening the locks on a phone to use it beyond what the
>manufacturer has decided to allow is "against the law" since you are
>breaking the copyright on the software.

In what way are you breaking the copyright? Copyright laws address the
issue of people making copies of intellectual property. Modifying data
on a phone is not breaking any copyright.

It's akin to tearing pages out of a book you own, or erasing lines of
text and writing something else in their place. That's perfectly legal
to do, whereas making actual copies of the book itself wouldn't be.

Chris

[Chris Blunt]

I can see why they might want to prevent you from unlocking it. Unless
your basic service plan includes absolutely all call/SMS/email/data
charges, there could be additional revenue to be gained by ensuring
that you only operate the phone on their network. If you were able to
use the phone on a competitors network some of that potential revenue
would be lost.

If the terms of the contract state that the phone remains the property
of the carrier you obtained it from, then unlocking the phone may put
you in breach of the contract. Having said that, I do agree that
government legislation is still not really necessary as even if you
had breached the contract, that is just a civil matter between you and
the carrier.

Chris

[JF Mezei]

On 13-01-28 22:25, Chris Blunt wrote:

> In what way are you breaking the copyright? Copyright laws address the
> issue of people making copies of intellectual property. Modifying data
> on a phone is not breaking any copyright.

You are buying a product with a licence to use its software in certain
ways. jailbreaking allows you to use the hardware and software in ways
that the manufacturer has not granted you a license for.

Consider a more obvious case. You buy some server license for 16 users
and you "jailbreak" it to raise the limit to 512 users.

> It's akin to tearing pages out of a book you own

You may own the phone hardware, but you do not own the rights to the
software running on it, you have a license to use it in certain ways.


(I am not saying that I agree that jailbreaking should be illegal, but
trying to understand how lawmakers were convinced to let that be
included in a law).

[Chris Blunt]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:29:36 -0500, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 13-01-28 22:25, Chris Blunt wrote:
>
>> In what way are you breaking the copyright? Copyright laws address the
>> issue of people making copies of intellectual property. Modifying data
>> on a phone is not breaking any copyright.
>
>You are buying a product with a licence to use its software in certain
>ways. jailbreaking allows you to use the hardware and software in ways
>that the manufacturer has not granted you a license for.

That has nothing to do with copyright.

[Allistar]

If you sign a contract with them and the terms of the contract prohibit you
from unlocking the phone, then what's the problem?

No new laws are needed - just the existing laws that enforce consensual
contracts.

If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't agree to them.
--
A.