U.S. Government to Explicitly Allow iPhone Jailbreaking

[Boomchukalaka]

By then, there will be enough features in the OS that jailbreaking will not be needed.



The iPhone is already unlocked for Canada. We can use any carrier we want. Bell, Rogers, Telus, Fido... etc. CANADA IS BETTER THAN AT&T!

Umm, I don't think you are correct there. I have both an iPhone 3G and and Apple 3GS, both of which i have bought out. Roger's will not unlock my iPhones so that I can use another carrier when I travel. I can go to "a guy" and get it unlocked, but it stands right now, the CRTC has done nothing to force carriers to unlock the product once the original contract has been fulfilled.

The new iPhone 4 will be available to buy unlocked, and that is a great thing for me in my case, (I live in Panama, but travel back to Canada yearly). The next issue for me will be to find a carrier that will sell me a short term plan that allows me to use all the features of my iPhone (voice and data) without gouging my wallet. Looking at the costs and plans offered to 3G iPad users here in Canada, I don't see how any of the carriers have yet figured out that there is a market for international customers of these products that find themselves in the country for extended period of time. They'd rather try and sell me a ridiculous "International data plan" -- an insane amount of money for little benefit, or better yet NOT sell me the plan and reap huge amounts of cash for using my iPhone in other parts of the world. Jailbreaking and unlocking is not the best option for me, as the Panama carrier (Movistar) will not sell a SIM card to an iPhone not locked to their network.

I am all in favor of anything that can be done to turn this around. Otherwise I have the most expensive iPod in my pocket when I travel, because I sure as hell am not paying the prices they want to usrv the features of my iPhone while roaming.

 

[-aggie-]

Would this only apply to the US do you think?

Read U.S. Government in the OP, so yes, only to the U.S.

I jailbreak, though I don't mind Apple's policy—to an extent. This isn't a job for the government.

I agree. i don’t see why they got involved in this.

This probably won't matter that much at all in practice.

Jailbreaking is now clearly not a DMCA violation, but it is still in violation of Apple's EULA, and they're still free to deny support for it.

Right?

I would think they can still enforce their EULA, otherwise the government is now the CEO of any company they want to get involved in. What’s next, telling Apple they have to charge less for their computers? Telling Apple what they can and cannot sell in the Apple Store?

 

[BayouMan]

the end result

Don't you see where this is going? Apple has a very SIMPLE solution to this.

iDevices will ship without warranties whatsoever. Do what ever you want to it, but don't bother to bring it back to us. We're not going to fix it for you. Period. Your device, your responsibility. Virus? Too bad.

And console game makers will follow suit.

And car dealers.

And appliance makers. Talk about save money on service labor. Everybody can go freelance with their devices.

And I wouldn't blame them in the least after this debacle.

By the way, wait till people start hacking the onboard computers of their vehicle and rooting around with commands. And then the brakes fail. Oooh. Time to reboot, while you're at 70 mph. Laugh all you want. An iPhone may not outright kill you, but what if you're in the middle of a 911 call and your jailbroken phone decides it's going to just shut off?

There are consequences to everything and some people just can't seem to see past the end of their noses.

 

[spazzcat]

Actually, this is the government un-meddling. The government is providing an exception to a law that otherwise restricts your rights to do things. In other words, you have more rights and freedoms than you did yesterday. This is the opposite of government meddling, unless your belief is that only corporations should have freedom.



No. This has nothing to do with warranty or contracts.

With these new rules, I like you could win in court if Apple cancelled your warranty. Apple would have to prove that the jailbraking broke your phone.

 

[dyates0801]

What stops them from saying that apples must still offer support for jailbroke devices. It is like the whole unlocking issue, if two companies agree to make and sell a phone thru one company that is their right! It is your right not to but it. If this is a good thing the companies such as Sony playststion and mcrosoft and nintendo are in for some trouble when the gain exclusive rights to video games!

 

[manhattanboy]

This is the best news I've seen all day!! Awesome!!!!
Finally no restrictions on all the jailbreaked apps

glad to see that at least someone can stand up to apple....

Both and AT&T will be pissed.

I bet Apple will stil break the jailbreaks with each update.... Or Apple will some how one day make it where you can't hack the OS

I bet that and the T will both collaborate to undue any jailbreaks.
If someone can just get facetime over 3G for free I'll be sold.

 

[alex.sebenski]

Please provide PROOF of this statement. Otherwise, bs.

The only proof you could really provide is the jailbreakers can unrestrict apps that would normally only be allowed to work on wifi to work on 3G, therefore using more data. I could see it being true. Cydia, appstore, skype (even though it is now allowed over 3g). I've used 6 gigs a month over 3G before. Much more than the average which is less than 500MB or something.

 

[chatfan]

Would this only apply to the US do you think?

It is our human democratic right, so any country that does not support this will be invaded. In 200 years we will have Thanks Jobs day around the world.. well the parts that are not radioactive.

iPhone ftw!

 

[PJWilkin]

Only in the US...

I see there being two separate requirements

1) To unlock a phone so as to move carrier

2) To Jailbreak a phone to amend/circumvent the makers protection/restrictions

Most people probably just want #1

A few people want #2, but, in the USA, have to do #2 to get #1

I'm in the UK, and I unlocked my old 3GS via O2's website .. for free
My iPhone 4 came unlocked (from Apple)

Carriers like locked phones (I remember the crippled Sony Ericsson that T-Mobile sold me) as it ties customers to them

If all iPhones were unlocked by default, then I can see some carriers either not carrying them, or charging a higher price for them .. I suspect the consumer will loose out here.

I suspect these law / rule changes will result in all carriers hiking prices for handsets as the lack of tie-in will make them think twice about subsidising handsets.

With regard to Jailbreaking ... although Apple (and all other manufacturers) have yet to digest the news, I suspect they may have other (legal) avenues of stopping jailbreaking.

As for some peoples comments about the App store ... I doubt it'll affect it, as most people wont Jailbreak, and will still buy apple apps as they are mostly fairly cheap (have you seen the price for WinMobile apps ?)


just my 2p's worth

 

[MarximusMG]

So could this possibly serve as one small step closer to multiple carriers? I know that this specific issue isn't regarding carriers, but it would allow unlocking to become more prevalent. And if so, then why wouldn't Apple just want to go ahead and officially provide the iPhone to another carrier?

 

[vvswarup]

Tell Me Something I Don't Know

I fail to see how this changes anything at all. Obviously, Apple does not sanction jailbreaking, but it's not illegal. The government simply confirmed that jailbreaking is not illegal, which makes sense because this is a free country.

As far as I know, Apple did not prevent people from jailbreaking. Nobody got arrested for jailbreaking. All that Apple said was that jailbreaking voids the warranty on the product.

 

[CBR900RR]

This is not about jailbreaking, it is about choices and freedom, before the announcement, your choice are apple OS or use a different device, of course people like me have another choice, which is to break "End User Software License Agreements" and jailbreak, and now is the same outcome but you can do it legally.

I wish we could have a desktop cydia and totally get rid of itune.

 

[SkippyThorson]

1. I only use it to make my iPhone 3G act like a 3GS until I receive my iPhone 4.

2. FaceTime... people will want to use FaceTime over 3G, so they will jailbreak.

3. In Canada we don't pay for tethering.

4. Apple made it the role of the government by making it "illegal" to jailbreak. Apple cannot be the Judge, Juror and executioner.

...

1) I'd just wait for the phone coming, and use the phone I already have. Again, impatience at its finest.
2) I don't plan on using Facetime at its current state for anything, and don't care to. I have a desktop with more compatibility.
3) I live in the U.S., and am referring to rules set here. Not Canada, Denmark, or the Swiss Alps.
4) I personally never heard Steve use the word "Illegal" to describe Jailbreaking. If so, then I'm mistaken - but they have every right to refuse service, which I would too if I were at the helm.

Ow for ***** sake, it's the government, you elect it, why shouldn't it be allowed to meddle in things? What else should the government do? Play poker all night and smoke cigars?
Seriously, I sometimes just do not understand Americans... If you're so hung up on not having anyone control your life, by all means, find a quiet little spot on a deserted island and call it home.
Frankly, I can think of at least one thing that is left to gain from this: being able to jailbreak so that you can install an sms delivery report app.

Again, you don't live here. I can't stand hearing or reading people gripe about what goes on where they don't live - like the neighboring town of New Hartford gripes about things happening in the City of Utica. You'd live here if it made that much difference to you. (Not you, New Hartfordians.)

From what I read, apparently AT&T does not have any such service available, which is probably why Apple never bothered to support it in iOS. But that doesn't mean the rest of the world is not willing to have it, because our providers do support it. Granted, it's the only reason I (would) jailbreak, but this is different for everyone.
Oh and btw, calling jailbreakers morons is quite rude. Go ask your mother for some manners.

For the record, I edited out the Moron part before anyone posted responses. It lives now only in quotes - I retracted it. Jailbreakers are not morons. Credit due here - you must be intelligent and have sense to jailbreak - but that doesn't speak for common sense.

This statement leads me to believe that you clearly have not jailbroken a phone and used Cydia apps such as Lockinfo, iFile, Attachment Saver, Safari Download Manager, SBSettings, SSH, etc. There are plenty of great apps that add functionality to the iPhone that really should be there from the jump.

I had my 2G iPhone jailbroken for less than 72 hours. It was far too annoyingly slow for me to ever consider going back. I used Cycorder, and sure that was great, but look - native video now. Just because you don't have something now doesn't mean you wont. You have every right to be on the edge of tech, but if YOU want to pay the price, be my guest. I shouldn't have my rules changed because of your impatience.

 

[Intarweb]

Too bad that's not actually what happened. All this means is no DMCA liability. You are still liable for breach of licensing agreements, copyright infringement for derivative works, etc.

I'm speaking specifically about Apple having to service a jailbroken iPhone. Since people have pointed out that Apple knows when you JB'd an iPhone4, right now, well, last week, Apple would have refused to service the phone under warranty since jailbreaking voids their warranty. If I am understanding this correctly, Apple will now be forced to service the phone so long as it is something not affected by the jailbreaking, cracks, antenna issues, etc.

 

[cmaier]

Isn't DMCA digital copyright? How is that different from regular copyright? I am not a lawyer, and I am aware you know far more about this than I do,

DMCA is a new body of law, different than copyright. traditional copyright applies to software as well. Under traditional copyright you cannot copy or make derivative works (or perform works, etc.) DMCA has to do with breaking digital safeguards (as well as a safe-harbor for internet providers, etc.)

I don't see how BUYING OSX breaks a DMCA. A hackintosh with a purchased version of OSX is in no way pirated at any point. So I don't see how that break's any copyright.

The copy of the OS was changed, so it is a derivative work. The copy of the oS may have been illegally copied. And if it was copied in violation of the licensing agreement (by being put on the hard drive) it may be an illegal copy.

Anyway, my point was, this change seems to sound like the govt. saying "Hey, these people bought these things, they can do whatever the heck they want with it." That sounds awfully similar to the idea of "Hey, these people bought OSX, they can do whatever the heck they want with it." Without getting into the legal minutia that lay people like me have no idea whatsoever about, the actual concepts seem nearly identical in justification.

Nope. Completely different. The gov't has only said that you can break the technological safeguards without violating the DMCA. THat's like saying you can break the lock on a door. Once you get in the house, you aren't free to do whatever you like, however. There are still rules. It just means you won't be charged with breaking and entering. If it's not your house, it's still trespassing. If you murder someone in the house it's still murder.

 

[shadygrove]

Actually, this is the government un-meddling. The government is providing an exception to a law that otherwise restricts your rights to do things. In other words, you have more rights and freedoms than you did yesterday. This is the opposite of government meddling, unless your belief is that only corporations should have freedom.

Unless of course you are a business owner that wants to make a device that is carefully controlled for the user. They carefully construct a company policy outlining what is "allowed" and what is "not". If the user doesn't agree to the conditions, don't buy it. If the demand for unlocked phones is really out there, another company will step up and succeed (Google/Android).

 

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

you're a fool if you think this matter is decided...Apple has a superb legal team and I'm sure this will be challenged in court...

 

[spazzcat]

Don't you see where this is going? Apple has a very SIMPLE solution to this.

iDevices will ship without warranties whatsoever. Do what ever you want to it, but don't bother to bring it back to us. We're not going to fix it for you. Period. Your device, your responsibility. Virus? Too bad.

And console game makers will follow suit.

And car dealers.

And appliance makers. Talk about save money on service labor. Everybody can go freelance with their devices.

And I wouldn't blame them in the least after this debacle.

By the way, wait till people start hacking the onboard computers of their vehicle and rooting around with commands. And then the brakes fail. Oooh. Time to reboot, while you're at 70 mph. Laugh all you want. An iPhone may not outright kill you, but what if you're in the middle of a 911 call and your jailbroken phone decides it's going to just shut off?

There are consequences to everything and some people just can't seem to see past the end of their noses.

Why do people always want to take something to some insane extreme?

 

[manhattanboy]

Please provide PROOF of this statement. Otherwise, bs.

I tripled my data usage to ~8gigs when granted freedom to do whatever the heck I wanted.

I think a couple of you misread my point. I'm not comparing jailbreaking to piracy at all.

I say Pirate away and plunder thy women. If they don't like it, let em walk the plank.

 

[Sal Collaziano]

I love Apple products but they need to get their act together because Google is going to do everything right with Android and ChromeOS...

 

[cmaier]

I'm speaking specifically about Apple having to service a jailbroken iPhone. Since people have pointed out that Apple knows when you JB'd an iPhone4, right now, well, last week, Apple would have refused to service the phone under warranty since jailbreaking voids their warranty. If I am understanding this correctly, Apple will now be forced to service the phone so long as it is something not affected by the jailbreaking, cracks, antenna issues, etc.

You understand incorrectly. Jailbreaking still voids the warranty. Apple is not forced to service the phone (other than as various other consumer protection laws apply, as has always been the case).

All this law means is that you can't go to jail or be fined under the DMCA for jailbreaking. It doesn't mean your license agreement with apple is void or that copyright law that prevents copying or derivative works suddenly doesn't apply.

 

[hagjohn]

yea.

 

[cmaier]

Unless of course you are a business owner that wants to make a device that is carefully controlled for the user. They carefully construct a company policy outlining what is "allowed" and what is "not". If the user doesn't agree to the conditions, don't buy it. If the demand for unlocked phones is really out there, another company will step up and succeed (Google/Android).

That's what license agreements are for. It's not the government's job to throw me in jail because I jailbreak my phone.

 

[OllyW]

If I am understanding this correctly, Apple will now be forced to service the phone so long as it is something not affected by the jailbreaking, cracks, antenna issues, etc.

How do you get that conclusion?

All they have done is clear up the confusion over Jailbreaking being illegal under DMCA laws. It doesn't mean Apple have to support it.

 

[twoodcc]

i bet apple will still try to get around this